From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 1 00:42:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:42:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] Friend in distress. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c72c1b$807244e0$918187d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >+=+ I have received word that Richard >Hills is unwell and in hospital. I do not >have any details. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The details are that I am an ambulatory part-time patient in hospital, now with full and free access to email and the bridge laws mailing list. I have 91 blml emails banked up in my emailbox, so it will take me some time to deliver my usual "chiding good humour" to nigellic blml suggestions to which even he "could not help laughing". :-) Meanwhile, I suggest that blml should remember another Friend to the Laws of Bridge. Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor National Training Branch (02) 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for * * * REMEMBRANCES OF RALPH Chip Martel It was always an honor and a pleasure to work and spend time with Ralph. In my time on the WBF Laws Committee and the ACBL Laws Commission, I was impressed by his knowledge, good sense, and a great ability to argue his points forcefully (and sensibly) but always with civility. He was great to work with, committed, and effective but also fun to spend time with (and he often had great stories). Ralph had an encyclopedic knowledge not only of the current laws, but of past versions. He could always give us a historical context, and often tell us when we were considering changing back to an old version. We will miss him greatly in many ways. With his and Edgar's death we have now lost the two people most responsible for our current laws, and I have lost a great friend. Allan Falk I had the privilege of playing as Ralph's partner only once, and of course as his opponent many times. Ralph was always a model of the ideal bridge player envisioned by the Proprieties, as well as constantly in good humor, whether things were going well or badly for him. He was a very tough competitor, who permitted himself no liberties in his conduct and who tolerated none from others he considered his peers, but he was avuncularly lenient towards weaker players, eager to help them learn to pursue the right path. As a member of the Laws Commission, Ralph's knowledge of both the text of the Laws and their developmental history was encyclopedic, and as co-chair during my tenure Ralph demonstrated a remarkable ability to keep the meetings focused and the discussion rational, without even slightly restricting the free flow of ideas. Ralph was one of those rare individuals who developed an opinion on a subject only after profound deliberation, yet he remained open to be convinced that another solution might be superior. Away from the table, Ralph was not only always at the center of a maelstrom of activity, but a constant source of sincere bonhomie and cheer, and no doubt the obvious benefit of being married to Joan put him so far ahead of the game it was substantially less difficult to be happy. Despite his serious health problems and undoubted knowledge his condition had become terminal, Ralph was so convincing when he reassured those of us who inquired with genuine concern "Really, I'm fine" that I was shocked to learn he had finally succumbed. If we all could emulate Ralph's gritty determination and refusal to complain as life deals its ups and downs, the world would be a far better place. He will be sorely missed. Jim Kirkham The bridge world has lost a real ambassador, administrator, and expert player. He was a great teammate and very dear friend. Ralph Cohen's contributions to bridge at all levels will never be forgotten. I wish to express my admiration for Ralph's accomplishments and my appreciation of serving on the Laws Commission with him. Ron Gerard I remember Richie Oshlag telling me of the first time he ever played with Ralph, at the local duplicate in Memphis. "I saw things I didn't even know were possible at bridge. I wasn't aware anyone could play that well with such seeming lack of effort." I think this captures what I remember about Ralph, the ease with which he navigated all of the different paths of his bridge career. At the table Ralph was a natural, almost always coming to the right conclusion with a combination of judgment and flair that is far too rare in today's game. On the Laws Drafting Commission, he gained the confidence of strong-minded personalities through his patient and practical approach to the difficult task of rewriting the Laws. In the ACBL Laws Commission, Ralph's wisdom and guidance had a comforting effect that steered us in the right direction without ever seeming to intrude. We will miss his reassuring presence, enthusiasm and friendship whether exercising our official duties or just competing on the field of battle. Robb Gordon At the Laws Commission meeting in Chicago you asked us to share our memories of Ralph. I first met Ralph by phone in the mid-70?s when he was national coordinator for the GNT. Some influential people from my District were trying to change the qualification rules in mid-contest to benefit their friends. Of course, it took Ralph about 30 seconds to fix that! Later on we became friendly at tournaments, eventually becoming occasional partners. Ralph had a keen competitive drive that was belied by his easy-going manner. He taught me much about the game, the laws, and how to get the most out of people! Dan Morse I knew Ralph in many ways. As a good friend, a Captain of my team, as an expert on the ACBL laws, and as someone who never gave up, he was a fighter I thought he was a goner more than once over the last few years. He & Joan made many trips to Houston to see his cancer Doctors and he was always in a good humor never complaining and always up for a Bridge game. He was so lucky to have such a wonderful family his wife, children, and brothers etc always showed him so much love. Ralph will be missed but never forgotten by the Bridge community. Jeff Polisner Ralph was one of the most dedicated people I have ever known. His love and pride for his family was unparalleled. He was exceptionally capable in his chosen work (bridge) which was second in his life other than family. He will be sorely missed by all who knew him. Ray Raskin When I first came on to the ACBL Laws Commission there had already been a significant amount of work done by the WBF on the updated laws. Ralph took the time to update me on where things stood so that my job was a lot easier. I will always respect how much he wanted everything concerning the laws to be as good as possible. Roger Stern It was my privilege to know Ralph for five decades. How well I recall his welcoming smile when we chanced to meet at a tournament, his ever-warm expressions of interest! First and foremost, Ralph was a gentle soul. In the early nineties, Ralph joined the Laws Drafting Committee. Often, he would present a situation I had encountered, but not reflected upon. Sometimes, he would suggest a resolution, without ever disparaging an opposing point of view or seeking to impose his answer. Although I regret Sandy and I did not get to spend more time socially, I cherish the moments we shared. Adam Wildavsky Before I joined the LC I knew Ralph for years as an opponent, partner, and teammate. When Bobby Wolff suggested that our trials team would benefit from having a captain Ralph sprang to mind immediately. He was kind enough to take the job though I knew he'd rather be playing himself. Ralph and Joan were wonderful hosts in Memphis and Ralph had a number of sensible suggestions for helping the team to run smoothly. He led us to a win in the trials and fought a few medical battles of his own in order to join us in Monaco. Once there he guided us through the maze of WBF regulations and customs and helped our unheralded team to a third place finish. One crucial moment in the round robin was a deal where a ruling went against one of our teammates. None of us thought the ruling was correct, but Ralph convinced us not to appeal. In retrospect I'm confident that was the right decision, and sure enough we qualified. The LC won't be the same without Ralph, and neither will any tournament. 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 henk at amsterdamned.org Mon Jan 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 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 Mon Jan 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:01:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for December 2007 Posts From ----- ---- From john at asimere.com Mon Jan 1 02:27:29 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:27:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics References: Message-ID: <003401c72d44$008f5d10$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 12:01 AM Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics > BLML usage statistics for December 2007 "Passed out" all round the room. John > > Posts From > ----- ---- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tzimnoch at comcast.net Mon Jan 1 03:48:34 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:48:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <003401c72d44$008f5d10$0701a8c0@john> References: <003401c72d44$008f5d10$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <45987682.8080407@comcast.net> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal" >>BLML usage statistics for December 2007 > > "Passed out" all round the room. It is a prediction for next year. I dare not venture to guess how the result will be achieved. -Todd From geller at nifty.com Mon Jan 1 03:48:23 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:48:23 +0900 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200701010248.AA06736@geller204.nifty.com> How 'bout statistics for Dec 2006? If you can already predict 2007 statistics you should see if you can predict the stock market and currency rates. Might be more lucrative! Best to all for 2007. -Bob Henk Uijterwaal ????????: >BLML usage statistics for December 2007 > >Posts From >----- ---- > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From henk at amsterdamned.org Mon Jan 1 10:30:50 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:30:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for December 2006 Posts From ----- ---- 40 twm (at) cix.co.uk 39 svenpran (at) online.no 39 ehaa (at) starpower.net 27 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 22 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 20 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 16 john (at) asimere.com 16 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 14 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 13 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 12 herman (at) hdw.be 10 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 10 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 8 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 6 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 6 sarahamos (at) onetel.net 5 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 4 tkooij (at) tiscali.nl 3 mustikka (at) charter.net 3 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 3 geller (at) nifty.com 3 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 2 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 2 adam (at) irvine.com 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 1 mandache (at) free.fr 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 1 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 1 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com From henk at ripe.net Mon Jan 1 10:31:33 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:31:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics In-Reply-To: <200701010248.AA06736@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200701010248.AA06736@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4598D4F5.8050305@ripe.net> Robert Geller wrote: > How 'bout statistics for Dec 2006? > > If you can already predict 2007 statistics you should see if you > can predict the stock market and currency rates. Might be more lucrative! OK, OK, so there was a bug in my code ... Fixed now ;-) > Best to all for 2007. Likewise, Henk > > -Bob > > > Henk Uijterwaal ????????: >> BLML usage statistics for December 2007 >> >> Posts From >> ----- ---- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 1 11:46:30 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:46:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] When to late References: <004501c72b36$4bb267c0$2315d3d9@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <000301c72d92$4c8eca90$c60be150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <004501c72b36$4bb267c0$2315d3d9@home4paplwv76s> <000301c72d92$4c8eca90$c60be150@Mildred> Message-ID: <895CA0DA-E43B-4D01-91EE-485AE12CB097@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:46 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > The Laws are > silent on the question of the manner in which the contestant > becomes aware of a 'substantial reason to believe' (16A2). > There is no restriction on this in the laws. What of the footnote? "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." This would seem to obviate the practice (I want to say "common practice" but that may be just my perception) of calling the TD whenever the recipient of UI does something an opponent thinks (without any evidence) he shouldn't have done. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 1 21:09:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <895CA0DA-E43B-4D01-91EE-485AE12CB097@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c72de0$ba1522a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:46 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > The Laws are > > silent on the question of the manner in which the contestant > > becomes aware of a 'substantial reason to believe' (16A2). > > There is no restriction on this in the laws. > > > What of the footnote? "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when > dummy is exposed." This would seem to obviate the practice (I want to > say "common practice" but that may be just my perception) of calling > the TD whenever the recipient of UI does something an opponent thinks > (without any evidence) he shouldn't have done. The main problem with a late accusation of a law 16A2 violation is that of establishing the facts. Personally I am very reluctant to try such accusations if I feel that the accusation has been delayed by NOS for no particular reason. If a break in tempo is not established immediately it is almost always impossible to have it established afterwards. On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable that a partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed partnership understanding I see every reason to try an accusation of a Law 16A2 violation on such basis within the correction period. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 1 23:08:33 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:08:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <000d01c72de0$ba1522a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c72de0$ba1522a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5FD5C807-BF12-4C3C-817E-11484AECB245@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The main problem with a late accusation of a law 16A2 violation is > that of > establishing the facts. > > Personally I am very reluctant to try such accusations if I feel > that the > accusation has been delayed by NOS for no particular reason. > > If a break in tempo is not established immediately it is almost always > impossible to have it established afterwards. > > On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable > that a > partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed partnership > understanding I see every reason to try an accusation of a Law 16A2 > violation on such basis within the correction period. Establishment of a BIT has nothing to do with Law 16A2. It is a factor in Law 16A1, true, but that's a different story. If at the time of a perceived BIT, all four players agree that there was one, I don't see a later problem wrt that fact for the TD - unless somebody decides to change his story once the TD is called, and a TD should, IMO, respond to that firmly. What I was envisioning was a Law 16A2 situation: your LHO breaks tempo, everyone agrees he broke tempo, your RHO bids, you call the TD. Where is your "substantial reason to believe" that RHO has taken advantage of UI? Aside from that, what the Hell should the TD do at that point? Well, that one's easy "Play on, call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you were damaged". So what's the point in calling the TD? Any facts he needs to establish can be just as well established at the end of play as at the time of the bid, given that all four players have already agreed there was a BIT. Do you agree that a player who reserves his rights after an agreed BIT has done nothing wrong (assuming he's not in ACBL-land)? Do you feel that in such a case you might have a problem if he doesn't call until he's "seen" the offending hand (not that of the BITter, his partner's)? If you disagree with either of these, then it seems to me you're disagreeing with Law 16A1., or at least would prefer it if every zone elected to prohibit reserving rights. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 2 00:05:22 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 00:05:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <5FD5C807-BF12-4C3C-817E-11484AECB245@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c72df9$5080bf70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The main problem with a late accusation of a law 16A2 violation > > is that of establishing the facts. > > > > Personally I am very reluctant to try such accusations if I feel > > that the accusation has been delayed by NOS for no particular > > reason. > > > > If a break in tempo is not established immediately it is almost > > always impossible to have it established afterwards. > > > > On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable > > that a partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed > > partnership understanding I see every reason to try an accusation > > of a Law 16A2 violation on such basis within the correction period. > > Establishment of a BIT has nothing to do with Law 16A2. It has everything to do with Law 16A2, in fact BIT is (in my experience) the most common cause for UI and L16A2 is the very law that deals with using UI from partner. Remember that creating UI is no violation of law, using UI is. > It is a > factor in Law 16A1, true, but that's a different story. If at the > time of a perceived BIT, all four players agree that there was one, I > don't see a later problem wrt that fact for the TD Of course not, in that case the fact has already "been established". > - unless somebody > decides to change his story once the TD is called, and a TD should, > IMO, respond to that firmly. What I was envisioning was a Law 16A2 > situation: your LHO breaks tempo, everyone agrees he broke tempo, > your RHO bids, you call the TD. Where is your "substantial reason to > believe" that RHO has taken advantage of UI? At this time, NONE! You don't need TD to establish facts because BIT is confirmed already, and you don't need TD to rule because nobody can so far tell if there has been a violation of Law 16A2. > Aside from that, what > the Hell should the TD do at that point? Well, that one's easy "Play > on, call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you were > damaged". So what's the point in calling the TD? Any facts he needs > to establish can be just as well established at the end of play as at > the time of the bid, given that all four players have already agreed > there was a BIT. Do you experience any authority stating that TD must (or should) be summoned at this time? I don't. > > Do you agree that a player who reserves his rights after an agreed > BIT has done nothing wrong (assuming he's not in ACBL-land)? Do you > feel that in such a case you might have a problem if he doesn't call > until he's "seen" the offending hand (not that of the BITter, his > partner's)? If you disagree with either of these, then it seems to me > you're disagreeing with Law 16A1., or at least would prefer it if > every zone elected to prohibit reserving rights. I don't even think that any player ever needs to "reserve his rights". At the time of an agreed upon BIT the facts are established, and when he sees the cards of the suspected offender he has his opportunity to summon the TD and request a ruling. This right cannot vanish on the ground that he did not "reserve his rights". Regards Sven (and by the way: A happy New Year to you!) From geller at nifty.com Tue Jan 2 00:23:37 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:23:37 +0900 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <000e01c72df9$5080bf70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c72df9$5080bf70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200701012323.AA06739@geller204.nifty.com> The ACBL position (see excerpt below) is that the director must be called when the hesitation occurs. This seems unnecessary to me. All you should have to do is turn to the opponents and say "There was a break in tempo, right?" and if they agree then the auction can proceed and you can call the director if (when you later have seen all the hands) you think there was action that might have been based on UI. -Bob ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Duplicate/DD/General_Laws_Governing_Irregularities.HTM#16 Extraneous information from partner: After a player makes extraneous information available to his partner by an action such as a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unmistakable hesitation, unusual speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or any other action that suggests a call, lead or plan of play, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could have demonstrably been suggested over another by the extraneous information. If the director is called before the recipient of the unauthorized information takes action, he should instruct the recipient to ignore the information and tell the opponents to call him back after the play if they feel the opponents have gained an advantage. 1. At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors are not allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should call the Director when they believe that extraneous information could well result in damage to their side. (San Francisco NABC, Fall, 1996.) 2. When a player feels an opponent has taken action that could have been suggested by such information, he immediately calls the Director to the table. After ascertaining the agreed facts, the Director requires that the auction and play continue, reserving the right to adjust the score if he considers that the result could have been affected by the unauthorized information. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> It is a >> factor in Law 16A1, true, but that's a different story. If at the >> time of a perceived BIT, all four players agree that there was one, I >> don't see a later problem wrt that fact for the TD > >Of course not, in that case the fact has already "been established". > >> - unless somebody >> decides to change his story once the TD is called, and a TD should, >> IMO, respond to that firmly. What I was envisioning was a Law 16A2 >> situation: your LHO breaks tempo, everyone agrees he broke tempo, >> your RHO bids, you call the TD. Where is your "substantial reason to >> believe" that RHO has taken advantage of UI? > >At this time, NONE! You don't need TD to establish facts because BIT is >confirmed already, and you don't need TD to rule because nobody can so far >tell if there has been a violation of Law 16A2. > >> Aside from that, what >> the Hell should the TD do at that point? Well, that one's easy "Play >> on, call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you were >> damaged". So what's the point in calling the TD? Any facts he needs >> to establish can be just as well established at the end of play as at >> the time of the bid, given that all four players have already agreed >> there was a BIT. > >Do you experience any authority stating that TD must (or should) be summoned >at this time? I don't. > >> >> Do you agree that a player who reserves his rights after an agreed >> BIT has done nothing wrong (assuming he's not in ACBL-land)? Do you >> feel that in such a case you might have a problem if he doesn't call >> until he's "seen" the offending hand (not that of the BITter, his >> partner's)? If you disagree with either of these, then it seems to me >> you're disagreeing with Law 16A1., or at least would prefer it if >> every zone elected to prohibit reserving rights. > >I don't even think that any player ever needs to "reserve his rights". At >the time of an agreed upon BIT the facts are established, and when he sees >the cards of the suspected offender he has his opportunity to summon the TD >and request a ruling. This right cannot vanish on the ground that he did not >"reserve his rights". ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 2 03:15:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:15:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Friend in distress. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robb Gordon (remembering Ralph Cohen): >>At the Laws Commission meeting in Chicago >>you asked us to share our memories of >>Ralph. I first met Ralph by phone in the >>mid-70's when he was national coordinator >>for the GNT. Some influential people from >>my District were trying to change the >>qualification rules in mid-contest to >>benefit their friends. Of course, it took >>Ralph about 30 seconds to fix that! [snip] Paul Marston, Aussie international player, Australian Bridge editorial January 2007: [snip] >The National Open Teams at the Summer >Festival in Canberra is still in need of >overhaul. You have to play five long days >and nights just to qualify for the NOT and >play in the NOT starts on the evening of >the fifth day after a long day of bridge. >Then you continue non stop for three more >days, finishing up long after everyone >else has gone home. [snip] Richard Hills: Diddums. 250-odd teams are perfectly happy with the current format of the Summer Festival, but because poor Paul Marston regularly reaches the Grand Final he now wants to change the qualification rules to benefit himself. :-) 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 2 03:53:17 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:53:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <000e01c72df9$5080bf70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c72df9$5080bf70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Sven Pran wrote (in response to me): >> Establishment of a BIT has nothing to do with Law 16A2. > > It has everything to do with Law 16A2, in fact BIT is (in my > experience) the > most common cause for UI and L16A2 is the very law that deals with > using UI > from partner. Remember that creating UI is no violation of law, > using UI is. My point was that when a BIT is perceived to have occurred, it is Law 16A1, not Law 16A2, that tells us how to deal with that. At that point, Law 16A2 has not been invoked, nor should it be. I think what you're talking about is a case where a player perceives a BIT by an opponent, but doesn't say anything until he later discovers that the BITter's partner may have taken advantage. NOW the director will have a fine time establishing whether or not there was a BIT, I agree. > Do you experience any authority stating that TD must (or should) be > summoned > at this time? I don't. As Bob Geller points out, the answer to this (the time in question being when the alleged BIT occurs) is yes. The ACBL does so. > I don't even think that any player ever needs to "reserve his > rights". At > the time of an agreed upon BIT the facts are established, and when > he sees > the cards of the suspected offender he has his opportunity to > summon the TD > and request a ruling. This right cannot vanish on the ground that > he did not > "reserve his rights". Here, we are in complete agreement. :-) Happy New Year to you, too, and to all the other list members! From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 2 20:21:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <000e01c72df9$5080bf70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I don't even think that any player ever needs to "reserve his > rights". At the time of an agreed upon BIT the facts are established, > and when he sees the cards of the suspected offender he has his > opportunity to summon the TD and request a ruling. Sven - there cannot be an *agreed* BIT unless the play has in some way "reserved his rights". I consider "Do we agree there was a BIT" to be more polite (and useful) than "Reserving my rights" but legally they are equivalent actions. Note the continuation in L16A1 '(the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed).' NB if we don't treat questions like "Do we agree the BIT" as a *form* of rights reservation then such questions are extraneous (and quite probably illegal) actions. My current understanding is that the ACBL prohibits reserving rights in any way and that many ACBLers feel they can only protect themselves by calling the TD when UI is made available. Tim From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jan 2 21:10:42 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:10:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late References: <000d01c72de0$ba1522a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008f01c72eaa$15a54860$6400a8c0@rota> > From: "Sven Pran" >> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert >> On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:46 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >> > The Laws are >> > silent on the question of the manner in which the contestant >> > becomes aware of a 'substantial reason to believe' (16A2). >> > There is no restriction on this in the laws. >> >> >> What of the footnote? "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when >> dummy is exposed." This would seem to obviate the practice (I want to >> say "common practice" but that may be just my perception) of calling >> the TD whenever the recipient of UI does something an opponent thinks >> (without any evidence) he shouldn't have done. > > The main problem with a late accusation of a law 16A2 violation is that of > establishing the facts. > > Personally I am very reluctant to try such accusations if I feel that the > accusation has been delayed by NOS for no particular reason. > > If a break in tempo is not established immediately it is almost always > impossible to have it established afterwards. > > On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable that a > partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed partnership > understanding I see every reason to try an accusation of a Law 16A2 > violation on such basis within the correction period. It doesn't need to be a concealed partnership understanding, just something which might reasonably not have been discovered at the table. For example: W N E S 1C P 1H 1S 2H 3S 4H 4S X West, who has only three hearts, forgot that E-W were playing support doubles. East explains that 2H promises four (in response to a question, or because the raise promising four is alertable), giving UI to West. The UI suggests doubling over bidding 5H or making a forcing pass which East could convert to 5H. South claims 4Sx down two before the play is finished, so he doesn't discover the heart position. Only when the hand records come out does South see that West's hand doesn't correspond to East's explanation, and that he might have been damaged because 5H could go down. E-W may not have done anything wrong, but South needs to have the right to claim damage from UI. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 2 22:41:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:41:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [big snip] >You cannot have a "concealed partnership >agreement" without having a partnership >agreement. Richard Hills: Under the hard-line version of the De Wael School, an assumption by _one_ partner automatically creates a _mutual_ partnership agreement. Under the soft-line version of the De Wael School, Herman graciously admits that it is possible for a partnership to fail to have an agreement, but Herman as TD uses Law 85 to determine disputed facts as if the hard- line version of the De Wael School was true. :-) 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 2 22:43:02 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:43:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38E51C9B-ED8C-46CE-9A9A-AD56B952E5DD@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 2, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > My current understanding is that the ACBL prohibits reserving > rights in > any way and that many ACBLers feel they can only protect themselves by > calling the TD when UI is made available. The ACBL's election wrt Law 16A1 reads: "At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." Taken literally, I suppose the second sentence means "when the recipient of UI takes a call which could have been suggested by the UI". IOW, not immediately when UI may have been provided, and not later, when the hand is known IAW 16A2. Personally, I think the ACBL would have done better to just say "you can't reserve your rights" and leave it at that. Then apparently you should call immediately when UI may have been provided, or you should not call at all (provision of UI not being in itself an infraction of law) until 16A2 kicks in. In any case, when to call is completely ambiguous by the wording of the laws and the election. I hope this gets fixed in the next laws revision. We'll see. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 2 22:55:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:55:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >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. Law 16: >>Players are authorised to base their calls and >>plays on **information from** legal calls and or >>plays, Richard Hills: Partnership understandings about a call are associated with information from that call. Of course, David Burn correctly noted that players do not have any entitlement to **remember** their partnership understandings. Law 40E2 footnote: >>A player is not entitled, during the auction and >>play periods, to any aids to his memory, >>calculation or technique. 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 3 09:23:15 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:23:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <008f01c72eaa$15a54860$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <000001c72f10$6b2f1b60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Grabiner ........... > > On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable > > that a partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed > > partnership understanding I see every reason to try an accusation > > of a Law 16A2 violation on such basis within the correction period. > > It doesn't need to be a concealed partnership understanding, just > something which might reasonably not have been discovered at the > table. For example: > > W N E S > 1C P 1H 1S > 2H 3S 4H 4S > X > > West, who has only three hearts, forgot that E-W were playing support > doubles. East explains that 2H promises four (in response to a > question, or because the raise promising four is alertable), giving > UI to West. The UI suggests doubling over bidding 5H or making a > forcing pass which East could convert to 5H. South claims 4Sx down > two before the play is finished, so he doesn't discover the heart > position. Only when the hand records come out does South see that > West's hand doesn't correspond to East's explanation, and that he > might have been damaged because 5H could go down. > > E-W may not have done anything wrong, but South needs to have the > right to claim damage from UI. Excuse me, but what damage can South claim? Would South not have bid 4S if he had known that West might have only three hearts? Would West not have doubled if he had not have the UI that he should have four hearts? Exactly how could South avoid ending in 4S doubled if you just remove all UI from this situation? I do agree that there can be situations without any kind of CPU that still calls for a late claim of UI rulings. Regards Sven From herman at hdw.be Wed Jan 3 10:56:27 2007 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:56:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? Message-ID: <459B7DCB.6060305@hdw.be> Yesterday, the bidding started: part me 1Cl pass 1Sp pass 1NT pass 2Cl This was of course check-back, or Roudinesco as we call it. It was partner who had said at the start of the tournament that we would play Roudi, so I was quite surprised to see no alert. This was quickly confirmed by the bidding: part me 1Cl pass 1Sp pass 1NT pass 2Cl pass pass RHO then prevented the problem from becoming non-existant by keeping the bidding open: part me 1Cl pass 1Sp pass 1NT pass 2Cl pass pass 2Di My first action was simple, but my problems were not over yet: part me 1Cl pass 1Sp pass 1NT pass 2Cl pass pass 2Di pass pass 3Cl pass I held 5 spades, 4 hearts and 10 points (2-2 in the minors), and I knew (by UI and AI) that partner believed I had club support, so his clubs were not such that 3Cl would be easy. Was I allowed to bid 3He? Consider this: suppose partner had duly alerted 2Cl, and then passed it and bid 3Cl. Could I not imagine some 6-card suit with singleton spade? The AI makes it likely that partner forgot, but the UI makes it certain! Just to end the story: clubs were 3-3, so 3Cl made, which scored average because many pairs were in 4He (he had 4 hearts), mostly going down. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From sarahamos at onetel.net Wed Jan 3 11:14:51 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:14:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? References: <459B7DCB.6060305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c72f20$01e6f280$30379058@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:56 AM Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? > Yesterday, the bidding started: > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl > > This was of course check-back, or Roudinesco as we call it. > It was partner who had said at the start of the tournament that we > would play Roudi, so I was quite surprised to see no alert. This was > quickly confirmed by the bidding: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass > > RHO then prevented the problem from becoming non-existant by keeping > the bidding open: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass 2Di > > My first action was simple, but my problems were not over yet: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass 2Di pass pass > 3Cl pass > > I held 5 spades, 4 hearts and 10 points (2-2 in the minors), and I > knew (by UI and AI) that partner believed I had club support, so his > clubs were not such that 3Cl would be easy. Was I allowed to bid 3He? > > Consider this: suppose partner had duly alerted 2Cl, and then passed > it and bid 3Cl. Could I not imagine some 6-card suit with singleton > spade? The AI makes it likely that partner forgot, but the UI makes it > certain! > > Just to end the story: clubs were 3-3, so 3Cl made, which scored > average because many pairs were in 4He (he had 4 hearts), mostly going > down. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > You have two LAs in my opinion Imagine this auction behind screens Either partner knows you are playing checkback and has looked at his hand and thought I'll play this one in Two Clubs or partner has forgotten Therefore your LAs are Pass (Partner knows what he is doing) or 3H (Partner has forgotten) Your UI (partner's failure to alert) suggests 3H so you must not choose it Mike > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jan 3 14:04:14 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:04:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? In-Reply-To: <459B7DCB.6060305@hdw.be> References: <459B7DCB.6060305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <459BA9CE.8020402@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Yesterday, the bidding started: > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl > > This was of course check-back, or Roudinesco as we call it. > It was partner who had said at the start of the tournament that we > would play Roudi, so I was quite surprised to see no alert. This was > quickly confirmed by the bidding: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass > > RHO then prevented the problem from becoming non-existant by keeping > the bidding open: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass 2Di > > My first action was simple, but my problems were not over yet: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass 2Di pass pass > 3Cl pass > > I held 5 spades, 4 hearts and 10 points (2-2 in the minors), and I > knew (by UI and AI) that partner believed I had club support, so his > clubs were not such that 3Cl would be easy. Was I allowed to bid 3He? it may depend on what you know about partner's habits but i think the only possible cause for partner's pass over a relay is that he has forgotten, and so UI equals AI. on another side i also think the main problem is not UI but MI: had rho been correctly informed about your pair's agreement about 2C, he might surely have considered another call than 2D. jpr > > Consider this: suppose partner had duly alerted 2Cl, and then passed > it and bid 3Cl. Could I not imagine some 6-card suit with singleton > spade? The AI makes it likely that partner forgot, but the UI makes it > certain! > > Just to end the story: clubs were 3-3, so 3Cl made, which scored > average because many pairs were in 4He (he had 4 hearts), mostly going > down. > -- _______________________________________________ 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 john at asimere.com Wed Jan 3 15:02:10 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:02:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? References: <459B7DCB.6060305@hdw.be> <000401c72f20$01e6f280$30379058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <002901c72f3f$c2d67c30$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Amos" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:56 AM > Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? > > >> Yesterday, the bidding started: >> part me >> 1Cl pass 1Sp pass >> 1NT pass 2Cl >> >> This was of course check-back, or Roudinesco as we call it. >> It was partner who had said at the start of the tournament that we >> would play Roudi, so I was quite surprised to see no alert. This was >> quickly confirmed by the bidding: >> >> part me >> 1Cl pass 1Sp pass >> 1NT pass 2Cl pass >> pass >> >> RHO then prevented the problem from becoming non-existant by keeping >> the bidding open: >> >> part me >> 1Cl pass 1Sp pass >> 1NT pass 2Cl pass >> pass 2Di >> >> My first action was simple, but my problems were not over yet: >> >> part me >> 1Cl pass 1Sp pass >> 1NT pass 2Cl pass >> pass 2Di pass pass >> 3Cl pass >> >> I held 5 spades, 4 hearts and 10 points (2-2 in the minors), and I >> knew (by UI and AI) that partner believed I had club support, so his >> clubs were not such that 3Cl would be easy. Was I allowed to bid 3He? >> >> Consider this: suppose partner had duly alerted 2Cl, and then passed >> it and bid 3Cl. Could I not imagine some 6-card suit with singleton >> spade? The AI makes it likely that partner forgot, but the UI makes it >> certain! >> >> Just to end the story: clubs were 3-3, so 3Cl made, which scored >> average because many pairs were in 4He (he had 4 hearts), mostly going >> down. >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.hdw.be >> > You have two LAs in my opinion > > Imagine this auction behind screens > Either > partner knows you are playing checkback and has looked at his hand and > thought I'll play this one in Two Clubs > or > partner has forgotten > > Therefore your LAs are Pass (Partner knows what he is doing) > or 3H (Partner has forgotten) > > Your UI (partner's failure to alert) suggests 3H so you must not choose it > > Mike Think what would you have done if partner had alerted 2 clubs then passed. He holds something like J KJx Axx Jxxxxx and has decided to take a pot. So, that's the hand you play him for. After all he "did" alert 2C didn't he. (and if you say "No" you're cheating. ) John > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 3 15:26:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:26:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c72df9$5080bf70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103091236.02af4a50@pop.starpower.net> At 02:21 PM 1/2/07, twm wrote: >My current understanding is that the ACBL prohibits reserving rights in >any way and that many ACBLers feel they can only protect themselves by >calling the TD when UI is made available. Quite correct. Those "many ACBLers" are, however, wrong. Per ACBL policy, the TD should be called when one has reason to believe that an opponent may have violated L16. I'm not sure, though, that that's what they really mean. Many ACBLers do not call the TD when the UI is made available, but wait until the recipient of the UI makes a potentially questionable bid (in practice, 99% of the time this is a non-pass after partner's huddle). Still others wait until they've seen the potential offender's hand, and call the TD only if they judge that a violation has occurred and they may have been damaged thereby. Since the TD's inevitable response to either of the first two actions is "call me back at the end of the hand if you think you may have been damaged", I believe the ACBL intends the third. I assume that the reason the ACBL has chosen to exercise the SO option in L16A is to eliminate those superfluous "advance" TD calls. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 3 16:02:27 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:02:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103091236.02af4a50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001401c72f48$3061b910$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 02:21 PM 1/2/07, twm wrote: > > >My current understanding is that the ACBL prohibits reserving rights in > >any way and that many ACBLers feel they can only protect themselves by > >calling the TD when UI is made available. > > Quite correct. Those "many ACBLers" are, however, wrong. Per ACBL > policy, the TD should be called when one has reason to believe that an > opponent may have violated L16. I'm not sure, though, that that's what > they really mean. Many ACBLers do not call the TD when the UI is made > available, but wait until the recipient of the UI makes a potentially > questionable bid (in practice, 99% of the time this is a non-pass after > partner's huddle). Still others wait until they've seen the potential > offender's hand, and call the TD only if they judge that a violation > has occurred and they may have been damaged thereby. Since the TD's > inevitable response to either of the first two actions is "call me back > at the end of the hand if you think you may have been damaged", I > believe the ACBL intends the third. I assume that the reason the ACBL > has chosen to exercise the SO option in L16A is to eliminate those > superfluous "advance" TD calls. And exactly how does ACBL expect their directors to handle cases where the alleged offending side "swears to God" there was no BIT five minutes ago, and had they known that the other side eventually would have claimed BIT they would immediately have summoned the Director to have that question clarified? This is no fiction of mine, this is reality. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 3 20:25:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:25:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <001401c72f48$3061b910$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c72f48$3061b910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > And exactly how does ACBL expect their directors to handle cases > where the > alleged offending side "swears to God" there was no BIT five > minutes ago, > and had they known that the other side eventually would have > claimed BIT > they would immediately have summoned the Director to have that > question > clarified? Precisely why I believe that in wording L16A1 the way they did, the WBFLC screwed the pooch, and in wording the election the way *they* did, the ACBL did likewise. Perhaps L16A1 would have been better worded "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organisation prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed, or if the SO elects to prohibit reserving rights)." A strict grammarian might be able to show that the proposed additional wording is redundant, but most players aren't strict grammarians, and don't carry one around in their pocket. From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 3 20:26:21 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:26:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? References: <459B7DCB.6060305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001401c72f6d$0d12b8e0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:56 AM Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? > Yesterday, the bidding started: > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl > > This was of course check-back, or Roudinesco as we call it. > It was partner who had said at the start of the tournament that we > would play Roudi, so I was quite surprised to see no alert. This was > quickly confirmed by the bidding: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass > > RHO then prevented the problem from becoming non-existant by keeping > the bidding open: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass 2Di > > My first action was simple, but my problems were not over yet: > > part me > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > pass 2Di pass pass > 3Cl pass > > I held 5 spades, 4 hearts and 10 points (2-2 in the minors), and I > knew (by UI and AI) that partner believed I had club support, so his > clubs were not such that 3Cl would be easy. Was I allowed to bid 3He? > > Consider this: suppose partner had duly alerted 2Cl, and then passed > it and bid 3Cl. Could I not imagine some 6-card suit with singleton > spade? The AI makes it likely that partner forgot, but the UI makes it > certain! > > Just to end the story: clubs were 3-3, so 3Cl made, which scored > average because many pairs were in 4He (he had 4 hearts), mostly going > down. > I think there is a third aspect: opponents have received MI. If opponents had been correctly informed about your agreement (alerted) that 2C was Roudinescu and not natural club support, they might have chosen some other call than 2D. I assume Herman corrected the MI before the opening lead was made. From adam at irvine.com Wed Jan 3 20:31:46 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:31:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:26:21 PST." <001401c72f6d$0d12b8e0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200701031906.LAA27291@mailhub.irvine.com> Raija wrote: > > Yesterday, the bidding started: > > part me > > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > > 1NT pass 2Cl > > > > This was of course check-back, or Roudinesco as we call it. > > It was partner who had said at the start of the tournament that we > > would play Roudi, so I was quite surprised to see no alert. This was > > quickly confirmed by the bidding: > > > > part me > > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > > pass > > > > RHO then prevented the problem from becoming non-existant by keeping > > the bidding open: > > > > part me > > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > > pass 2Di > > > > My first action was simple, but my problems were not over yet: > > > > part me > > 1Cl pass 1Sp pass > > 1NT pass 2Cl pass > > pass 2Di pass pass > > 3Cl pass > > > > I held 5 spades, 4 hearts and 10 points (2-2 in the minors), and I > > knew (by UI and AI) that partner believed I had club support, so his > > clubs were not such that 3Cl would be easy. Was I allowed to bid 3He? > > > > Consider this: suppose partner had duly alerted 2Cl, and then passed > > it and bid 3Cl. Could I not imagine some 6-card suit with singleton > > spade? The AI makes it likely that partner forgot, but the UI makes it > > certain! > > > > Just to end the story: clubs were 3-3, so 3Cl made, which scored > > average because many pairs were in 4He (he had 4 hearts), mostly going > > down. > > > > I think there is a third aspect: opponents have received MI. If opponents > had been correctly informed about your agreement (alerted) that 2C was > Roudinescu and not natural club support, they might have chosen some other > call than 2D. I assume Herman corrected the MI before the opening lead was > made. Yeah, but most likely the MI has no effect in this case. It would have an effect only if the opponents would have been sufficiently likely to get a better score if they had received the correct information. In this case, if they had known that 2C was a checkback and opener passed it, they probably would have passed on the assumption that the opening side was having an accident, but unfortunately this would have worked just as badly as letting them play 3C did, so the MI caused no damage and therefore there would be no adjustment. Of course, I'd need to see the actual hands if I were going to make an actual ruling. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 3 20:47:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:47:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <001401c72f48$3061b910$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103091236.02af4a50@pop.starpower.net> <001401c72f48$3061b910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:02 AM 1/3/07, Sven wrote: >And exactly how does ACBL expect their directors to handle cases where the >alleged offending side "swears to God" there was no BIT five minutes ago, >and had they known that the other side eventually would have claimed BIT >they would immediately have summoned the Director to have that question >clarified? The same way, one supposes, that they would have had they been called five minutes earlier, and the alleged OS had sworn to God that there was no BIT fifteen seconds ago. They either believe them, or they don't. Indeed, either the alleged OS is telling the truth, or they're not. But the truth won't change during the five-minute interval, and, the ACBL presumably assumes, neither will the alleged OS's story. ISTM they're probably right about that. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 3 22:14:03 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:14:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 10:02 AM 1/3/07, Sven wrote: > > >And exactly how does ACBL expect their directors to handle cases where > the > >alleged offending side "swears to God" there was no BIT five minutes ago, > >and had they known that the other side eventually would have claimed BIT > >they would immediately have summoned the Director to have that question > >clarified? > > The same way, one supposes, that they would have had they been called > five minutes earlier, and the alleged OS had sworn to God that there > was no BIT fifteen seconds ago. They either believe them, or they > don't. Indeed, either the alleged OS is telling the truth, or they're > not. But the truth won't change during the five-minute interval, and, > the ACBL presumably assumes, neither will the alleged OS's story. ISTM > they're probably right about that. Oh yes, it will! You would apparently be amazed (or preferably shocked) from our experience of how quickly memory can change and "facts" be colored by subsequent events. On the very scene we usually get the correct impression of what really did happen; already half a minute later may be too late and at the end of the play most certainly will be too late. And this is not people knowingly lying to us as directors, they really believe in what they tell us. Sven From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 4 02:21:49 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:21:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200701040121.AA06746@geller204.nifty.com> The problem is that human memory is fallible at best, especially when there incentives for forgetting. A break in tempo is not an infraction, merely factual information on the timing of the auction. It would be desirable for Law 16 to establish as correct procedure that one should turn to the opponents immediately after the BIT, and ask them to confirm there was a BIT. If they disagree, the director can be called, but assuming all agree then play can continue normally. In many cases we can't know till much later whether the BIT provided UI or not (a slow pass might have been a forcing pass, for example, in which case its UI-ness is little or none in many cases). If, after seeing all four hands the opponents of the UIers feel there was UI and they were damaged then they should call the director. But it shouldn't be at that point (maybe several minutes later) when the UI-side is first asked to confirm the UI, for the reasons pointed out by Sven. -Bob Eric Landau ????????: >At 10:02 AM 1/3/07, Sven wrote: > >>And exactly how does ACBL expect their directors to handle cases where the >>alleged offending side "swears to God" there was no BIT five minutes ago, >>and had they known that the other side eventually would have claimed BIT >>they would immediately have summoned the Director to have that question >>clarified? > >The same way, one supposes, that they would have had they been called >five minutes earlier, and the alleged OS had sworn to God that there >was no BIT fifteen seconds ago. They either believe them, or they >don't. Indeed, either the alleged OS is telling the truth, or they're >not. But the truth won't change during the five-minute interval, and, >the ACBL presumably assumes, neither will the alleged OS's story. ISTM >they're probably right about that. > > >Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jan 4 03:28:25 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:28:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late References: <000001c72f10$6b2f1b60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007b01c72fa8$0d375610$6400a8c0@rota> From: "Sven Pran" >> On Behalf Of David Grabiner > ........... >> > On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable >> > that a partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed >> > partnership understanding I see every reason to try an accusation >> > of a Law 16A2 violation on such basis within the correction period. >> >> It doesn't need to be a concealed partnership understanding, just >> something which might reasonably not have been discovered at the >> table. For example: I haven't given any specific hands because I do not have an example; the purpose of this post was to illustrate a theoretical point, which is that UI might not be discovered until the correction period because players do not always look at the hands in detail when they do not suspect UI. >> W N E S >> 1C P 1H 1S >> 2H 3S 4H 4S >> X >> >> West, who has only three hearts, forgot that E-W were playing support >> doubles. East explains that 2H promises four (in response to a >> question, or because the raise promising four is alertable), giving >> UI to West. The UI suggests doubling over bidding 5H or making a >> forcing pass which East could convert to 5H. South claims 4Sx down >> two before the play is finished, so he doesn't discover the heart >> position. Only when the hand records come out does South see that >> West's hand doesn't correspond to East's explanation, and that he >> might have been damaged because 5H could go down. >> >> E-W may not have done anything wrong, but South needs to have the >> right to claim damage from UI. > > Excuse me, but what damage can South claim? > Would West not have doubled if he had not have the UI that he should have > four hearts? This is the possible damage. The UI is that East's calls will be based on an incorrect assumption about West's hand. If West is 3=1=4=5 with good clubs, both double and forcing pass could be LAs for a West who has only shown three-card support. However, West knows that East will expect four-card support, and may compete to 5H expecting 4=1=3=5 opposite, which would be a typical forcing pass for a West who has shown four-card support. Given the UI, if 5H is the right contract, East will probably bid it even if West doubles. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 08:57:42 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:57:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <007b01c72fa8$0d375610$6400a8c0@rota> References: <000001c72f10$6b2f1b60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <007b01c72fa8$0d375610$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: On 04/01/07, David Grabiner wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > > >> On Behalf Of David Grabiner > > ........... > >> > On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable > >> > that a partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed > >> > partnership understanding I see every reason to try an accusation > >> > of a Law 16A2 violation on such basis within the correction period. > >> > >> It doesn't need to be a concealed partnership understanding, just > >> something which might reasonably not have been discovered at the > >> table. For example: > > I haven't given any specific hands because I do not have an example; the > purpose of this post was to illustrate a theoretical point, which is that UI > might not be discovered until the correction period because players do not > always look at the hands in detail when they do not suspect UI. > > >> W N E S > >> 1C P 1H 1S > >> 2H 3S 4H 4S > >> X > >> > >> West, who has only three hearts, forgot that E-W were playing support > >> doubles. East explains that 2H promises four (in response to a > >> question, or because the raise promising four is alertable), giving > >> UI to West. The UI suggests doubling over bidding 5H or making a > >> forcing pass which East could convert to 5H. South claims 4Sx down > >> two before the play is finished, so he doesn't discover the heart > >> position. Only when the hand records come out does South see that > >> West's hand doesn't correspond to East's explanation, and that he > >> might have been damaged because 5H could go down. > >> > >> E-W may not have done anything wrong, but South needs to have the > >> right to claim damage from UI. > > > > Excuse me, but what damage can South claim? > > > Would West not have doubled if he had not have the UI that he should have > > four hearts? > > This is the possible damage. The UI is that East's calls will be based on > an incorrect assumption about West's hand. If West is 3=1=4=5 with good > clubs, both double and forcing pass could be LAs for a West who has only > shown three-card support. However, West knows that East will expect > four-card support, and may compete to 5H expecting 4=1=3=5 opposite, which > would be a typical forcing pass for a West who has shown four-card support. > Given the UI, if 5H is the right contract, East will probably bid it even if > West doubles. > If you change the hand patterns above to 3-4-1-5 and 4-3-1-5, respectively, I fully agree with David. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 4 14:52:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? In-Reply-To: <002901c72f3f$c2d67c30$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > Think what would you have done if partner had alerted 2 clubs then > passed. > > He holds something like > > J > KJx > Axx > Jxxxxx I'm an unpassed hand and opps are silent. If pard decides to "take a pot" by passing my forcing enquiry (perhaps a matter of finding the safest grand) it's because he no longer has a use for his kneecaps! OK, with some partners I'll just assume the 1C opener was a psych on CQJxxxxx and out but since I won't be allowed to bid on the basis of an assumed psych I'll be forced to bid on the basis of a presumed forget. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 4 16:07:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:07:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to late In-Reply-To: <001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> <001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070104095520.02b9eb40@pop.starpower.net> At 04:14 PM 1/3/07, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > At 10:02 AM 1/3/07, Sven wrote: > > > > >And exactly how does ACBL expect their directors to handle cases where > > the > > >alleged offending side "swears to God" there was no BIT five > minutes ago, > > >and had they known that the other side eventually would have > claimed BIT > > >they would immediately have summoned the Director to have that > question > > >clarified? > > > > The same way, one supposes, that they would have had they been called > > five minutes earlier, and the alleged OS had sworn to God that there > > was no BIT fifteen seconds ago. They either believe them, or they > > don't. Indeed, either the alleged OS is telling the truth, or they're > > not. But the truth won't change during the five-minute interval, and, > > the ACBL presumably assumes, neither will the alleged OS's story. ISTM > > they're probably right about that. > >Oh yes, it will! You would apparently be amazed (or preferably >shocked) from >our experience of how quickly memory can change and "facts" be colored by >subsequent events. > >On the very scene we usually get the correct impression of what really did >happen; already half a minute later may be too late and at the end of the >play most certainly will be too late. And this is not people knowingly >lying >to us as directors, they really believe in what they tell us. Since I have never played or directed with "reservation of rights" enabled, I am inclined to defer to Sven's first-hand experience. Has anyone out there directed both with and without the election? I'd be interested in what they have to say. Does the additional difficulty in sorting out whether there was or wasn't a BIT after the hand is over outweigh the disadvantage from the additional empty ("call me back at the end of the hand if you think there's a problem") director calls? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jan 4 20:33:23 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:33:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to late References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> <001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070104095520.02b9eb40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001501c73037$35b5f440$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> After many years of studying this problem, I have arrived at a set of procedures for handling UI in ACBL-land. High-level ACBL TDs have helped me in this effort, welcome assistance because I didn't want to devise something impractical. However, my suggestion to the ACBL that these procedures be deemed official has been ignored. To view the procecures, go to my website www.marvinfrench.com and click on Bridge Laws & Regulations, where the Acrobat file "Procedures for Handling Unauthorized Information" is available. I would be grateful for any suggestions to improve or correct these procedures. And by the way, anyone needing a single Acrobat file containing all 24 of the misnamed Conventional Wisdom articles on filling out the ACBL convention card can find it there. The only other way to get them is to print them out piecemeal from the ACBL website (under Tools and Supplies!) or copy them out of the ACBL's *Bridge Bulletin*, one article a month. My suggestion that they be combined in one Acrobat file has been ignored. Also there is my complilation of the ACBL Alert regulations, contained in an Acrobat file that can be printed on one piece of paper (both sides). This too was a product requiring much ACBL TD assistance, but you will not find it on the ACBL website even though I suggested it be offered there. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 4 22:06:51 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 21:06:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] When too late References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net><001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070104095520.02b9eb40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When to late > > Since I have never played or directed with "reservation > of rights" enabled, I am inclined to defer to Sven's first-hand > experience. Has anyone out there directed both with and > without the election? I'd be interested in what they have to > say. Does the additional difficulty in sorting out whether > there was or wasn't a BIT after the hand is over outweigh > the disadvantage from the additional empty ("call me back > at the end of the hand if you think there's a problem") director > calls? > +=+ I can quote an opinion expressed by the WBF CTD whose experience is considerable. He says "if the Director is summoned at once all he does is to note the reason for the call and tell the players to finish the hand. It makes good sense for him not to be called until the end of the play." (Only if the alleged creation of UI is challenged is there then a reason to spend a moment in assessing the facts.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jan 5 17:59:30 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 08:59:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> <001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070104095520.02b9eb40@pop.starpower.net> <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070105085713.01c84bc8@mail.optusnet.com.au> That was the strangest sensation. I had been wondering when someone (perhaps Grattan) would correct the spelling in the subject line, and a message comes in. Am I psychic, or just psychotic, Tony Sydney At 01:06 PM 4/01/2007, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >***************************************** >"Beware when the great God lets >loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. >=========================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:07 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] When to late > > > > > > Since I have never played or directed with "reservation > > of rights" enabled, I am inclined to defer to Sven's first-hand > > experience. Has anyone out there directed both with and > > without the election? I'd be interested in what they have to > > say. Does the additional difficulty in sorting out whether > > there was or wasn't a BIT after the hand is over outweigh > > the disadvantage from the additional empty ("call me back > > at the end of the hand if you think there's a problem") director > > calls? > > >+=+ I can quote an opinion expressed by the WBF CTD whose >experience is considerable. He says "if the Director is summoned >at once all he does is to note the reason for the call and tell the >players to finish the hand. It makes good sense for him not to be >called until the end of the play." (Only if the alleged creation of >UI is challenged is there then a reason to spend a moment in >assessing the facts.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date: 4/01/2007 >1:34 PM From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 4 23:13:53 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:13:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] When too late References: <000001c72f10$6b2f1b60$6400a8c0@WINXP><007b01c72fa8$0d375610$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <002501c7304d$bfea0af0$a0cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When to late > If you change the hand patterns above to 3-4-1-5 and 4-3-1-5, respectively, I fully agree with David. << +=+ Perhaps someone should read Law 16A2 again: "When a player has...." .. say again... "When .... " Nobody expects him to approach the Director until he has "substantial reason to believe". Nothing stands in the way of his doing so. Even if 16A1 has attached to it some local regulation, 16A1 has no power to nullify 16A2. The only limitation is on the power of the Director to rectify; the limitation is in Law 81C6. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jan 4 23:28:57 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:28:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] to (sic) late Message-ID: <459D7FA9.5030409@aol.com> I have directed ACBL games (many years ago) and also for other federations, and international championships. In my experience hesitation is more often disputed when the TD is called a few minutes after the "crime". By immediate calls there is rarely a dispute. But this reflects only my experience. I assume that all directors have often been called immediately or after a delay when there is imputed hesitation. Thus I fail to appreciate why ACBL experience is necessary. Perhaps I have misunderstoood something. Ciao, JE From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 5 00:11:20 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 08:11:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com> gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: >+=+ I can quote an opinion expressed by the WBF CTD whose >experience is considerable. He says "if the Director is summoned >at once all he does is to note the reason for the call and tell the >players to finish the hand. It makes good sense for him not to be >called until the end of the play." (Only if the alleged creation of >UI is challenged is there then a reason to spend a moment in >assessing the facts.) If there's a hesitation the fact to be immediately established is the break in tempo (BIT), which may or not be UI (in some cases this can only be evaluated later after ascertaining the opponents bidding system). If one simply turns to the opponents immediately after the BIT and asks them to confirm the BIT, I've never had them deny it, and establishing this agreement immediately after the BIT precludes the memory degredation problems mentioned by Sven. Perhaps the procedure of immediately establishing the BIT without a director call (unless there is disagreement between the two sides over whether or not there was a BIT) could be specifically mentioned in laws or regulations. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 5 01:54:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 01:54:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000001c73063$fec3d150$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 5. januar 2007 00:11 > To: gesta at tiscali.co.uk > Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] When too late > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > >+=+ I can quote an opinion expressed by the WBF CTD whose > >experience is considerable. He says "if the Director is summoned > >at once all he does is to note the reason for the call and tell the > >players to finish the hand. It makes good sense for him not to be > >called until the end of the play." (Only if the alleged creation of > >UI is challenged is there then a reason to spend a moment in > >assessing the facts.) > > If there's a hesitation the fact to be immediately established is > the break in tempo (BIT), which may or not be UI (in some cases > this can only be evaluated later after ascertaining the opponents > bidding system). > > If one simply turns to the opponents immediately after the BIT and > asks them to confirm the BIT, I've never had them deny it, and > establishing this agreement immediately after the BIT precludes the > memory degredation problems mentioned by Sven. > > Perhaps the procedure of immediately establishing the BIT without a > director call (unless there is disagreement between the two sides over > whether or not there was a BIT) could be specifically mentioned in > laws or regulations. We specifically recommend that in Norway! It saves us a lot of later disputes. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 5 02:40:06 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:40:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids Message-ID: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> "Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive." So said a poster on bridge base online. It seems to me we resolved this in the recent thread "conventional" - and did so in such a way as to make the quoted assertion false. But I can't now find it. *Did* we resolve it in that way? I think: Some bids are natural. Some bids are conventional. Some bids are artificial. Some conventional bids are also natural. All artificial bids are conventional. One could argue that all bids are conventional (that is, they are a matter of agreement between partners) but I don't think the laws mean to go there. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Jan 5 04:04:52 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:04:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net><001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20070104095520.02b9eb40@pop.starpower.net> <001501c73037$35b5f440$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004201c73076$46345f20$6400a8c0@rota> Thanks to Marvin French for providing a good and useful document. However, I have two questions about the interpretation of L12C2. "The non-offending side's adjustment assumes the irregularity had not occurred, while the offending side's adjustment is the most unfavorable result at all probable after the irregularity." This should be, "while the offending side's adjustment is the most unfavorable result at all probable with or without the irregularity." In most L12C2 cases, the offenders would earn a better score as a result of the irregularity, and their adjusted score is based on a result without the irregularity. I also believe the adjustment for the offenders in the example is too harsh; the offenders may not benefit from their irregularity, but they are still entitled to benefit from the non-offenders' inferior play subsequent to the irregularity. Here is the example W dealer, both vulnerable W N E S 2H ..P P 3D P P 3H AP 3D is ruled to be an infraction. 3H goes down one, and 3D would probably have gone down two. Assuming that 3H was not irrational, wild, or gambling, we all agree that the non-offenders are entitled to +110; if it was irrational, the non-offenders keep their -100. But what about the offenders? I would rule -110; it is not at all probable that they would have earned -200, since the non-offenders decided on this deal that South would not be allowed to play there. Here is a variant which gives a clearer example of the problem. W N E S 2H ..P P 3D AP 3D is ruled to be an infraction. West leads a spade and 3D goes down one; on a club lead, also normal from the West hand, 3D would have gone down two. What score should N-S get if 2H could make? What about if 2H was going down? If 2H was making, E-W get +110, and again I would say that N-S should get -110; they shouldn't get an adjustment to the -200 that E-W failed to obtain at the table. If 2H was going down, there was no damage; N-S were -100 and would have been +100 without the infraction. But the same interpretation of L12C2 still says that the N-S score should be adjusted to -200. From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 04:05:10 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:05:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com> On 1/4/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > "Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive." So said a poster > on bridge base online. I was actually quoting the position of the ACBL. There was a discussion whether a Muiderberg style 2M opening that showed 5+ SSpades and a 4+ card minor was legal at the GCC level. I claimed that the opening is (a) Conventional (b) Not legal at the GCC level AWM contacted the ACBL and received the following response from Mike Flader. (Personally, I think that this interpretation is wrong) >Dear Adam, > >Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically allowed are disallowed, >the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by definition, are not an offer to >play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though not specifically >mentioned is allowed. >A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would be allowed >since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S opening which shows >two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would be allowed. > >Hope this answers your questions. > >Mike Flader -- "We only wish to represent things as they are, and to expose the error of believing that a mere bravo without intellect can make one distinguished in war" Clausewitz From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 5 05:20:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:20:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] When too late [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070105085713.01c84bc8@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >That was the strangest sensation. I had been wondering >when someone (perhaps Grattan) would correct the >spelling in the subject line, and a message comes in. >Am I psychic, or just psychotic? Richard Hills: I am psychotically perfectionist, even going to the lengths of discreetly cleaning up typos in the postings of other blmlers. Because of my psychotic attention to detail, and my psychotic obsessive memory, my psychosis is valued by blmlers in general, and by Grattan Endicott in particular. The latest details about my hospitalisation for a mild manic psychosis of my manic-depressive disorder are that I am now again fully connected with reality, and will be formally discharged from hospital on Monday. However, my contributions to blml debates will continue to be erratic until February, since I am playing in the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge from Thursday 18th to Saturday 27th January. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 5 05:41:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:41:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4580BA95.1020407@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO instead, the WBFLC should specify a *complete* set >of *default* rules for Bridge Richard Hills: But unexpected emergencies cannot have default rules specified in advance, since you cannot expect the unexpected. As the former US Defense Secretary said, "unknown unknowns". You can, however, have an emergency *power* for a TD. Law 81C3: >>The Director's duties and powers normally include the >>following: to establish suitable conditions of play >>and to announce them to the contestants. If the sponsoring organisation has forgotten to create a tie-breaking rule, the TD can use Law 81C3 as an authorising emergency power for a last-minute creation of an "ex post facto" tie-breaking rule. (Anticipating Nigel's next comment, I note that a *complete* set of *default* tie-breaking rules would cause the size of The Fabulous Law Book to double.) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 5 06:15:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:15:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >I'm an unpassed hand and opps are silent. If pard decides >to "take a pot" by passing my forcing enquiry (perhaps a >matter of finding the safest grand) it's because he no >longer has a use for his kneecaps! Richard Hills: When playing Symmetric Relay with my favourite partner, he frequently risks his kneecaps by breaking the relay when I am an unpassed hand. Sure we miss an odd grand slam, but we are way ahead on imps gained when pard's potshotting rightsides our games. Ergo, I disagree with Tim and Herman, and argue that the AI was *not* identical to the UI. Partner's non-system call was either accidental or deliberate, and it was the failure to alert by pard which gives us UI that it was accidental. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 5 06:32:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:32:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >"Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive." So said a poster >on bridge base online. > >It seems to me we resolved this in the recent thread "conventional" >- and did so in such a way as to make the quoted assertion false. >But I can't now find it. *Did* we resolve it in that way? > >I think: > >Some bids are natural. >Some bids are conventional. >Some bids are artificial. >Some conventional bids are also natural. >All artificial bids are conventional. > >One could argue that all bids are conventional (that is, they are a >matter of agreement between partners) but I don't think the laws >mean to go there. Richard Hills: Under the ABF Alert Regulation, all calls are either "conventional" or alternatively "natural". A "natural" call is defined as "not conventional". A "conventional" call is defined as per Chapter One of The Fabulous Law Book. The English Bridge Union takes a more nuanced approach, since the EBU is wary of the flaws in the 1997 definition of "convention". The word "convention" or "conventional" frequently appears in the 1997 edition of the Laws. However, reference to an "artificial" call also appears in the famous Law 75 footnote. 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 hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Fri Jan 5 08:47:01 2007 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:47:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] When too late Message-ID: <006401c7309d$b1bcfd20$3ea1ec51@admin> I think that all of you except Harald Skaeran have misunderstood the problem. It is not about law 16. The problem Torsten refers to is when you discover e g a wrong explanation some time after play of a board. How long time after the play can you call the director for a ruling? And I think the correct answer is 30 minutes after the end of the session. From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jan 5 14:39:52 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:39:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late References: <006401c7309d$b1bcfd20$3ea1ec51@admin> Message-ID: Aw, come on Hans. You take all the fun out of looking all over the law book for something to pontificate on!!! Gee...there it is...in black and white.... Law 92 B ".....The right to REQUEST or appeal a Director's ruling expires......." AND THEN IT TELLS YOU WHEN. (Italics mine). You have to learn that when there is a simple solution or answer to a problem it's no fun, so just change the problem, and off you go! It's also known as blowing smoke thereby giving everyone so inclined the opportunity to cuss the FLB which has served us remarkably well for many decades in ruling the game at all levels and venues. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" To: Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:47 AM Subject: [blml] When too late > I think that all of you except Harald Skaeran have misunderstood the > problem. It is not about law 16. The problem Torsten refers to is when you > discover e g a wrong explanation some time after play of a board. How long > time after the play can you call the director for a ruling? And I think > the correct answer is 30 minutes after the end of the session. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 5 11:50:39 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:50:39 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__natural_bids_and_conventional?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_bids?= References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <459E2D7F.000001.95189@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- (Ed Reppert) I think: Some bids are natural. Some bids are conventional. Some bids are artificial. Some conventional bids are also natural. All artificial bids are conventional. One could argue that all bids are conventional (that is, they are a matter of agreement between partners) but I don't think the laws mean to go there. # AG :not all bids are conventional in all partnerships. 1C - p - 3NT : "I want to play there". Only conventional if guarantees some pattern and/or strength. In some partnerships, it doesn't. And remember my intervention about : p - p - 1C - p - 3NT - p - 4NT. The bid hasn't any agreed meaning, apart perhaps, as some contributors suggested : I miscounted my hand". But partner was allowed to make an intelligent guess about what happened - and duly did. According to the definition, some conventional bids are indeed natural. Control bids, if specifically showing strength, certainly are both (in my usual partnerships, the first cue-bid by the pair shall be strength, not shortness). Using 2 of the opened suit as the weakest response to Drury, marking the willingness to play that contract, or using 6 of the agreed suit as the weakest response to GSF also fits. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070105/86f8adce/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/20070105/86f8adce/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20845 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070105/86f8adce/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 5 11:54:01 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:54:01 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__natural_bids_and_conven?= =?iso-8859-1?q?tional_bids?= References: <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <459E2E49.000004.95189@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- I>Dear Adam, > >Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically allowed are disallowed, >the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by definition, are not an offer to >play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though not specifically >mentioned is allowed. AG : This is contradictory with the basic definitions in TFLB. So the ACBL's position is in a way illegal. Dog bites man, no more. NB : there should really exist some cetegory of "natural plus agreement", bids that shan't be disallowed. So the ACBL's position, although incorrect, it clever. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070105/84fca584/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/20070105/84fca584/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20845 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070105/84fca584/attachment-0001.gif From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 5 15:50:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:50:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c730d8$d3bebb30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Unless I remember completely wrong this thread was about discovering the possible use of UI in a situation where NOS was unaware that UI had been given until "long time afterwards". Thus it is indeed a question of Law 16. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > Sent: 5. januar 2007 14:40 > To: blml at rtflb.org; Hans-Olof Hall?n > Subject: Re: [blml] When too late > > Aw, come on Hans. You take all the fun out of looking all over the law > book > for something to pontificate on!!! > > Gee...there it is...in black and white.... Law 92 B ".....The right to > REQUEST or appeal a Director's ruling expires......." AND THEN IT TELLS > YOU > WHEN. (Italics mine). > You have to learn that when there is a simple solution or answer to a > problem it's no fun, so just change the problem, and off you go! It's also > known as blowing smoke thereby giving everyone so inclined the opportunity > to cuss the FLB which has served us remarkably well for many decades in > ruling the game at all levels and venues. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:47 AM > Subject: [blml] When too late > > > > I think that all of you except Harald Skaeran have misunderstood the > > problem. It is not about law 16. The problem Torsten refers to is when > you > > discover e g a wrong explanation some time after play of a board. How > long > > time after the play can you call the director for a ruling? And I think > > the correct answer is 30 minutes after the end of the session. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 5 16:50:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:50:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> <200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net> At 06:11 PM 1/4/07, Robert wrote: >If there's a hesitation the fact to be immediately established is >the break in tempo (BIT), which may or not be UI (in some cases >this can only be evaluated later after ascertaining the opponents >bidding system). > >If one simply turns to the opponents immediately after the BIT and >asks them to confirm the BIT, I've never had them deny it, and >establishing this agreement immediately after the BIT precludes the >memory degredation problems mentioned by Sven. > >Perhaps the procedure of immediately establishing the BIT without a >director call (unless there is disagreement between the two sides over >whether or not there was a BIT) could be specifically mentioned in >laws or regulations. My understanding is that this is precisely how the "reservation of rights" procedure in L16A1 is interpreted in zones that choose to apply it. Am I wrong? It seems like a sensible way to handle BITs (BsIT?) to me. The ACBL, however, has opted out of this procedure (as provided for in L16A1). I asked about this originally in the hope of finding or figuring out what the ACBL's rationale for not allowing reservation of rights is. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 5 16:54:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:54:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__natural_bids_and_conventional?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_bids?= In-Reply-To: <459E2D7F.000001.95189@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> <459E2D7F.000001.95189@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: On Jan 5, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > # AG :not all bids are conventional in all partnerships. > > 1C - p - 3NT : "I want to play there". Only conventional if > guarantees some pattern and/or strength. In some partnerships, it > doesn't. I play, in most of my partnerships, that 3NT in this sequence shows 13-15 HCP and a balanced hand. In fact, virtually everyone I know attaches some point range to it. Are you telling me that this bid is conventional? And that, in consequence, an SO could tell me I'm forbidden to play it? On another note, I said "shows" where you said "guarantees". I don't use words like "guarantees" or "promises" in bidding agreements. I don't suppose that matters in this context, though. On a third note, Alain, I really wish you wouldn't post html to the list. :-( From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 5 17:01:55 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:01:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:32 AM 1/5/07, richard.hills wrote: >Ed Reppert: > > >"Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive." So said a poster > >on bridge base online. > > > >It seems to me we resolved this in the recent thread "conventional" > >- and did so in such a way as to make the quoted assertion false. > >But I can't now find it. *Did* we resolve it in that way? > > > >I think: > > > >Some bids are natural. > >Some bids are conventional. > >Some bids are artificial. > >Some conventional bids are also natural. > >All artificial bids are conventional. > > > >One could argue that all bids are conventional (that is, they are a > >matter of agreement between partners) but I don't think the laws > >mean to go there. As I suggested in a previous post, this is all about semantics. The laws require only a binary distinction, between "conventional" and "not conventional" calls. We can call them "artificial" and "natural" calls if we like, but what we call them doesn't matter; the handful of laws that depend on the distinction all rely on the definition of "convention" (the adequacy or clarity of that definition is a whole separate topic), which any call either conforms to or doesn't. >Richard Hills: > >Under the ABF Alert Regulation, all calls are either "conventional" >or alternatively "natural". A "natural" call is defined as "not >conventional". A "conventional" call is defined as per Chapter One >of The Fabulous Law Book. And as far as the Law is concerned, that is all that is necessary. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 5 17:01:41 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:01:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net> References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> <200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I asked about this originally in the hope of finding or > figuring out what the ACBL's rationale for not allowing reservation of > rights is. What makes you think they have one? :-) A BIT is an irregularity. Law 9 requires that, when attention is drawn to an irregularity, the director be called immediately. The provision for "reservation of rights" in Law 16A1 is the *only* exception to this in the Laws. I suppose one could argue that in the interests of consistency one should not allow this exception. But then the ACBL muddied the waters with the wording of their election, which seems to imply you have to wait for some action by the recipient of the BIT before calling the TD - which, btw, would be in contradiction to law 9. So I don't think the ACBL has a coherent rationale for the way they want Law 16A1 to be. From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Jan 5 17:18:51 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:18:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: References: <006401c7309d$b1bcfd20$3ea1ec51@admin> Message-ID: <459E7A6B.4080206@comcast.net> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Aw, come on Hans. You take all the fun out of looking all over the law book > for something to pontificate on!!! > > Gee...there it is...in black and white.... Law 92 B ".....The right to > REQUEST or appeal a Director's ruling expires......." AND THEN IT TELLS YOU > WHEN. (Italics mine). > You have to learn that when there is a simple solution or answer to a > problem it's no fun, so just change the problem, and off you go! It's also > known as blowing smoke thereby giving everyone so inclined the opportunity > to cuss the FLB which has served us remarkably well for many decades in > ruling the game at all levels and venues. I'll give you an example I encountered at the Toronto NABC. The situation should demonstrate that the legal time limit is both more generous and not the same as the practical time limit for requesting a ruling. 2H P* 4H 4S AP P was preceeded by a grab for the bidding box. I assume my LHO did not realize she wasn't the dealer. After I opened, LHO hesitated significantly before passing. I did not call the director at this time. The actions seemed far too obvious to deny and I always give strangers the benefit of the doubt that their actions are above board. 4S bidder turned out to have a 14-count with 5 spades and I felt that the bid was inspired by UI. My partner gives me a knowing look and calls the director. LHO adamantly denied both the early grab for the bidding box and the hesitation before the pass. The director rules table result stands. The director claimed that by waiting until the end of the hand to call her that my partnership was attempting a double shot, getting the best of either the table result or an adjustment, and that I had to call when I noticed the hesitation to get a ruling on it. The reason I failed to appeal was that the match was a KO that my team won anyways and I was glad to not deal with those opponents for the rest of the week. Just before the new year, I sat against a DC player who's a bit director-call happy. She calls the director to complain that my partner was hesitating with a stiff remaining. She had the count wrong. Afterwards she apologizes to the director for calling, but not to my partner for the insult. I feel like calling the director after any creation or potential use of UI is a similar insult, but it's clear to me that in the ACBL, despite the legal time limit to request a ruling, calling the director later than immediately may be too late. -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 5 17:27:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:27:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com > References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105110323.02bc7400@pop.starpower.net> At 10:05 PM 1/4/07, rwilley wrote: >On 1/4/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > "Natural and Conventional are mutually exclusive." So said a poster > > on bridge base online. > >I was actually quoting the position of the ACBL. > >There was a discussion whether a Muiderberg style 2M opening that >showed 5+ SSpades and a 4+ card minor was legal at the GCC level. I >claimed that the opening is > >(a) Conventional >(b) Not legal at the GCC level > >AWM contacted the ACBL and received the following response from Mike >Flader. (Personally, I think that this interpretation is wrong) > > >Dear Adam, > > > >Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically >allowed are disallowed, > >the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by >definition, are not an offer to > >play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though >not specifically > >mentioned is allowed. > > >A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would >be allowed > >since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S >opening which shows > >two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it >would be allowed. > > > >Hope this answers your questions. > > > >Mike Flader How odd; this certainly sounds wrong to me too. By Mr. Flader's reading, all of these would be natural bids: a limited 2S opening promising 5-5 or better in spades and clubs, a limited 2C opening showing a three-suiter short in diamonds, and "leaping Michaels" (e.g, 2H-4D showing diamonds and spades). Mr. Flader states that "conventional calls... by definition, are not an offer to play in the denomination named". That is obviously misreading the definition of "convention", as a call may be an offer to play in the denomination named while still "convey[ing] a meaning other than" such an offer to play (or strength or length "there"). Mr. Flader would do well to read BLML, which would have disabused him of this particular misunderstanding in the first few posts to this thread. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 17:36:32 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:36:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105110323.02bc7400@pop.starpower.net> References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105110323.02bc7400@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0701050836r28dcf9d6pc42622a4864d92a@mail.gmail.com> I sent the following email to "Rulings at acbl.org" this morning. I'm going to be most interested to see what type of response they provide. Personally, I suspect that Flader is going to backpeddle pretty damn quick. --------------- Dear Mr Flader: I am writing regarding an email that you recently sent to Adam Meyerson regarding the Convention Licensing process and the nature of the ACBL's General Convention Chart. Adam's email specifically dealt with the question whether a 2S opening that promised 5+ Spades and 4+ Cards in either minor was allowable at the GCC level. I believe that the principles that you describe in this email represent a significant change in the ACBL's policy. Furthermore they deviate sharply from standard usage in other parts of the world. For convenince, I am attaching a copy of your original email: >Dear Adam, >Regarding the passage that states that methods no specifically allowed are disallowed, >the GCC applies to the use of conventional calls, which, by definition, are not an offer to >play in the denomination named. Thus, a natural opening even though not specifically >mentioned is allowed. > >A natural weak two bid which guaranteed a side four card minor would be allowed >since it is natural. What is disallowed is a convention like a 2S opening which >shows two undefined suits. If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would >be allowed. > >Hope this answers your questions. > >Mike Flader I agree with your assessment that the 2S is natural. However, you seem to be assuming that a bid can not be both natural and conventional. I would argue that 1.The 2S opening in question is natural 2.The 2S opening in question is also conventional 3.The GCC does not specifically license a preemptive 2S opening that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor. 4.The 2S opening in question may not be used in GCC events. I will note in passing that the ACBL's Defensive Databased contains a suggested Defense to "2H or 2S showing a 5+ card major and a 4+ card minor". Furthermore, the Defense indicates these bids are rated as "2 Boards per segment/round". http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/2g.htm As I understand matters, the Defensive Database only applies to methods found on the ACBL's Midchart. I'm somewhat confused why a GCC legal method required a suggest defense or this type of rating. I'd very much appreciate some clarification on this topic. Furthermore, if the philosophy that you describe in your letter represent the official policy of the ACBL then I would very much appreciate some form of formal correspondence that I can present to Tournament Directors to justify my choice of methods. Respectfully Richard Willey From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 5 18:53:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:53:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com> References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> <200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net> <108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105123737.02bc8400@pop.starpower.net> At 11:01 AM 1/5/07, Ed wrote: >On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > I asked about this originally in the hope of finding or > > figuring out what the ACBL's rationale for not allowing reservation of > > rights is. > >What makes you think they have one? :-) > >A BIT is an irregularity. Law 9 requires that, when attention is >drawn to an irregularity, the director be called immediately. The >provision for "reservation of rights" in Law 16A1 is the *only* >exception to this in the Laws. I suppose one could argue that in the >interests of consistency one should not allow this exception. But >then the ACBL muddied the waters with the wording of their election, >which seems to imply you have to wait for some action by the >recipient of the BIT before calling the TD - which, btw, would be in >contradiction to law 9. So I don't think the ACBL has a coherent >rationale for the way they want Law 16A1 to be. I do not believe that "a BIT is an irregularity", and therefore do not see reservation of rights as an "exception" to L9. A BIT certainly is not an "infraction", which is used in TFLB, if not as an exact synonym for "irregularity", as at least very closely related. Indeed, L73D1 tells us explicitly that "to vary the tempo... does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety" (another very closely related term) -- what does is "inferences... drawn... [not] by an opponent". BITs are an inevitable and unavoidable aspect of the game, routine and "regular", and L73D1 seems to acknowledge that fact; it specifically calls avoiding BITs "desirable, though not always required". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 5 19:31:34 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:31:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <459E7A6B.4080206@comcast.net> References: <006401c7309d$b1bcfd20$3ea1ec51@admin> <459E7A6B.4080206@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105125737.02bbf9e0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:18 AM 1/5/07, Todd wrote: >LHO adamantly denied both the early grab for the bidding box >and the hesitation before the pass. The director rules >table result stands. The director claimed that by waiting >until the end of the hand to call her that my partnership >was attempting a double shot, getting the best of either the >table result or an adjustment, and that I had to call when I >noticed the hesitation to get a ruling on it. The reason I >failed to appeal was that the match was a KO that my team >won anyways and I was glad to not deal with those opponents >for the rest of the week. Although "result stands" may have been the correct ruling, this director sounds incompetent to me. His job is to ascertain the facts, and apply the law. When a particular action is alleged to be an irregularity, the motivation for that action may indeed be determinative as to whether a particular law has been violated, but the *other side's motivation for calling the director* cannot possibly have any bearing; either Todd's opponents violated the law to their advantage or they didn't. The TD's determining his ruling on the finding that "[Todd's] partnership was attempting a double shot" has no basis or justification in the laws. If my neighbor violates the criminal law and I report him to the police, they do not concern themselves with whether I did so because I'm an upstanding citizen who believes in law and order or because I have a personal grudge against that particular neighbor. He broke the law or he didn't; his motivation might matter, but mine doesn't. The larger problem is that the ACBL has elected to tell its players that they are not supposed to follow the "reservation of rights" procedure specified in L16A1, but have never put forth a clear alternative procedure that they *are* supposed to follow. What has appeared in The Bulletin on the subject is confusing and contradictory. Call the TD when lefty hesitates and passes? Or when righty then bids? Or when you've seen righty's hand? Or seen enough of it to believe that he may have been influenced by the hesitation? Should you call if you believe there was an infraction, but no resulting damage to your side? Since we've never been given clear, official answers to these questions, it is left to individual TDs to decide the answers for themselves. So we shouldn't be surprised when this leads to the occasional totally off-the-wall ruling. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jan 5 19:39:30 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:39:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred><200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net><108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105123737.02bc8400@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At the huge risk of trying to simplify THIS discussion (the reservation of rights under Law 16 a 1.) I offer: In ACBL not establishing the facts of UI immediately when an action occurred frequently made it extremely difficult to rule later when both sides were yelling "You did" "I didn't" "etc.". It's easier to fairly adjudicate results when facts are agreed. ACBL decided it best to prevent the problems created by "reserving rights" in our litigious society. It was not unknown, and I was the TD at times, where discussion that the BIT, action with bidding box, etc., supposed agreement, reservation of rights agreed upon, and then a new set of facts when the hand was over. Further, the Law never meant that not reserving rights made them go away at a later time. I found it to work as a procedure to minimize arguments and questionable rulings that lead to questionable AC decisions. I don't feel it is an imposition on a TD to take this step, but then I have always felt that TDs were to do the best possible job. That way at least the facts were a given. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When too late > At 11:01 AM 1/5/07, Ed wrote: > > >On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > I asked about this originally in the hope of finding or > > > figuring out what the ACBL's rationale for not allowing reservation of > > > rights is. > > > >What makes you think they have one? :-) > > > >A BIT is an irregularity. Law 9 requires that, when attention is > >drawn to an irregularity, the director be called immediately. The > >provision for "reservation of rights" in Law 16A1 is the *only* > >exception to this in the Laws. I suppose one could argue that in the > >interests of consistency one should not allow this exception. But > >then the ACBL muddied the waters with the wording of their election, > >which seems to imply you have to wait for some action by the > >recipient of the BIT before calling the TD - which, btw, would be in > >contradiction to law 9. So I don't think the ACBL has a coherent > >rationale for the way they want Law 16A1 to be. > > I do not believe that "a BIT is an irregularity", and therefore do not > see reservation of rights as an "exception" to L9. A BIT certainly is > not an "infraction", which is used in TFLB, if not as an exact synonym > for "irregularity", as at least very closely related. Indeed, L73D1 > tells us explicitly that "to vary the tempo... does not in itself > constitute a violation of propriety" (another very closely related > term) -- what does is "inferences... drawn... [not] by an > opponent". BITs are an inevitable and unavoidable aspect of the game, > routine and "regular", and L73D1 seems to acknowledge that fact; it > specifically calls avoiding BITs "desirable, though not always required". > > > 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 schoderb at msn.com Fri Jan 5 19:40:35 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:40:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late References: <000001c730d8$d3bebb30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: I remember it as a simple question of when a player can no longer call a director FOR a ruling. The reason for asking for a ruling makes no difference. It may make a difference in the ruling, but that doesn't prevent the player from asking within the period specified. The "long time afterwards" only has meaning if it is beyond the limits stated in 92 B or other limits imposed by the sponsoring Organization. I think the discussion on Law 16, 12, etc., is interesting and the positions taken, whether right or wrong, at least revealing of the poster's erudition, but I still can't help but regret that in so many "threads" the original question is quickly segued away from and long and involved arguments ensue without an answer to the original question. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When too late Unless I remember completely wrong this thread was about discovering the possible use of UI in a situation where NOS was unaware that UI had been given until "long time afterwards". Thus it is indeed a question of Law 16. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > Sent: 5. januar 2007 14:40 > To: blml at rtflb.org; Hans-Olof Hall?n > Subject: Re: [blml] When too late > > Aw, come on Hans. You take all the fun out of looking all over the law > book > for something to pontificate on!!! > > Gee...there it is...in black and white.... Law 92 B ".....The right to > REQUEST or appeal a Director's ruling expires......." AND THEN IT TELLS > YOU > WHEN. (Italics mine). > You have to learn that when there is a simple solution or answer to a > problem it's no fun, so just change the problem, and off you go! It's also > known as blowing smoke thereby giving everyone so inclined the opportunity > to cuss the FLB which has served us remarkably well for many decades in > ruling the game at all levels and venues. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:47 AM > Subject: [blml] When too late > > > > I think that all of you except Harald Skaeran have misunderstood the > > problem. It is not about law 16. The problem Torsten refers to is when > you > > discover e g a wrong explanation some time after play of a board. How > long > > time after the play can you call the director for a ruling? And I think > > the correct answer is 30 minutes after the end of the session. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 5 21:17:59 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 21:17:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c73106$987ef390$6400a8c0@WINXP> I have never understood this thread to be a dispute on a contestant's right to request a ruling by the Director and do indeed hope that I haven't given that impression? My intention has all the time been to focus on the problem for TD in giving a ruling on UI when the reason for UI has not been established and then eventually an allegation of a Law 16A2 violation is presented. That was also how I understood the kernel of the original question that started this thread. When requested to make a ruling on opponents' alleged violation of Law 16A2 but where the complaining side has failed to secure their case by establishing agreement of BIT (or whatever action may have created UI) and I find it impossible to establish facts of UI, I invariably dismiss the complaint unless they can show reasonable cause for not securing evidence in time (as specified in Laws 16A1 and 16A2 footnote). I honestly believe that this is the only possible way a serious director can rule. The effect of this is obvious: If a contestant might suspect that a particular activity by an opponent could result in a later violation of law 16A2 he should in his own interest (Law 16A1) immediately establish agreement that the activity (BIT or whatever) did occur, and if necessary summon the Director forthwith in order to establish such facts. Note that this is NOT summoning TD for a ruling; that will in case come later. Normally a polite question like: "Do we agree that there was a BIT here?" will be sufficient. I do not call this "reserving any rights"; I call it establishing agreement on what happened in case subsequent ruling by TD might be needed. Regards Sven > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > I remember it as a simple question of when a player can no longer call a > director FOR a ruling. The reason for asking for a ruling makes no > difference. It may make a difference in the ruling, but that doesn't > prevent > the player from asking within the period specified. The "long time > afterwards" only has meaning if it is beyond the limits stated in 92 B or > other limits imposed by the sponsoring Organization. > > I think the discussion on Law 16, 12, etc., is interesting and the > positions > taken, whether right or wrong, at least revealing of the poster's > erudition, > but I still can't help but regret that in so many "threads" the original > question is quickly segued away from and long and involved arguments ensue > without an answer to the original question. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:50 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] When too late > > > Unless I remember completely wrong this thread was about discovering the > possible use of UI in a situation where NOS was unaware that UI had been > given until "long time afterwards". Thus it is indeed a question of Law > 16. > > Regards Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] > > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > > Sent: 5. januar 2007 14:40 > > To: blml at rtflb.org; Hans-Olof Hall?n > > Subject: Re: [blml] When too late > > > > Aw, come on Hans. You take all the fun out of looking all over the law > > book > > for something to pontificate on!!! > > > > Gee...there it is...in black and white.... Law 92 B ".....The right to > > REQUEST or appeal a Director's ruling expires......." AND THEN IT TELLS > > YOU > > WHEN. (Italics mine). > > You have to learn that when there is a simple solution or answer to a > > problem it's no fun, so just change the problem, and off you go! It's > also > > known as blowing smoke thereby giving everyone so inclined the > opportunity > > to cuss the FLB which has served us remarkably well for many decades in > > ruling the game at all levels and venues. > > > > Kojak > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:47 AM > > Subject: [blml] When too late > > > > > > > I think that all of you except Harald Skaeran have misunderstood the > > > problem. It is not about law 16. The problem Torsten refers to is when > > you > > > discover e g a wrong explanation some time after play of a board. How > > long > > > time after the play can you call the director for a ruling? And I > think > > > the correct answer is 30 minutes after the end of the session. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 5 22:49:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:49:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) In-Reply-To: References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred> <200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net> <108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105123737.02bc8400@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105161206.02bc3500@pop.starpower.net> At 01:39 PM 1/5/07, WILLIAM wrote: >At the huge risk of trying to simplify THIS discussion (the reservation of >rights under Law 16 a 1.) I offer: > >In ACBL not establishing the facts of UI immediately when an action >occurred >frequently made it extremely difficult to rule later when both sides were >yelling "You did" "I didn't" "etc.". It's easier to fairly adjudicate >results when facts are agreed. ACBL decided it best to prevent the >problems >created by "reserving rights" in our litigious society. It was not >unknown, >and I was the TD at times, where discussion that the BIT, action with >bidding box, etc., supposed agreement, reservation of rights agreed upon, >and then a new set of facts when the hand was over. Further, the Law never >meant that not reserving rights made them go away at a later time. I found >it to work as a procedure to minimize arguments and questionable rulings >that lead to questionable AC decisions. I don't feel it is an >imposition on >a TD to take this step, but then I have always felt that TDs were to >do the >best possible job. That way at least the facts were a given. I must confess that I don't quite follow what Kojak is telling us. It sounds like he is saying that because we in the ACBL are more "litigious" than elsewhere (probably true), we are more prone than others to confront TDs with "yes you did/no I didn't" sorts of disputes (probably also true), and that the L16A1 election serves to reduce the animosity collectively generated by such disputes (and the migraines they give TDs who have to "find the facts" in such cases) by simply reducing their number. IOW, if players are going to indulge in shouting matches when one side accuses the other of having broken tempo, the least we can do to keep things as civil and manageable as possible is to restrict the occasions on which such childish disputations occur to those where an actual ruling might be affected by which side prevails (i.e. where some actual illegality, as opposed to just a BIT, is alleged). As the ACBL's justification for the election, that's not at all unreasonable, but I suspect there may be more to it. If so, perhaps Kojak will elaborate. It does seem obvious that there would be no point in rejecting the "reservation of rights" procedure, under which the director is called only if the alleged BIT is disputed, if the alternative were to call the director *every time* a BIT is alleged, disputed or not, and what we read in The Bulletin, while it doesn't tell us what the ACBL actually intends us to do, does make it clear that that isn't it. So what is it? Perhaps Kojak can be prevailed upon to help us here. Consider the following sequence of events as seen from my perspective: (1) An opponent breaks tempo; (2) his partner makes a call that sounds like it might be "fishy", i.e. could be influenced by the BIT; (3) after the deal, when the offender's hand is known, I determine that his call does indeed appear to have had logical alternatives and to have been suggested by the BIT; (4) after examining the entire deal, I determine that I have not been "damaged" by his infraction and hence am not entitled to any redress. Is it proper for me to call the director at (2), at (3), or not at all? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 5 22:58:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:58:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <000c01c73106$987ef390$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c73106$987ef390$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105165143.02bce950@pop.starpower.net> At 03:17 PM 1/5/07, Sven wrote: >I have never understood this thread to be a dispute on a contestant's >right >to request a ruling by the Director and do indeed hope that I haven't >given >that impression? > >My intention has all the time been to focus on the problem for TD in >giving >a ruling on UI when the reason for UI has not been established and then >eventually an allegation of a Law 16A2 violation is presented. That >was also >how I understood the kernel of the original question that started this >thread. > >When requested to make a ruling on opponents' alleged violation of Law >16A2 >but where the complaining side has failed to secure their case by >establishing agreement of BIT (or whatever action may have created UI) >and I >find it impossible to establish facts of UI, I invariably dismiss the >complaint unless they can show reasonable cause for not securing >evidence in >time (as specified in Laws 16A1 and 16A2 footnote). I honestly believe >that >this is the only possible way a serious director can rule. That is just fine, and entirely proper, and Sven should keep doing it. But Sven doesn't work in the ACBL. What do you do when the opponents' indisputable "reasonable cause for not securing evidence in time" is that their Zonal organization has explicitly forbidden them from doing so? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jan 5 23:15:56 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:15:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred><200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net><108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105123737.02bc8400@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105161206.02bc3500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: 1. For someone who confesses that he doesn't know what I'm talking about, he does one hell-uv-a good job in the first paragraph of his posting telling it exactly as I mean it. Maybe I'm able to communicate even if Mr.Landau would rather couldn't. 2. No, there isn't anything more to it. 3. For the greatest part people follow Law 16 A 2 without a bunch of problems, but sometimes problems come up that tacitly "reserving rights" causes, and would not happen if they also followed 16 A 1. If you read 16 A 1 carefully, as I have, then you will find that it says "....he may...." which is defined in the preface to the American Edition, Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 as "....may do something (any player nay call attention to an irregularity during the auction), the failure to do it is in no way wrong....." Guess careful reading wouldn't hurt. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) > At 01:39 PM 1/5/07, WILLIAM wrote: > > >At the huge risk of trying to simplify THIS discussion (the reservation > >of > >rights under Law 16 a 1.) I offer: > > > >In ACBL not establishing the facts of UI immediately when an action > >occurred > >frequently made it extremely difficult to rule later when both sides were > >yelling "You did" "I didn't" "etc.". It's easier to fairly adjudicate > >results when facts are agreed. ACBL decided it best to prevent the > >problems > >created by "reserving rights" in our litigious society. It was not > >unknown, > >and I was the TD at times, where discussion that the BIT, action with > >bidding box, etc., supposed agreement, reservation of rights agreed upon, > >and then a new set of facts when the hand was over. Further, the Law > >never > >meant that not reserving rights made them go away at a later time. I > >found > >it to work as a procedure to minimize arguments and questionable rulings > >that lead to questionable AC decisions. I don't feel it is an > >imposition on > >a TD to take this step, but then I have always felt that TDs were to > >do the > >best possible job. That way at least the facts were a given. > > I must confess that I don't quite follow what Kojak is telling us. It > sounds like he is saying that because we in the ACBL are more > "litigious" than elsewhere (probably true), we are more prone than > others to confront TDs with "yes you did/no I didn't" sorts of disputes > (probably also true), and that the L16A1 election serves to reduce the > animosity collectively generated by such disputes (and the migraines > they give TDs who have to "find the facts" in such cases) by simply > reducing their number. IOW, if players are going to indulge in > shouting matches when one side accuses the other of having broken > tempo, the least we can do to keep things as civil and manageable as > possible is to restrict the occasions on which such childish > disputations occur to those where an actual ruling might be affected by > which side prevails (i.e. where some actual illegality, as opposed to > just a BIT, is alleged). As the ACBL's justification for the election, > that's not at all unreasonable, but I suspect there may be more to > it. If so, perhaps Kojak will elaborate. > > It does seem obvious that there would be no point in rejecting the > "reservation of rights" procedure, under which the director is called > only if the alleged BIT is disputed, if the alternative were to call > the director *every time* a BIT is alleged, disputed or not, and what > we read in The Bulletin, while it doesn't tell us what the ACBL > actually intends us to do, does make it clear that that isn't it. So > what is it? Perhaps Kojak can be prevailed upon to help us here. > > Consider the following sequence of events as seen from my perspective: > (1) An opponent breaks tempo; (2) his partner makes a call that sounds > like it might be "fishy", i.e. could be influenced by the BIT; (3) > after the deal, when the offender's hand is known, I determine that his > call does indeed appear to have had logical alternatives and to have > been suggested by the BIT; (4) after examining the entire deal, I > determine that I have not been "damaged" by his infraction and hence am > not entitled to any redress. Is it proper for me to call the director > at (2), at (3), or not at all? > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jan 6 10:05:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 20:05:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105161206.02bc3500@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >Consider the following sequence of events as seen from my perspective: > >(1) An opponent breaks tempo; > >(2) his partner makes a call that sounds like it might be "fishy", >i.e. could be influenced by the BIT; > >(3) after the deal, when the offender's hand is known, I determine >that his call does indeed appear to have had logical alternatives and >to have been suggested by the BIT; > >(4) after examining the entire deal, I determine that I have not been >"damaged" by his infraction and hence am not entitled to any redress. > >Is it proper for me to call the director at (2), at (3), or not at >all? Richard Hills: In Australia I never bother calling the director under Law 16 when I am not damaged. I believe it leads to a more pleasant game when I defer my Law 16 director calls to *if* and when I believe that I have been damaged. (It also allows directors more time to apply Law 15 when another pair is attempting to wreck the movement by going to the wrong table.) 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 svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 6 10:46:18 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:46:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] When too late In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105165143.02bce950@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c73177$83c69f90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 03:17 PM 1/5/07, Sven wrote: > > >I have never understood this thread to be a dispute on a contestant's > >right > >to request a ruling by the Director and do indeed hope that I haven't > >given > >that impression? > > > >My intention has all the time been to focus on the problem for TD in > >giving > >a ruling on UI when the reason for UI has not been established and then > >eventually an allegation of a Law 16A2 violation is presented. That > >was also > >how I understood the kernel of the original question that started this > >thread. > > > >When requested to make a ruling on opponents' alleged violation of Law > >16A2 > >but where the complaining side has failed to secure their case by > >establishing agreement of BIT (or whatever action may have created UI) > >and I > >find it impossible to establish facts of UI, I invariably dismiss the > >complaint unless they can show reasonable cause for not securing > >evidence in > >time (as specified in Laws 16A1 and 16A2 footnote). I honestly believe > >that > >this is the only possible way a serious director can rule. > > That is just fine, and entirely proper, and Sven should keep doing > it. But Sven doesn't work in the ACBL. > > What do you do when the opponents' indisputable "reasonable cause for > not securing evidence in time" is that their Zonal organization has > explicitly forbidden them from doing so? Except that I never work under such Zonal organizations I request players to never "reserve their rights" which is forbidden but to politely ask their opponents: "Do we agree that this and that happened now" which cannot be forbidden. Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jan 6 19:01:53 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:01:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103144032.02aebac0@pop.starpower.net> <001601c72f7c$1a1d0c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070104095520.02b9eb40@pop.starpower.net> <001501c73037$35b5f440$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <004201c73076$46345f20$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <000b01c731bc$c12e5400$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> > Thanks to Marvin French for providing a good and useful document. However, > I have two questions about the interpretation of L12C2. > > "The non-offending side's adjustment assumes the irregularity had not > occurred, while the offending side's adjustment is the most unfavorable > result at all probable after the irregularity." This should be, "while the > offending side's adjustment is the most unfavorable result at all probable > with or without the irregularity." In most L12C2 cases, the offenders would > earn a better score as a result of the irregularity, and their adjusted > score is based on a result without the irregularity. I would prefer "in any event" to "with or without," which is doubtful syntax. This is a very difficult subject, and I don't claim my opinions are the best, only the best I can come up with for ACBL-land. Divining the intent of poor writing is very hard. Now, the first clause says that the non-offenders get the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. Stop there. If you assign +110 to the non-offenders when an irregularity has deprived them of that score, then ACBLscore gives the offenders -110. . It is automatic that the offenders get the negative of the non-offenders' score. That is your "without," David, and it comes after the irregularity But the lawmakers considered that this sometimes be too lenient, e.g., there is a significant chance ("at all probable") for a 140 score, giving the offenders -140. Had this been the only consideration, then the first clause could read: "...for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely, and for the offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, had the irregularity not occurred." In fact, this is how Adam and others interpret L12C2. But they didn't do that. Instead they added an "or" clause for the offenders. It is very significant that this was not an "and," but instead an exclusive "or," i.e., if the first clause is deemed insufficient then invoke the second clause. That is your "without," David, and it also comes after the irregularity. > I also believe the adjustment for the offenders in the example is too harsh; > the offenders may not benefit from their irregularity, but they are still > entitled to benefit from the non-offenders' inferior play subsequent to the > irregularity. Here is the example > > W dealer, both vulnerable > W N E S > 2H ..P P 3D > P P 3H AP > > 3D is ruled to be an infraction. 3H goes down one, and 3D would probably > have gone down two. Assuming that 3H was not irrational, wild, or gambling, > we all agree that the non-offenders are entitled to +110; if it was > irrational, the non-offenders keep their -100. > > But what about the offenders? I would rule -110; it is not at all probable > that they would have earned -200, since the non-offenders decided on this > deal that South would not be allowed to play there. A reasonable position, but then the "or" clause would be unnecessary. I cannot think of an unfavorable "with" result other than one coming from a position taken by the offending side. If the "or" clause has any relevance, then it must apply to contracts bid but not played by the offending side. > > Here is a variant which gives a clearer example of the problem. > > W N E S > 2H ..P P 3D > AP > > 3D is ruled to be an infraction. West leads a spade and 3D goes down one; > on a club lead, also normal from the West hand, 3D would have gone down two. > What score should N-S get if 2H could make? > If 2H was making, E-W get +110, and again I would say that N-S should > get -110; they shouldn't get an adjustment to the -200 that E-W failed to > obtain at the table. I vote for the -200 if that result was at all probable. The score adjustment for offenders should not depend on a coin toss by the non-offenders if the irregularity has led to an advantage in the former's score. .What about if 2H was going down? > > If 2H was going down, there was no damage; N-S were -100 and would have been > +100 without the infraction. But the same interpretation of L12C2 still > says that the N-S score should be adjusted to -200. "Damage" for the offending side is defined (by the WBFLC) as an advantage in the score as a result of an irregularity. Since there was no damage L12C2 does not apply and the result stands. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 7 01:01:37 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:01:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred><200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net><108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105123737.02bc8400@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070105161206.02bc3500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003601c731ef$004fe810$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) > At 01:39 PM 1/5/07, WILLIAM wrote: > Kojak: >>At the huge risk of trying to simplify THIS discussion (the reservation of >>rights under Law 16 a 1.) I offer: >> >>In ACBL not establishing the facts of UI immediately when an action >>occurred >>frequently made it extremely difficult to rule later when both sides were >>yelling "You did" "I didn't" "etc.". snip but then I have always felt that TDs were to >>do the >>best possible job. That way at least the facts were a given. Eric: > I must confess that I don't quite follow what Kojak is telling us. It > sounds like he is saying that because we in the ACBL are more > "litigious" than elsewhere (probably true), we are more prone than > others to confront TDs with "yes you did/no I didn't" sorts of disputes > (probably also true), and that the L16A1 election serves to reduce the > animosity collectively generated by such disputes (and the migraines > they give TDs who have to "find the facts" in such cases) by simply > reducing their number. IOW, if players are going to indulge in > shouting matches when one side accuses the other of having broken > tempo, the least we can do to keep things as civil and manageable as > possible is to restrict the occasions on which such childish > disputations occur to those where an actual ruling might be affected by > which side prevails (i.e. where some actual illegality, as opposed to > just a BIT, is alleged). As the ACBL's justification for the election, > that's not at all unreasonable, but I suspect there may be more to > it. If so, perhaps Kojak will elaborate. > snip I play a lot in Europe and a fair bit under ACBL sponsorship. I TD a bit and I've been kicking around here for a while too. I don't think Kojak has any extra agenda items above those that Eric is discussing. It strikes me that the cultural differences between a European game and an American game means that the ACBL election is reasonable in ACBL-land and that other jurisdictions can get by without such an election, and I would ascribe this [as Eric does] to a somewhat more litigious and argumentative ACBL approach. Both approaches have pros and cons and in my opinion the best fit in each of the jurisdictions is well found as regulation currently stands. cheers 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 7 06:48:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:48:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Under the ABF Alert Regulation, all calls are either "conventional" >>or alternatively "natural". A "natural" call is defined as "not >>conventional". A "conventional" call is defined as per Chapter One >>of The Fabulous Law Book. Eric Landau: >And as far as the Law is concerned, that is all that is necessary. Richard Hills: Not so fast. There is also Law 40D, which gives sponsoring organisations the right to create further classifications (as, for example, the EBU creation of an Amber Psyche classification). 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 7 07:07:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:07:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] When too late [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <459E7A6B.4080206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch: [snip] >The director claimed that by waiting until the end >of the hand to call her that my partnership was >attempting a double shot, getting the best of >either the table result or an adjustment, and that >I had to call when I noticed the hesitation to get >a ruling on it. [snip] Richard Hills: Correct 1960s director ruling, incorrect today. (The director may have made the mistake of reading a recent Jeff Rubens editorial on what he calls the "Briar Patch Coup".) If an opponent bids to slam after Hesitation Blackwood, under the current interpretation of Law 16 you are entitled to keep your +50 when the slam fails, and you are also entitled to have your score adjusted from -980 to -480 when there are twelve tricks on ice. A natural consequence of a contestant infracting Law 16 by choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative from amongst other logical alternatives is that that contestant is and should be "doubly shot". But a contestant who virtuously obeys Law 16 (and Law 73C) after receiving UI from partner is safe from any adjusted score, so gets only the "single shot" of the table result. 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 08:27:44 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:27:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701062327m79309befna2d9200775b02811@mail.gmail.com> On 07/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>Under the ABF Alert Regulation, all calls are either "conventional" > >>or alternatively "natural". A "natural" call is defined as "not > >>conventional". A "conventional" call is defined as per Chapter One > >>of The Fabulous Law Book. > > Eric Landau: > > >And as far as the Law is concerned, that is all that is necessary. > > Richard Hills: > > Not so fast. > > There is also Law 40D, which gives sponsoring organisations the > right to create further classifications (as, for example, the EBU > creation of an Amber Psyche classification). > > How does L40D do that? Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jan 7 12:46:50 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:46:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred><200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net><108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105123737.02bc8400@pop.starpower.net><6.1.1.1.0.20070105161206.02bc3500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000c01c7325e$49289720$3f9887d9@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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) > you will find that it says "....he may...." which is defined in > the preface to the American Edition, Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge 1997 as "....may do something (any > player nay call attention to an irregularity during the auction), > the failure to do it is in no way wrong....." > +=+ ..... and likewise in the official version of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 promulgated by the World Bridge Federation. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jan 7 13:32:19 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:32:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560701062327m79309befna2d9200775b02811@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000d01c7325e$4a2ee390$3f9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills: > > > > >>Under the ABF Alert Regulation, all calls are either "conventional" > > >>or alternatively "natural". A "natural" call is defined as "not > > >>conventional". A "conventional" call is defined as per Chapter One > > >>of The Fabulous Law Book. > > +=+ And Chapter One of the Flagitious Law Book defines a conventional call as one that is not natural, citing the conditions that determine a natural state. +=+ > > > > There is also Law 40D, which gives sponsoring organisations the > > right to create further classifications (as, for example, the EBU > > creation of an Amber Psyche classification). > > > > > > How does L40D do that? > > Wayne > +=+ Classification is nothing to do with Law 40D. Red, Amber, Green are classifications applicable to both psyches and misbids. It is after classification that the basis for the Director's consequent action needs to be apparent. The Director's powers of score adjustment in such cases are powers to deal with illegal partnership understandings; Law 40D does allow regulation of understandings which permit actions at the one level to be made ... etc etc. and Law 40A points to the potential for illegality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sun Jan 7 14:42:50 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 08:42:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late) References: <000201c73044$af113b80$a0cb403e@Mildred><200701042311.AA06757@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105103823.02bc0b40@pop.starpower.net><108DD354-6F32-4D62-A3AD-1F1F83137C35@rochester.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070105123737.02bc8400@pop.starpower.net><6.1.1.1.0.20070105161206.02bc3500@pop.starpower.net> <000c01c7325e$49289720$3f9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Ja, si, oui, da, and yes -- of course. (Please excuse my typo in quoting -- nay = may) Happy new year everybody. Kojak: > > you will find that it says "....he may...." which is defined in > > the preface to the American Edition, Laws of Duplicate > > Contract Bridge 1997 as "....may do something (any > > player nay call attention to an irregularity during the auction), > > the failure to do it is in no way wrong....." Grattan: > +=+ ..... and likewise in the official version of the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 promulgated by the World > Bridge Federation. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 8 00:29:35 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:29:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] alertability References: <001601c725b4$b38c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <458C21E7.4060705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c732b4$00057c10$54db403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] alertability > 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. > +=+ And yet, a player is authorized to ask questions ...."about relevant calls available but not made". If he is not given the meaning of each call made does it not become far too complicated to identify what of this kind may be asked about? +=+ > Apart from improving disclosure, it would > save time. > +=+ I have doubts about that because of the tenuous nature of meaning detached from its sources. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 8 01:38:15 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:38:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <000101c732b4$00057c10$54db403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c732bd$49130720$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > From: "Nigel" > > 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. > > > +=+ And yet, a player is authorized to ask > questions ...."about relevant calls available > but not made". If he is not given the meaning > of each call made does it not become far too > complicated to identify what of this kind may > be asked about? +=+ But Law 21F1 states: "... any player ... may request a full explanation of opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made), ..." Are you saying that the clauses within the parenthesis prohibit a player from requesting "a full explanation" using the statement suggested by Nigel, i.e. that he must request explanations individually of each call made and relevant calls not made, one by one? Or as the question I prefer to make as a defender after the closing pass and before the opening lead: "From the auction: What are we entitled to know about your hands?" Is this question improper? I consider it a perfect request for a full explanation of opponents' entire auction? > > Apart from improving disclosure, it would > > save time. > > > +=+ I have doubts about that because of the > tenuous nature of meaning detached from its > sources. ~ G ~ +=+ >From my own experience I tend to agree with Nigel here. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 8 04:50:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:50:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c7325e$4a2ee390$3f9887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>There is also Law 40D, which gives sponsoring >>organisations the right to create further >>classifications (as, for example, the EBU creation of >>an Amber Psyche classification). Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Classification is nothing to do with Law 40D. >Red, Amber, Green are classifications applicable >to both psyches and misbids. It is after classification >that the basis for the Director's consequent action >needs to be apparent. > The Director's powers of score adjustment in >such cases are powers to deal with illegal partnership >understandings; Law 40D does allow regulation of >understandings which permit actions at the one level >to be made ... etc etc. and Law 40A points to the >potential for illegality. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Albus Dumbledore: "The best of us must sometimes eat our words." Richard Hills: Yes, my example was very poorly chosen, and Grattan has correctly noted that the EBU Red, Amber and Green classifications are used as tools in determining if an illegal Concealed Partnership Understanding exists. A better example of a sub-classification of conventions would be the ABF Yellow (HUM), Red, Blue and Green sub- classification of systems based on the nature of their conventional bids at the one-level. This ABF regulation is made pursuant to its power over conventions (and non- conventional initial actions at the one level a King or more below average strength) granted by Law 40D. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 8 04:54:34 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:54:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] alertability References: <000101c732bd$49130720$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001001c732d8$d35cd670$86ac87d9@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: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] alertability > > > > > > IMO, most players feel justified in refraining from > > > divulging such holistic understandings. > > > > > +=+ And yet, a player is authorized to ask > > questions ...."about relevant calls available > > but not made". If he is not given the meaning > > of each call made does it not become far too > > complicated to identify what of this kind may > > be asked about? +=+ > > But Law 21F1 states: "... any player ... may > request a full explanation of opponents' auction > (questions may be asked about calls actually made or > about relevant calls available but not made), ..." > > Are you saying that the clauses within the > parenthesis prohibit a player from requesting "a full > explanation" using the statement suggested by Nigel, > i.e. that he must request explanations individually of > each call made and relevant calls not made, one by > one? > +=+ I am absolutely not saying that. Indeed he should ask for a full explanation. The weakness of the 1997 Laws is the dispersal of statements on one subject. In this case we go to 75C to find a further statement concerning the responsibility of the player who is asked for a full explanation. He shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement of partnership experience. And yes, these terms do cover information gleaned from the fact that partner has not selected an alternative call that is available. But do you think that your player responding to a holistic question is any more likely to think of and explain all the possible alternatives? The need will remain for the questioner to be able to supplement his question with enquiry about one or more call(s) that were available but not made. If he is to know what call(s) to ask about he must know what calls have been explained by the holistic response. Otherwise he is guessing blindly concerning the addditional knowledge to be sought. That is how it seems to me, and that is my point. +=+ < > Or as the question I prefer to make as a defender > after the closing pass and before the opening lead: > "From the auction: What are we entitled to know > about your hands?" > > Is this question improper? I consider it a perfect > request for a full explanation of opponents' entire > auction? > +=+ It is proper. Because the responder knows that the authority given in the laws is specifically to request a full explanation, nothing less at this stage, whatever the terms of the question put, so far as the law goes it should be responded to as a request for a full explanation. (I am aware of the impracticality of the law as it stands and I argue for change. The problem under the 1997 laws is that, technically at least, the responder who does not explain fully is always liable. Curtailment of the question is an extenuating factor not absolution - question and answer regarding an individual call are regarded as misdemeanours rather than felonies because the practice prevails.) ~ G ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 20:56:08 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:56:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] Searching BLML archives Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701051156m1650aad2ve0b567b7d205991a@mail.gmail.com> What method do you use to search BLML for old discussions that might pertain to your question? I see that archives are accessible from http://www.rtflb.org/, but is there some way to search the information? Has anyone had success downloading everything and then doing something else to make searches possible? -Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070105/fa23c82b/attachment-0001.htm From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 02:11:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 19:11:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specific purpose Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> On board 1, North deals and opens 1C, alerted "precision"; East bids 1S, which is alerted. If East is showing four or more spades, South has a great bid to show his hand. But East might not be showing spades, and South will not know until he asks why it was alerted. So, cleverly, South doesn't ask, and he bids 2S (which, assuming it is a cue bid, shows 9+ HCP, no 5-card suit and no spade stopper). South expects North to treat 1S natural for the purpose of understanding South's call, because South has not asked what the alert means. South meant 2S to be a cue bid in their system, and North was listening to the absence of a question about the alert and understands it that way, even after he later finds out the meaning of East's 1S conventional bid: It shows a red or minor two-suiter. On board 5, same dealer and same auction, but this time South has 5 spades, so he asks the meaning of 1S. It again shows the red suits or the minors. South bids 2S again, but this time with a totally different meaning: (Here it is a natural bid showing 4-7 HCP and five spades.) I have been told that South and North are lawful here because no player is ever required to ask the meaning of an alerted bid, but I suspect that North and South on board 1 are both in violation of Law 73A1. North-South agreements after the 1S overcall depend on what 1S shows, so I think that they must find out the meaning of 1S. They must not use the presence or absence of a question by South to affect the meaning of their calls. South's declining to ask is not AI to North, and North should continue the auction as if South understood what 1S showed. What's more, South's lack of question is UI to North and North is in a situation where Law 16A applies in full force. Anyway, that's what I currently think. But I am no director. Am I right or not? Even if this is right, there is probably a much clearer way to put it, and when is the proper time for East-West to call the director? And what should the director do? Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070106/a86bd1ae/attachment.htm From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jan 8 10:53:28 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:53:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specific purpose In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1H3rC4-25FoJ60@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Hi Jerry, From: "Jerry Fusselman" > On board 1, North deals and opens 1C, alerted "precision"; East bids > 1S, which is alerted. ?If East is showing four or more spades, South > has a great bid to show his hand. But East might not be showing > spades, and South will not know until he asks why it was alerted. > So, cleverly, South doesn't ask, and he bids 2S (which, assuming > it is a cue bid, shows 9+ HCP, no 5-card suit and no spade stopper). > ? ? South expects North to treat 1S natural for the purpose of > understanding South's call, because South has not asked what the > alert means. ?South meant 2S to be a cue bid in their system, and > North was listening to the absence of a question about the alert and > understands it that way, even after he later finds out the meaning of > East's 1S conventional bid: ?It shows a red or minor two-suiter. > ? On board 5, same dealer and same auction, but this time South has 5 > spades, so he asks the meaning of 1S. ?It again shows the red suits or > the minors. ?South bids 2S again, but this time with a totally > different meaning: ?(Here it is a natural bid showing 4-7 HCP and > five spades.) ? ?I have been told that South and North are lawful > here because no player is ever required to ask the meaning of an > alerted bid, but I suspect that North and South on board 1 are both > in violation of Law 73A1. ?North-South agreements after the 1S > overcall depend on what 1S shows, so I think that they must find out > the meaning of 1S. ?They must not use the presence or absence of a > question by South to affect the meaning of their calls. > South's declining to ask is not AI to North, and North should > continue the auction as if South understood what 1S showed. > What's more, South's lack of question is UI to North > and North is in a situation where Law 16A applies in full force. > Anyway, that's what I currently think. ? ?But I am no director. > Am I right or not? ?Even if this is right, there is probably a much > clearer way to put it, and when is the proper time for East-West to > call the director? ?And what should the director do? IT's not Law 73 A1 but 73 B1 und B2 Law 73 B1: "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, _through questions asked or not asked of the opponents_ or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Law 73 B2: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." If you play a two-way defence against an opponent's method it's your duty to be sure you know the systemic meaning of opponent's call. You neither are allowed to ask to wake up partner, nor to refuse to ask to imply a natural meaning into opponent's call. Regards Peter From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 8 11:19:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:19:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <001001c732d8$d35cd670$86ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001a01c7330e$74774240$6400a8c0@WINXP> Thanks for your clarifying statements below, I must admit that for a moment I got scared but I see that we are completely in agreement on this matter. It occasionally happens that when I ask my "standard" question I get a first response "which call do you want explained" or words to a similar effect. I then just tell that I want a full description, not of the actual hands but of the hands as they have been described according to their agreements by their auction. I have found my "standard" question very efficient in all respects for both sides. Regards Sven > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > IMO, most players feel justified in refraining from > > > > divulging such holistic understandings. > > > > > > > +=+ And yet, a player is authorized to ask > > > questions ...."about relevant calls available > > > but not made". If he is not given the meaning > > > of each call made does it not become far too > > > complicated to identify what of this kind may > > > be asked about? +=+ > > > > But Law 21F1 states: "... any player ... may > > request a full explanation of opponents' auction > > (questions may be asked about calls actually made or > > about relevant calls available but not made), ..." > > > > Are you saying that the clauses within the > > parenthesis prohibit a player from requesting "a full > > explanation" using the statement suggested by Nigel, > > i.e. that he must request explanations individually of > > each call made and relevant calls not made, one by > > one? > > > +=+ I am absolutely not saying that. Indeed he > should ask for a full explanation. The weakness of the > 1997 Laws is the dispersal of statements on one subject. > In this case we go to 75C to find a further statement > concerning the responsibility of the player who is asked > for a full explanation. He shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership > agreement of partnership experience. And yes, these > terms do cover information gleaned from the fact that > partner has not selected an alternative call that is > available. But do you think that your player responding > to a holistic question is any more likely to think of > and explain all the possible alternatives? The need > will remain for the questioner to be able to supplement > his question with enquiry about one or more call(s) > that were available but not made. If he is to know what > call(s) to ask about he must know what calls have been > explained by the holistic response. Otherwise he is > guessing blindly concerning the addditional knowledge > to be sought. That is how it seems to me, and that is > my point. +=+ > < > > Or as the question I prefer to make as a defender > > after the closing pass and before the opening lead: > > "From the auction: What are we entitled to know > > about your hands?" > > > > Is this question improper? I consider it a perfect > > request for a full explanation of opponents' entire > > auction? > > > +=+ It is proper. Because the responder knows that > the authority given in the laws is specifically to request > a full explanation, nothing less at this stage, whatever > the terms of the question put, so far as the law goes > it should be responded to as a request for a full > explanation. (I am aware of the impracticality of the > law as it stands and I argue for change. The problem > under the 1997 laws is that, technically at least, the > responder who does not explain fully is always liable. > Curtailment of the question is an extenuating factor > not absolution - question and answer regarding > an individual call are regarded as misdemeanours > rather than felonies because the practice prevails.) > ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 8 11:33:23 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:33:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specificpurpose References: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003401c73310$869280f0$93a587d9@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: Jerry Fusselman To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 1:11 AM Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specificpurpose On board 1, North deals and opens 1C, alerted "precision"; East bids 1S, which is alerted. If East is showing four or more spades, South has a great bid to show his hand. But East might not be showing spades, and South will not know until he asks why it was alerted. So, cleverly, South doesn't ask, and he bids 2S (which, assuming it is a cue bid, shows 9+ HCP, no 5-card suit and no spade stopper). South expects North to treat 1S natural for the purpose of understanding South's call, because South has not asked what the alert means. South meant 2S to be a cue bid in their system, and North was listening to the absence of a question about the alert and understands it that way, even after he later finds out the meaning of East's 1S conventional bid: It shows a red or minor two-suiter. On board 5, same dealer and same auction, but this time South has 5 spades, so he asks the meaning of 1S. It again shows the red suits or the minors. South bids 2S again, but this time with a totally different meaning: (Here it is a natural bid showing 4-7 HCP and five spades.) I have been told that South and North are lawful here because no player is ever required to ask the meaning of an alerted bid, but I suspect that North and South on board 1 are both in violation of Law 73A1. North-South agreements after the 1S overcall depend on what 1S shows, so I think that they must find out the meaning of 1S. They must not use the presence or absence of a question by South to affect the meaning of their calls. South's declining to ask is not AI to North, and North should continue the auction as if South understood what 1S showed. What's more, South's lack of question is UI to North and North is in a situation where Law 16A applies in full force. Anyway, that's what I currently think. But I am no director. Am I right or not? Even if this is right, there is probably a much clearer way to put it, and when is the proper time for East-West to call the director? And what should the director do? Jerry Fusselman +=+ There are two questions. In the regulations applying to the event is the subject dealt with? Is the method disclosed on the convention card, or otherwise as the regulations may require? Failure to disclose is an offence. Failure to comply with the regulations is an offence. The implications of the 1997 Laws are such that, unless there is a relevant regulation, the situation is unclear. (I doubt that there is authorization in the laws for such an agreement but some of my colleagues see no conflict with the laws.) The Director should know what ruling to make where he is working; if he doesn't he should allow the result to stand but refer the ruling to an appeals committee himself. The time to call the Director is when attention has been called to an irregularity. If you have substantial reason to believe that there is an infraction call attention to it and call the Director. In the course of events you describe I would suggest you have a question as soon as you become aware of the different meaning of a bid in the same auction to that point. This is quite likely to be after the hand is played. It is then fair enough to test the position. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 8 11:47:46 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:47:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specific purpose References: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> <1H3rC4-25FoJ60@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003a01c73312$8342a7c0$93a587d9@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: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specific purpose Hi Jerry, From: "Jerry Fusselman" > On board 1, North deals and opens 1C, alerted "precision"; East bids > 1S, which is alerted. If East is showing four or more spades, South > has a great bid to show his hand. But East might not be showing > spades, and South will not know until he asks why it was alerted. > So, cleverly, South doesn't ask, and he bids 2S (which, assuming > it is a cue bid, shows 9+ HCP, no 5-card suit and no spade stopper). > South expects North to treat 1S natural for the purpose of > understanding South's call, because South has not asked what the > alert means. South meant 2S to be a cue bid in their system, and > North was listening to the absence of a question about the alert and > understands it that way, even after he later finds out the meaning of > East's 1S conventional bid: It shows a red or minor two-suiter. > On board 5, same dealer and same auction, but this time South has 5 > spades, so he asks the meaning of 1S. It again shows the red suits or > the minors. South bids 2S again, but this time with a totally > different meaning: (Here it is a natural bid showing 4-7 HCP and > five spades.) I have been told that South and North are lawful > here because no player is ever required to ask the meaning of an > alerted bid, but I suspect that North and South on board 1 are both > in violation of Law 73A1. North-South agreements after the 1S > overcall depend on what 1S shows, so I think that they must find out > the meaning of 1S. They must not use the presence or absence of a > question by South to affect the meaning of their calls. > South's declining to ask is not AI to North, and North should > continue the auction as if South understood what 1S showed. > What's more, South's lack of question is UI to North > and North is in a situation where Law 16A applies in full force. > Anyway, that's what I currently think. But I am no director. > Am I right or not? Even if this is right, there is probably a much > clearer way to put it, and when is the proper time for East-West to > call the director? And what should the director do? IT's not Law 73 A1 but 73 B1 und B2 Law 73 B1: "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, _through questions asked or not asked of the opponents_ or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Law 73 B2: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." If you play a two-way defence against an opponent's method it's your duty to be sure you know the systemic meaning of opponent's call. You neither are allowed to ask to wake up partner, nor to refuse to ask to imply a natural meaning into opponent's call. Regards Peter +=+ That's accurate, Peter. But a player who has a prior agreement as to his defence is allowed to ask a question for his own benefit, not to inform partner. So, unless there is a regulation laying a duty on the player to know the meaning of his opponent's call, or alternatively a regulation disallowing the prior agreement, there has to be a finding of improper communication to partner in order to rule as you say. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jan 8 13:34:35 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:34:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specific purpose In-Reply-To: <003a01c73312$8342a7c0$93a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> <1H3rC4-25FoJ60@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> <003a01c73312$8342a7c0$93a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <1H3thz-0aEKWW0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ That's accurate, Peter. But a player who has a > prior agreement as to his defence is allowed to ask > a question for his own benefit, not to inform partner. > So, unless there is a regulation laying a duty on the > player to know the meaning of his opponent's call, > or alternatively a regulation disallowing the prior > agreement, ?there has to be a finding of improper > communication to partner in order to rule as you say. > ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ yes, sure. It was a bit sloppy from me not to mention the normal - and of course lawful - situations, where a player is entitled to ask. But, as the OP asked specifically about the "unlawful" ones ... 2 years ago I had a similiar case The bidding went (board 7, all vul) pass - pass - 1 C (prec) - 1 D ...?... (TD) 1 D was alerted and after explained by partner, the overcaller wanted to change his bid. 1. the overcaller had Dx, xxx, AKJxx, xxx 2. against precision 1 D showed spades 3. against precision 2 D was a kind of Wilkosz 4. overcaller's partner confirmed to me, the alert was made in a extraordinary correct way 5. overcaller's partner said to me at the table, that overcaller to all appearance overlooked the alert intentionally 6. overvaller's partner said to me at the table, that they had an agreement to treat 1 C allways as natural, if they did not ask So, I ruled according to some minute of the WBFLC that the 1 D could not be changed and that defenders had a lot of UI to deal with ... and I informed my CTD, who gave a heavy PP after examining himself as the play concluded (BTW: an assigned score was necessary, Law 16A). The defenders appealed and the AC ruled, that I must have misunderstood overcallers partner. They overruled my decision not to allow Law 25 B and assigned some Law 25 B2bbb score and they asked the CTD to erase the PP - what he did. So, sometimes it is not enough to find out some improper way of communication ;-( Regards Peter From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 8 17:08:01 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:08:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:48 AM 1/7/07, richard.hills wrote: >Richard Hills: > > >>Under the ABF Alert Regulation, all calls are either "conventional" > >>or alternatively "natural". A "natural" call is defined as "not > >>conventional". A "conventional" call is defined as per Chapter One > >>of The Fabulous Law Book. > >Eric Landau: > > >And as far as the Law is concerned, that is all that is necessary. > >Richard Hills: > >Not so fast. > >There is also Law 40D, which gives sponsoring organisations the >right to create further classifications (as, for example, the EBU >creation of an Amber Psyche classification). I'm not sure exactly what an "Amber Psyche" is, but if it is not conventional, then the legality of its "classification" must derive from the second sentence of L40D, which allows regulation of light opening bids. That power applies to any opening bid that meets the "King or more below average strength" criterion, regardless of whether or not it is deemed "conventional". It is only when applying the first sentence that we might care (that the WBF officially doesn't is unfortunate, but off-topic), and that requires only the purely binary distinction between "conventional" and "not conventional". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 8 17:27:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:27:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <001a01c7330e$74774240$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001a01c7330e$74774240$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <493DF66F-14F0-4B08-9F2D-3209CB7F6ABE@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 8, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > It occasionally happens that when I ask my "standard" question I > get a first > response "which call do you want explained" or words to a similar > effect. I > then just tell that I want a full description, not of the actual > hands but > of the hands as they have been described according to their > agreements by > their auction. > > I have found my "standard" question very efficient in all respects > for both > sides. Heh. I once asked experienced opponents "please explain your auction" before the opening lead was faced. They said "huh?" I repeated my question. They called the director. The *director* asked me which call I wanted explained. :-( The auction had started 1C-1H-3H, and in the course of the "discussion" responder asserted "I don't have to explain what 3H means" - and the director backed her up on that. I never did get an answer to my question. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 8 17:37:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:37:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I'm not sure exactly what an "Amber Psyche" is, but if it is not > conventional, then the legality of its "classification" must derive > from the second sentence of L40D, which allows regulation of light > opening bids. That power applies to any opening bid that meets the > "King or more below average strength" criterion, regardless of whether > or not it is deemed "conventional". It is only when applying the > first > sentence that we might care (that the WBF officially doesn't is > unfortunate, but off-topic), and that requires only the purely binary > distinction between "conventional" and "not conventional". I'm not in the EBU, but... in the first instance, a convention is an agreement, and a psyche is a call which is *not* made by agreement, so a psyche, whatever color it may be, cannot be a convention. As I understand it, the "red, amber, green" classifications are designed to deal with the question whether a call is actually a psyche, or may be a CPU. If there's no evidence/likelihood of a CPU, it's green, if there's some evidence, but not enough to rule there *was* a CPU, it's amber, and if it looks like there really was a CPU, it's red. In theory, at least, the SO tracks these things, so that a player will be known to have made a particular psyche, which may have been classified green or amber in the past, but now there is cause to rate the latest iteration as red, because of frequency. It is under Law 40B that the psyche classification regulation falls. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 8 17:43:20 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:43:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <493DF66F-14F0-4B08-9F2D-3209CB7F6ABE@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c73344$1b1b5fc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jan 8, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > It occasionally happens that when I ask my "standard" question I > > get a first > > response "which call do you want explained" or words to a similar > > effect. I > > then just tell that I want a full description, not of the actual > > hands but > > of the hands as they have been described according to their > > agreements by > > their auction. > > > > I have found my "standard" question very efficient in all respects > > for both > > sides. > > Heh. I once asked experienced opponents "please explain your auction" > before the opening lead was faced. They said "huh?" I repeated my > question. They called the director. The *director* asked me which > call I wanted explained. :-( The auction had started 1C-1H-3H, and in > the course of the "discussion" responder asserted "I don't have to > explain what 3H means" - and the director backed her up on that. I > never did get an answer to my question. Incapable director! { I remember you have told us this story before 8-) } regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 8 17:45:10 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:45:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specificpurpose In-Reply-To: <003401c73310$869280f0$93a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> <003401c73310$869280f0$93a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <788B10E7-159D-4F93-B7EF-F83F1B805FD2@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 8, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > The Director should know what ruling to make > where he is working; if he doesn't he should > allow the result to stand but refer the ruling to > an appeals committee himself. Not sure I understand the rationale here. Seems to me "what ruling to make" in this case is a matter of law (or perhaps regulation, but it amounts to the same thing). A committee cannot overturn a TD on a matter of law. So the most the TD can get from a committee is a recommendation to change his ruling - which may or may not be based on knowing what the correct ruling should be. Why shouldn't the TD consult with more knowledgeable directors before ruling? That would make more sense to me. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 8 17:53:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:53:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <000301c73344$1b1b5fc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c73344$1b1b5fc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <31B1F5B8-46E0-4FC7-B050-DC8E9BB822FB@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Incapable director! > > { I remember you have told us this story before 8-) } Yeah. The funny thing is, she thinks she's a better director than I am - simply because (a) she's been doing it longer - much longer - and (b) she believes in rulings that "make everybody happy" where I believe in making rulings that follow the law. From adam at irvine.com Mon Jan 8 18:18:31 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:18:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specific purpose In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:11:19 CST." <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200701081653.IAA09995@mailhub.irvine.com> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On board 1, North deals and opens 1C, alerted "precision"; East bids 1S, > which is alerted. If East is showing four or more spades, South has a great > bid to show his hand. But East might not be showing spades, and South will > not know until he asks why it was alerted. So, cleverly, South doesn't ask, > and he bids 2S (which, assuming it is a cue bid, shows 9+ HCP, no 5-card > suit and no spade stopper). > > South expects North to treat 1S natural for the purpose of understanding > South's call, because South has not asked what the alert means. South meant > 2S to be a cue bid in their system, and North was listening to the absence > of a question about the alert and understands it that way, even after he > later finds out the meaning of East's 1S conventional bid: It shows a red > or minor two-suiter. I think the Laws put the onus on North here. North has UI that South did not ask a question. He must therefore be careful not to gain from this UI. I believe that (1) North must alert the 2S bid, if there is any possible meaning for 2S that is alertable according to the SO's regulations; (2) if West asks about the meaning of 2S, North will need to ask what 1S meant before he explains the 2S call, and then must explain 2S in the context of their agreements (apparently natural with 4-7 HCP in this case); (3) when it's North's turn to bid, he must ask what 1S meant if he hasn't gotten this information already, and then must bid as if 2S means what it's supposed to mean over this 1S bid (natural, as above). Also, North has to avoid taking any action that is suggested by the UI (that no question was asked); but determining what is suggested may be tricky here. If North suspects that South is trying to communicate information improperly, then the UI definitely suggests that South has the kind of hand that would bid 2S over a natural 1S, and North must avoid logical alternatives that are suggested by this information. But suppose, on the other hand, that South was somebody with a modicum of ethics (such as all or most of the readers of BLML); there may be legitimate reasons for South not to ask a question, such as E-W are friends of his and South already knows what their bids mean. Now the UI that South didn't ask a question doesn't suggest anything---and if we were to rule that it did, then we would be essentially preventing people from playing bridge, because we'd be saying that normal UI that occurs on every hand can put restrictions on how players can bid. So the TD has a tricky job here. In some cases, it may be obvious that North has violated the rules. For example, if North has good spade support but never shows it opposite South's "natural" 2S bid, then North has clearly taken advantage of UI and an adjustment is in order. But in other cases, it may not be obvious, and the TD probably can't rule based on North's hand alone. As for South, if he has deliberately attempted to show a hand type by failing to ask a question, then he is cheating, but it could be impossible to prove if South denies it (*). South could have simply misbid after failing to hear the alert or failing to notice it, and that is not an infraction. The reason I've focused on North here is that North is the one with the UI and therefore if an adjustment is in order, it has to be based on what North did with the UI, the way the Laws are written. (*) I wrote this before reading your description of board 5; I think that when both boards are taken into account, there is enough evidence to take South outside and shoot him. > On board 5, same dealer and same auction, but this time South has 5 spades, > so he asks the meaning of 1S. It again shows the red suits or the > minors. South bids 2S again, but this time with a totally different > meaning: (Here it is a natural bid showing 4-7 HCP and five spades.) > > I have been told that South and North are lawful here because no player is > ever required to ask the meaning of an alerted bid, but I suspect that North > and South on board 1 are both in violation of Law 73A1. South is definitely in violation of 73B1 if he's doing this intentionally (as it appears he is). You could say he's violating 73A1 also, but 73A1 is more of a general statement of principles that 73B1 expounds on. North may be in violation of 73C. It is lawful not to ask a question, but it does create UI. So does asking a question. So does answering a question. So does alerting. There are several situations where lawful (and sometimes required) actions create UI. It's not illegal to create UI, unless it's done deliberately in an attempt to communicate information, and then it's cheating; it *is* illegal to use UI in a manner that violates Law 16 or 73C. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 8 18:50:36 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:50:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0701080843nfdf616aj95aeef221825282e@mail.gmail.com> References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0701080843nfdf616aj95aeef221825282e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:43 AM, richard willey wrote: > I just recieved a response to my question about Muiderberg 2s from > Richard Beye. I'm attaching his response: The short form is that > things that Muiderberg 2s are not legal at the GCC level. Figures. :-) Be interesting to see how Mike responds to Rick's opinion. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 9 00:49:26 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:49:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0701080843nfdf616aj95aeef221825282e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <98E14402-B111-4903-8AD7-7E7CBC9B5619@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:43 AM, richard willey wrote: > >> I just recieved a response to my question about Muiderberg 2s from >> Richard Beye. I'm attaching his response: The short form is that >> things that Muiderberg 2s are not legal at the GCC level. > > Figures. :-) > > Be interesting to see how Mike responds to Rick's opinion. Oops. this should have gone to Richard only. My bad. :-( From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 01:15:31 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:15:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0701080843nfdf616aj95aeef221825282e@mail.gmail.com> References: <6FA0F813-58B4-43AB-922A-02EEBC28BE9A@rochester.rr.com> <2da24b8e0701041905w758ade40oef61f656906b193@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0701080843nfdf616aj95aeef221825282e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0701081615v407ce9dblc8cd2c588cafea36@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: richard willey Date: Jan 8, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids To: Ed Reppert On 1/4/07, richard willey wrote: > There was a discussion whether a Muiderberg style 2M opening that > showed 5+ SSpades and a 4+ card minor was legal at the GCC level. I > claimed that the opening is > > (a) Conventional > (b) Not legal at the GCC level I just recieved a response to my question about Muiderberg 2s from Richard Beye. I'm attaching his response: The short form is that he thinks that Muiderberg 2s are not legal at the GCC level. I have no idea if any of these opinions are authoritative >Mr. Wiley, > >I do not have a copy of the original email. However, I likely disagree with Mike's >interpretation below. The agreement you note in your first paragraph below would >not be legal on the GCC unless it promised two known suits and a minimum of 10 >HCPs. The GCC seems pretty clear on this point. >It sounds like Mr. Meyerson is attempting to play some variation of Wilkosz, a >convention pretty much obsolete, prohibited in most parts of the world. If you >could, please send me a copy of the original email. Too, feel free to share my >email with Mr. Meyerson. >As a side note - We have no agreements on the GCC which would require a written >defense. >Respectfully, >Richard F. Beye >Chief Tournament Director >American Contract Bridge League >2990 Airways Boulevard >Memphis, TN 38116 >901-332-5586, ext. 1331 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 9 01:42:27 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:42:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Searching BLML archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701051156m1650aad2ve0b567b7d205991a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >What method do you use to search BLML for old discussions >that might pertain to your question? I see that archives >are accessible from http://www.rtflb.org/, but is there >some way to search the information? Has anyone had >success downloading everything and then doing something >else to make searches possible? Richard Hills: The simplest answer to Jerry's question is that there is a parallel searchable informal archive merely known as "Ask Richard". I have kept copies of interesting emails from blml debates dating back many years in a special "chrestomathy" folder. So when the topic comes up again, my elephantine memory allows me to retrieve that email and quote from it. An example of a debate on the De Wael School is attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor National Training Branch (02) 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for * * * "asked jesting Pilate" thread (with bonus added RJH footnotes) -> Richard James Hills wrote: >"What is Truth?" was an important question 2000 >years ago. > >It is still an important question in bridge, given >that Truth is the basis of the requirement to >disclose mandated by Law 75. > >David Burn seems to be asserting that Truth is >relative and contextual. However, Law 75 as a >whole seems to me to be to be based on the >philosophy that Truth is an absolute. > >It seems to me that the logical basis of the >footnote to Law 75 is that: > >* If a partnership has agreed that it is Truth > that a particular call has a defined partnership > meaning of X; >* If one or both members of the partnership > have temporarily forgotten the Truth, and > assume that the call has a meaning of Y; >* Then, according to the footnote to Law 75, the > Truth that must be disclosed is still X. Herman De Wael wrote: What I find abhorring in all these cases is not that you seem to be saying that X is True, but that you are also saying that Y is false. While all the time Y is actually what partner has. N:"4NT" E:"?" S:"asking for minors" S:"5Di" W:"?" N:"one ace" or "better diamonds than clubs" While systemically "one ace" may be True, in reality "better diamonds" is true.(7) So why all this writing about "better diamonds" being False?(8) What is Truth, indeed?(9) ===================================================== (7) Footnote number 8 is true. (8) Footnote number 7 is false. (9) It is Truth that the footnote to Law 75 states: ...Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands... 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jan 9 04:14:07 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:14:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning In-Reply-To: <200701081706.l08H660C014690@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200701081706.l08H660C014690@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45A3087F.6020504@cfa.harvard.edu> > So, cleverly, South doesn't ask... Bo-Yin Yang called attention to this several years ago, and I wrote to Edgar Kaplan about it. EK responded to the effect that knowledge of whether partner had asked a question or not was UI, but it wasn't clear to me how the NOS rights were to be enforced in practical terms. Adam's post makes the same point. For a possibly entertaining example, here's a recent post to rec.games.bridge: > IMPs, neither vulnerable, you hold: > 4 JT62 AT54 K732 > RHO deals and opens a strong club, 16+, any distribution. You pass (do > you agree?), LHO bids 1H showing 4 or more spades, any distribution > except 4432 or 4333, could include a longer suit other than spades, game > forcing. Partner comes in with 1S, and opener doubles that for > penalties. You have no agreements about what 1S should show in this > auction; strong club systems are rare (USA), and nearly everyone who > plays them uses natural responses, not transfers. Consider your answer. There were a variety of answers on r.g.b, mostly 2S or heart bids and some SOS redoubles. There were one or two passes, and a few players would have bid on the previous round. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The rest of the story: > In fact, it was an opponent who held this hand, and they had no problem > at all. The amusing thing is, the 1S bidder didn't ask about the > alerted 1H bid, obviously making 1S natural. What a wonderful two-way > method! As this thread has shown, some people with less... umm... > sophisticated agreements :-) will have a harder time. The full layout > was something like: > AT9 > KQx > QJxxx > AT > > KQxxx 4 > x JT62 > Kxxx AT54 > AJx K732 > > Jxxx > A9xxx > -- > Q9xx > I was South. My game force was a little aggressive, but we hadn't had > a relay auction in the past three sessions, and I thought it would be a > good deal to practice on. Of course East had no problem passing 1Sx, > which we took for 300 and won 3 IMPs (probably NS +140 in hearts at the other table). > We can get 500 on best defense, but it isn't easy to find. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 9 18:10:50 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:10:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve aspecificpurpose References: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com><003401c73310$869280f0$93a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <788B10E7-159D-4F93-B7EF-F83F1B805FD2@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c73482$555fe810$ea8d403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve aspecificpurpose > > On Jan 8, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> The Director should know what ruling to make >> where he is working; if he doesn't he should >> allow the result to stand but refer the ruling to >> an appeals committee himself. > > Not sure I understand the rationale here. Seems to > me "what ruling to make" in this case is a matter of > law (or perhaps regulation, but it amounts to the > same thing). A committee cannot overturn a TD on a > matter of law. So the most the TD can get from a > committee is a recommendation to change his ruling > - which may or may not be based on knowing what > the correct ruling should be. Why shouldn't the TD > consult with more knowledgeable directors before > ruling? That would make more sense to me. > +=+ We always assume that Directors will consult concerning judgemental matters and situations where they are doubtful as to interpretation of Law or existence of regulation. If the Director (i.e. the one in charge) does not know the answer in this matter he has to make a ruling. If there is an obvious infraction he rules accordingly, if not he makes a ruling that allows play to continue. But if he is in doubt about what his ruling should be, he should make it and refer it to appeal, telling them of his problem, not leave it unresolved, and then see what the appeals committee decides. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 10 07:41:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:41:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001101c73482$5663c380$ea8d403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > >. In > theory, at least, the SO tracks these things, so > that a player will be known to have made a > particular psyche, which may have been > classified green or amber in the past, but now > there is cause to rate the latest iteration as red, > because of frequency. It is under Law 40B that > the psyche classification regulation falls. > +=+ Every psyche form goes to a panel of three* who comment individually. If any one of them raises a question about a form it goes to the next meeting of the Laws & Ethics Committee. The classification of psyches may be changed by the committee, after a question to the partnership if appropriate -a few are reclassified as red, a rather greater number in my experience are reclassified as green. I am actually leaving in a couple of hours time for today's meeting of the committee [as an EBU Vice President I am entitled to attend, speak (it does not say 'be heard' :-), but not vote]. The papers for the meeting include about eighteen new cases plus one case where the committee will consider a response from a partnership to a question raised with it. The cases come from competitions at all levels. There is also one further case where the committee has called for the psyche record of one particular player - eleven recorded psyches between January 2002 and August 2006, the player having been invited to comment on the last three occasions (all of these three with the same partner, May 2005, May 2006 and August 2006). The last meeting of the committee was on 25th October 06. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * one recently resigned. From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 07:46:26 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:46:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <001101c73482$5663c380$ea8d403e@Mildred> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> <001101c73482$5663c380$ea8d403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701092246j4fa4f3cdj301cef9daf1ed161@mail.gmail.com> On 10/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > > > > > >. In > > theory, at least, the SO tracks these things, so > > that a player will be known to have made a > > particular psyche, which may have been > > classified green or amber in the past, but now > > there is cause to rate the latest iteration as red, > > because of frequency. It is under Law 40B that > > the psyche classification regulation falls. > > > +=+ Every psyche form goes to a panel of three* > who comment individually. If any one of them raises > a question about a form it goes to the next meeting > of the Laws & Ethics Committee. The classification > of psyches may be changed by the committee, after > a question to the partnership if appropriate -a few > are reclassified as red, a rather greater number in > my experience are reclassified as green. > I am actually leaving in a couple of hours time for > today's meeting of the committee [as an EBU Vice > President I am entitled to attend, speak (it does not > say 'be heard' :-), but not vote]. The papers for the > meeting include about eighteen new cases plus one > case where the committee will consider a response > from a partnership to a question raised with it. The > cases come from competitions at all levels. There is > also one further case where the committee has called > for the psyche record of one particular player - eleven > recorded psyches between January 2002 and August > 2006, the player having been invited to comment on > the last three occasions (all of these three with the > same partner, May 2005, May 2006 and August 2006). Three psyches in 21 months. Does someone think he does not psyche often enough? Wayne From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 10 08:09:58 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:09:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c73486$88f0c150$67de403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > > On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I'm not sure exactly what an "Amber Psyche" is, < +=+ Red: A partnership's actions on one board are sufficient for the TD to find that there is an unauthorized understanding Amber: There is some evidence of an unauthorized understanding but not sufficient to justify adjustment of the score Green : the Director finds nothing untoward (the majority of cases - of eleven psyches for one player, whose record since 2002 I have seen today, one was originally classified as Amber, one as Red, the remainder as Green). ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 10 08:19:55 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:19:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> <001101c73482$5663c380$ea8d403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701092246j4fa4f3cdj301cef9daf1ed161@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601c73487$c064a880$7ace403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > On 10/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ***************************************** >> "Beware when the great God lets >> loose a thinker on this planet." >> ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. >> =========================== >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ed Reppert" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids >> >> >> > >> >. In >> > theory, at least, the SO tracks these things, so >> > that a player will be known to have made a >> > particular psyche, which may have been >> > classified green or amber in the past, but now >> > there is cause to rate the latest iteration as red, >> > because of frequency. It is under Law 40B that >> > the psyche classification regulation falls. >> > >> +=+ Every psyche form goes to a panel of three* >> who comment individually. If any one of them raises >> a question about a form it goes to the next meeting >> of the Laws & Ethics Committee. The classification >> of psyches may be changed by the committee, after >> a question to the partnership if appropriate -a few >> are reclassified as red, a rather greater number in >> my experience are reclassified as green. >> I am actually leaving in a couple of hours time for >> today's meeting of the committee [as an EBU Vice >> President I am entitled to attend, speak (it does not >> say 'be heard' :-), but not vote]. The papers for the >> meeting include about eighteen new cases plus one >> case where the committee will consider a response >> from a partnership to a question raised with it. The >> cases come from competitions at all levels. There is >> also one further case where the committee has called >> for the psyche record of one particular player - eleven >> recorded psyches between January 2002 and August >> 2006, the player having been invited to comment on >> the last three occasions (all of these three with the >> same partner, May 2005, May 2006 and August 2006). > > *Three psyches in 21 months. Does someone think > he does not psyche often enough? > > Wayne +=+ I cannot comment upon the case. It is of course the actions of the partners following a psyche that determine classification. You may be sure it is not mere frequency that has caused an eyebrow to be raised, more likely something to do with pattern. * Three psyches to which attention has been drawn and which have been recorded, to be accurate. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 10 08:53:58 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:53:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002801c7348d$6c8ecf00$a701e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > > On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I'm not sure exactly what an "Amber Psyche" is, but if it is not >> conventional, then the legality of its "classification" must derive >> from the second sentence of L40D, which allows regulation of light >> opening bids. That power applies to any opening bid that meets the >> "King or more below average strength" criterion, regardless of whether >> or not it is deemed "conventional". < +=+ Or when the suit shown may not be present? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 10 09:00:34 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:00:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002901c7348d$6da10250$a701e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > In theory, at least, the SO tracks these things, so that a player will > be known to have made a particular psyche, which may have been > classified green or amber in the past, but now there is cause to rate > the latest iteration as red, because of frequency. It is under Law > 40B that the psyche classification regulation falls. > +=+ Not so often frequency as pattern in the partnership's actions. Remember, too, that the player in question will be playing in bridge clubs and in other non-EBU regional, charity, etc., tournaments from which it is likely no form will be forwarded to the national authority - and of course forms received relate to psyches to which attention has been drawn and which have therefore been recorded. It is a tip-of-the-iceberg situation at times. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 10 10:32:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:32:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve aspecificpurpose In-Reply-To: <001001c73482$555fe810$ea8d403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0701061711n5aa17347u657be991cec09700@mail.gmail.com> <003401c73310$869280f0$93a587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <788B10E7-159D-4F93-B7EF-F83F1B805FD2@rochester.rr.com> <001001c73482$555fe810$ea8d403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:10 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > But if he is in doubt about > what his ruling should be, he should make it and refer > it to appeal, telling them of his problem, not leave it > unresolved, and then see what the appeals committee > decides. I did not suggest that he leave it unresolved - it's just that I'm not convinced an appeals committee is the right way to resolve it. If it's a matter of regulations under the purview of the sponsoring organization, I would think the SO's Tournament Committee or some such would be the right place. Besides, if the AC is chosen from amongst the players at the event, I don't think they're likely to know any more than the director what the correct answer is. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 10 20:39:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:39:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids In-Reply-To: <002801c7348d$6c8ecf00$a701e150@Mildred> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net> <7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> <002801c7348d$6c8ecf00$a701e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070110120722.02b3c480@pop.starpower.net> At 02:53 AM 1/10/07, gesta wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure exactly what an "Amber Psyche" is, but if it is not > >> conventional, then the legality of its "classification" must derive > >> from the second sentence of L40D, which allows regulation of light > >> opening bids. That power applies to any opening bid that meets the > >> "King or more below average strength" criterion, regardless of whether > >> or not it is deemed "conventional". >< >+=+ Or when the suit shown may not be present? ~ G ~ +=+ My misunderstanding. The original post to which I replied had misled me into thinking that "amber psychs" had to do with agreements that were illegal by regulation. From Grattan's recent explanantion of the green/amber/red classification, I gather that it is an enforcement mechanism for L40B, i.e. that a thus-exposed "violation" means a CPU, rather than the (unconcealed) use of a banned method, and thus has nothing to do with L40D at all. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 11 18:49:51 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:49:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070105105113.02bcb3d0@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20070108105802.02a74ca0@pop.starpower.net><7B6B19BB-E599-46A7-A03C-86F855B71C27@rochester.rr.com> <000401c73486$88f0c150$67de403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004001c735a8$e5212140$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] natural bids and conventional bids > > >> >> On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure exactly what an "Amber Psyche" is, > < > +=+ Red: A partnership's actions on one board are > sufficient for the TD to find that there is an unauthorized > understanding > Amber: There is some evidence of an unauthorized > understanding but not sufficient to justify adjustment of > the score > Green : the Director finds nothing untoward (the > majority of cases - of eleven psyches for one player, > whose record since 2002 I have seen today, one was > originally classified as Amber, one as Red, the remainder > as Green). Could easily be me (but probably isn't) :) cheers john > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jan 12 00:58:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:58:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations Message-ID: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] Remember, too, that the player in question will be playing in bridge clubs and in other non-EBU regional, charity, etc., tournaments from which it is likely no form will be forwarded to the national authority - and of course forms received relate to psyches to which attention has been drawn and which have therefore been recorded. It is a tip-of-the-iceberg situation at times. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [nige1] Grattan, Please tell us... Is the EBU unique in monitoring and recording "psyches"? Do departures from system have to be "gross" to be recorded (because most concealed understandings are about minor deviations). My understanding of psych nomenclature (mostly paraphrased from the EBU Orange Book) is... A *departure* from your agreement as divulged to opponents may vary from *minor* to *gross*. A departure may be a *mistake* (mechanical or a slip of the mind) or *deliberate*. A *deviation* is a *deliberate minor departure*. A *psych* us a *deliberate gross departure*. You may not psych *frivolously* (for example when you have lost interest in the competition). Otherwise, a psych that flouts your agreement *as disclosed to opponents* -- but is as much a surprise to your partner as to your opponents -- is legal. It is illegal if you make partner aware of a "psych" by *unauthorised information* or if it is the subject to a *concealed agreement*. A *concealed partnership understanding (CPU)* (like any agreement) may range from *explicit agreement* to a pattern of (apparent) psyching of which partner is more aware than opponents. For example, some regular "psychers" prefer certain -- positions (eg opening 3rd in hand, replying to pre-empts, bidding over RHO's takeout double, trial bids, cue-bids etc) -- or other contexts (not vul or when losing a match) An "implicit concealed understanding* is a pattern that makes it easier for partner to diagnose your psych than opponent. You *field* a psych when partner "psychs" and you depart from system in a way that seemingly allows for it (It does not matter what your intention is; or even if are aware of partner's psych). The *rule of coincidence* is the suspicion of a CPU when you field partner's "psych". (It may be obvious that *somebody* is at it, but you should have reason to expect that it is partner rather than either opponent). Under the EBU, A *single such coincidence* that suggests a likely CPU, attracts a 60%-30% penalty for a *red* psyche. When there is a mild suspicion of a CPU but inadequate evidence then the psych is *amber*. Most psychs are above board, showing no evidence of fielding, so are *green*. Under the ACBL, the director penalizes only if there is a historical pattern of psych-fielding or hard evidence. In practice, does this mean that the ACBL colludes with psychers to condone CPUS (see Grattan's "Iceberg" analogy)? If so, I prefer the EBU attitude. A *psychic control* is a systemic agreement to cater for a partnership psych. For example, the Orange book says it's illegal to psych a suit then use a "Watson" double of 3N to ask for the lead of a different suit. A more important question is whether a partnership may employ "Drury" if either partner is known to psych in third seat? IMO No :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 12 06:16:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:16:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] alertability [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493DF66F-14F0-4B08-9F2D-3209CB7F6ABE@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >>>The auction had started 1C-1H-3H, and in the course of >>>the "discussion" responder asserted "I don't have to >>>explain what 3H means" - and the director backed her >>>up on that. I never did get an answer to my question. Sven Pran: >>Incapable director! >> >>{ I remember you have told us this story before 8-) } Ed Reppert: >Yeah. The funny thing is, she thinks she's a better >director than I am - simply because (a) she's been doing >it longer - much longer - and (b) she believes in >rulings that "make everybody happy" where I believe in >making rulings that follow the law. Richard Hills: I would argue "Incapable lawbook!" rather than "Incapable director!" The director has simply made a ruling in accordance with the Marvin French interpretation of Law 75. Law 75A requires all "special" partnership agreements to be disclosed, but Marvin French would argue that a Goren's Bridge Complete jump to 3H is not "special", so need not be disclosed. And the fact that Goren defines all jump raises as game forcing Marvin French defines as "general knowledge and experience" under Law 75C, so again Marvin French would argue that this information need not be disclosed. The possibility that Ed might never read Goren's Bridge Complete is irrelevant to a Marvin French interpretation of Law 75. So, until Law 75 is rewritten, Ed cannot legally gain any satisfaction against a Director whose rulings are French fried. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 12 06:43:11 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:43:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45A6CF12.1090103@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Is the EBU unique in monitoring and recording "psyches"? Richard Hills: One of Sydney's most prestigious bridge clubs, the Lindfield Bridge Club, has a regulation which requires the psycher themself to complete a psyche form as soon as the session finishes. By requiring the psycher rather than the TD to complete the form the Club management has a hope that the number of psyches will be reduced (since those who might otherwise choose to psyche will avoid the paperwork taking up their post-session socialising time). At ABF national championships (such as the forthcoming Summer Festival of Bridge) there is an official Recorder system. Any unethical practices, including Concealed Partnership Understanding pseudo-psyches, may be reported to an official Recorder. Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >You may not psyche *frivolously* (for example when you >have lost interest in the competition). [big snip] Law 74A2: >>A player should carefully avoid any remark or action >>that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another >>player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the >>game. Law 74B1: >>As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: >>paying insufficient attention to the game. 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jan 12 12:49:43 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:49:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A775D7.8080808@NTLworld.com> [nige1] > >> Is the EBU unique in monitoring and recording "psyches"? >> > > Richard Hills: > > One of Sydney's most prestigious bridge clubs, the > Lindfield Bridge Club, has a regulation which requires > the psycher themself to complete a psyche form as soon as > the session finishes. By requiring the psycher rather > than the TD to complete the form the Club management has > a hope that the number of psyches will be reduced (since > those who might otherwise choose to psyche will avoid the > paperwork taking up their post-session socialising time). > > At ABF national championships (such as the forthcoming > Summer Festival of Bridge) there is an official Recorder > system. Any unethical practices, including Concealed > Partnership Understanding pseudo-psyches, may be reported > to an official Recorder. > > [nige2] The Lindfield psych recording system seems excellent: imposing the onus is on *the psycher* to record his own psyches. Presumably, (i) an official makes sure that the player complies and (ii) non-compliance is penalised. The ABF CPU recording system seems to fall short of the EBU system... Richard implies that in the ABF (i) CPUs may or *may not* be recorded. (ii) only *established* CPUs are recorded. (iii) CPUs are recorded only in *national* competition. By contrast, the EBU system (i) penalises and records extreme violations (*red psychs*) immediately. (ii) but also records other psychs whether suspicious (*amber*) or not (*green*). The latter process allows the accumulation of an historical record, from which a *pattern* may be later detected. This will remain a hit or miss protocol until *all* psychs are recorded and sponsors collate local data into a global database. The *data-protection* and *privacy legislation* implications of such a strategy could be horrendous. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 12 15:59:47 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:59:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000601c7365b$2b3de930$b6a587d9@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: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie: > > >Is the EBU unique in monitoring and recording "psyches"? > > Richard Hills: > > One of Sydney's most prestigious bridge clubs, the > Lindfield Bridge Club, has a regulation which requires > the psycher themself to complete a psyche form as soon as > the session finishes. By requiring the psycher rather > than the TD to complete the form the Club management has > a hope that the number of psyches will be reduced (since > those who might otherwise choose to psyche will avoid the > paperwork taking up their post-session socialising time). > > At ABF national championships (such as the forthcoming > Summer Festival of Bridge) there is an official Recorder > system. Any unethical practices, including Concealed > Partnership Understanding pseudo-psyches, may be reported > to an official Recorder. > +=+ It is possible that the EBU's procedure has a longer history and development than some. It goes back some 30 to 35 years, and could now be thought mature - or some might suggest ripe. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ l From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 12 16:45:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:45:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: References: <493DF66F-14F0-4B08-9F2D-3209CB7F6ABE@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:16 AM 1/12/07, richard.hills wrote: >I would argue "Incapable lawbook!" rather than "Incapable >director!" > >The director has simply made a ruling in accordance with >the Marvin French interpretation of Law 75. Law 75A >requires all "special" partnership agreements to be >disclosed, but Marvin French would argue that a Goren's >Bridge Complete jump to 3H is not "special", so need not >be disclosed. > >And the fact that Goren defines all jump raises as game >forcing Marvin French defines as "general knowledge and >experience" under Law 75C, so again Marvin French would >argue that this information need not be disclosed. > >The possibility that Ed might never read Goren's Bridge >Complete is irrelevant to a Marvin French interpretation >of Law 75. So, until Law 75 is rewritten, Ed cannot >legally gain any satisfaction against a Director whose >rulings are French fried. The fallacy in the view that Richard ascribes to Marv is that nowhere does TFLB say that "general knowledge and experience" need not be disclosed. L75C says that "*inferences from*... general knowledge and experience" [emphasis mine] need not be disclosed, which is something entirely different. My interpretation of L75C says that you must inform your opponents that 3H is game-forcing, notwithstanding that this may be GK&E, but need not respond, for example, to the follow-up question "what's the point range for that?", which you could readily figure out (and may well have already) from your GK&E. (Of course, if you do have an explicit agreement about point range, you've already blown it by describing 3H only as "game-forcing".) Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 20:21:56 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:21:56 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> On 12/01/07, Nigel wrote: > You *field* a psych when partner "psychs" and you depart from system in > a way that seemingly allows for it (It does not matter what your > intention is; or even if are aware of partner's psych). > > The *rule of coincidence* is the suspicion of a CPU when you field > partner's "psych". (It may be obvious that *somebody* is at it, but you > should have reason to expect that it is partner rather than either > opponent). > > Under the EBU, A *single such coincidence* that suggests a likely CPU, > attracts a 60%-30% penalty for a *red* psyche. When there is a mild > suspicion of a CPU but inadequate evidence then the psych is *amber*. > Most psychs are above board, showing no evidence of fielding, so are > *green*. IMO this penalty based on a single coincidence is grossly unfair and contrary to L40A which gives a player the right to make 'any' call. Lets say I am aware that the bidding doesn't not 'add up' and further than I suspect partner has psyched but without certain knowledge that it is partner who does not have his bid and I take some action to cater to the possibility that partner has psyched or does not have his bid for some other reason then (in a simple world) two things may occur ... 1. It may have been partner who psyched or whatever and we avert a disaster 2. It could have been the opponent who psyched and I create a disaster As long as there is some chance that it is 2 and not 1 that occurs then it can not be claimed that my choice of calls is based on a CPU. It is not clear what that chance should be but I would think that an experienced player playing against 'normal' opponents even in a new partnership would get this decision right more often than not - there are some auctions that my opponents have never psyched; there are some players that I know will never psyche etc there are many reasons that are nothing to do with a CPU. Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient evidence to establish whether or not a partnership ever gets these situations wrong. And going wrong occasionally would be clear evidence that there is not a concealed partnership agreement. Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly an attempt to discourage psyches which are a legimate part of the game. To me this is in conflict with L40A. Therfore I would argue it is an illegal regulation L80F. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 20:39:08 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:39:08 +1300 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <493DF66F-14F0-4B08-9F2D-3209CB7F6ABE@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701121139y136bc510h9d00aff59deef09d@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/07, Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:16 AM 1/12/07, richard.hills wrote: > > >I would argue "Incapable lawbook!" rather than "Incapable > >director!" > > > >The director has simply made a ruling in accordance with > >the Marvin French interpretation of Law 75. Law 75A > >requires all "special" partnership agreements to be > >disclosed, but Marvin French would argue that a Goren's > >Bridge Complete jump to 3H is not "special", so need not > >be disclosed. > > > >And the fact that Goren defines all jump raises as game > >forcing Marvin French defines as "general knowledge and > >experience" under Law 75C, so again Marvin French would > >argue that this information need not be disclosed. > > > >The possibility that Ed might never read Goren's Bridge > >Complete is irrelevant to a Marvin French interpretation > >of Law 75. So, until Law 75 is rewritten, Ed cannot > >legally gain any satisfaction against a Director whose > >rulings are French fried. > > The fallacy in the view that Richard ascribes to Marv is that nowhere > does TFLB say that "general knowledge and experience" need not be > disclosed. L75C says that "*inferences from*... general knowledge and > experience" [emphasis mine] need not be disclosed, which is something > entirely different. > > My interpretation of L75C says that you must inform your opponents that > 3H is game-forcing, notwithstanding that this may be GK&E, but need not > respond, for example, to the follow-up question "what's the point range > for that?", which you could readily figure out (and may well have > already) from your GK&E. (Of course, if you do have an explicit > agreement about point range, you've already blown it by describing 3H > only as "game-forcing".) > Even if you have an implicit agreement you need to disclose it or perhaps more likely if you have partnership experience even without agreement that also needs to be disclosed. I find that in a regular partnership it becomes necessary to give much more information than in a casual partnership. Next week I am playing with a tournament with a partner that I have only played with once before several years ago. I recall on the first day that we played that we both passed and the opponent's opened a strong 1C in fourth seat, I overcalled 1H, LHO passed and partner raised to 3H. I was asked about this bid and replied 'We have no special partnership understanding' along with an explanation that this was the first event we had ever played. Whereas in my regular partnership I almost always have detailed explanations based on our explicit and implicit agreements and partnership experience. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 12 21:38:04 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 12:16 AM 1/12/07, richard.hills wrote: > > >I would argue "Incapable lawbook!" rather than "Incapable > >director!" > > > >The director has simply made a ruling in accordance with > >the Marvin French interpretation of Law 75. Law 75A > >requires all "special" partnership agreements to be > >disclosed, but Marvin French would argue that a Goren's > >Bridge Complete jump to 3H is not "special", so need not > >be disclosed. > > > >And the fact that Goren defines all jump raises as game > >forcing Marvin French defines as "general knowledge and > >experience" under Law 75C, so again Marvin French would > >argue that this information need not be disclosed. > > > >The possibility that Ed might never read Goren's Bridge > >Complete is irrelevant to a Marvin French interpretation > >of Law 75. So, until Law 75 is rewritten, Ed cannot > >legally gain any satisfaction against a Director whose > >rulings are French fried. > > The fallacy in the view that Richard ascribes to Marv is that nowhere > does TFLB say that "general knowledge and experience" need not be > disclosed. L75C says that "*inferences from*... general knowledge and > experience" [emphasis mine] need not be disclosed, which is something > entirely different. > > My interpretation of L75C says that you must inform your opponents that > 3H is game-forcing, notwithstanding that this may be GK&E, but need not > respond, for example, to the follow-up question "what's the point range > for that?", which you could readily figure out (and may well have > already) from your GK&E. (Of course, if you do have an explicit > agreement about point range, you've already blown it by describing 3H > only as "game-forcing".) L75C permits a player when explaining an auction to omit certain details related to a call on the ground that such details are kind of inference from his general knowledge and experience. I have however a very firm opinion that no player may ever refuse to give any relevant information in reply to a specific request from an opponent. The main intention of L75 is to place both sides at equal terms when interpreting the auction. The purpose of the "need not" clause in L75C is to relieve the explaining player from including (lots of) obvious stuff with his explanation; it is not to permit him denying opponents relevant information which they feel they might need however obvious this information might seem. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 12 22:54:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:54:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.co m> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112164303.02b55eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:21 PM 1/12/07, Wayne wrote: >IMO this penalty based on a single coincidence is grossly unfair and >contrary to L40A which gives a player the right to make 'any' call. > >Lets say I am aware that the bidding doesn't not 'add up' and further >than I suspect partner has psyched but without certain knowledge that >it is partner who does not have his bid and I take some action to >cater to the possibility that partner has psyched or does not have his >bid for some other reason then (in a simple world) two things may >occur ... > >1. It may have been partner who psyched or whatever and we avert a >disaster > >2. It could have been the opponent who psyched and I create a disaster > >As long as there is some chance that it is 2 and not 1 that occurs >then it can not be claimed that my choice of calls is based on a CPU. >It is not clear what that chance should be but I would think that an >experienced player playing against 'normal' opponents even in a new >partnership would get this decision right more often than not - there >are some auctions that my opponents have never psyched; there are some >players that I know will never psyche etc there are many reasons that >are nothing to do with a CPU. > >Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient evidence to >establish whether or not a partnership ever gets these situations >wrong. And going wrong occasionally would be clear evidence that >there is not a concealed partnership agreement. > >Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly an attempt to >discourage psyches which are a legimate part of the game. To me this >is in conflict with L40A. Therfore I would argue it is an illegal >regulation L80F. I agree. The EBU's handling of "red psychs" sounds an awful lot like it's based on the "Rule of Coincidence", a discreditied notion with no basis in TFLB, put forth originally by Bobby Wolff, who is known to favor the total elimination of psychs from the game. But not even Mr. Wolff's misguided "Rule of Coincidence" is intended to apply when the auction has made it obvious to you that someone at the table, either your partner or an opponent, has psyched, and you consequently take the action that best caters to both possibilities. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jan 13 01:29:30 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:29:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient >evidence Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >>_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The >>fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as >>much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. >> >>*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; >>other (not circular) examples are that capital >>punishment is necessary because without it murders >>would increase, and that democracy must be the best >>form of government because the majority are always >>right. Wayne Burrows: [snip] >Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly >an attempt to discourage psyches which are a legitimate >part of the game. To me this is in conflict with L40A. >Therefore I would argue it is an illegal regulation >L80F. Richard Hills: Wayne is clearly basing his argument on a "category mistake". A concealed partnership understanding is not a psyche. And penalising a concealed partnership understanding is not penalising a psyche. And while Law 40A permits psyches, Law 40B prohibits concealed partnership understandings. If Wayne does have any point to his argument, it seems to be that Wayne is arguing that some concealed partnership understandings should go unpenalised so that players are not discouraged from exercising their Law 40A right to psyche. This seems to me to be analogous to the argument that some thieves should go unpunished so that the shoppers are not discouraged from visiting the local shopping mall (but I am not discouraged, since I am off to the Belconnen Mall now). :-) 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 Sat Jan 13 02:27:19 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:27:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Nigel" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > IMO this penalty based on a single coincidence > is grossly unfair and contrary to L40A which gives > a player the right to make 'any' call. > +=+ Consider: 3 K T 5 3 A T 4 3 2 A Q 7 Q T 8 2 A J 6 5 4 J 9 8 6 4 A Q 7 2 K 6 J 9 5 9 2 T K 9 7 - Q 8 7 K J 8 6 5 4 3 Board 10 Dealer East W N E S 1S 3C 3S 4C 4S P P 5C all pass There were no alerts. East enquired at his turn about the 3C bid. North explained 3C as showing the red suits. North explained his actions by saying that he thought his hand and the auction suggested that South did not have red suits. The Director recorded this as an amber misbid. Upon review by the national authority the misbid was reclassified as red. North is a very strong player. South is a weaker player. Unfair? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 04:34:25 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:34:25 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701121934o7457da9cj30bbff2848fb476b@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient > >evidence > > Fowler, "Modern English Usage": > > >>_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The > >>fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as > >>much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. > >> > >>*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; > >>other (not circular) examples are that capital > >>punishment is necessary because without it murders > >>would increase, and that democracy must be the best > >>form of government because the majority are always > >>right. > > Wayne Burrows: > > [snip] > > >Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly > >an attempt to discourage psyches which are a legitimate > >part of the game. To me this is in conflict with L40A. > >Therefore I would argue it is an illegal regulation > >L80F. > > Richard Hills: > > Wayne is clearly basing his argument on a "category > mistake". A concealed partnership understanding is not > a psyche. And penalising a concealed partnership > understanding is not penalising a psyche. And while > Law 40A permits psyches, Law 40B prohibits concealed > partnership understandings. > > If Wayne does have any point to his argument, it seems > to be that Wayne is arguing that some concealed > partnership understandings should go unpenalised so that > players are not discouraged from exercising their Law > 40A right to psyche. > > This seems to me to be analogous to the argument that > some thieves should go unpunished so that the shoppers > are not discouraged from visiting the local shopping > mall (but I am not discouraged, since I am off to the > Belconnen Mall now). > > :-) Maybe I will get to the Belconnen Mall next week. No Richard you miss my point. My argument is that one instance of a 'psyche' is always insufficient to establish a concealed partnership agreement. At university my statistics lecturer after we had sat a test was asked if they had been marked. He responded that he had been interupted after marking only one paper but that we had done well based on "an unbiased sample of one". If we could establish a CPU then I would all for punishing the players. If we cannot then I am against punishing innocent players. Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jan 13 15:46:57 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:46:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701121934o7457da9cj30bbff2848fb476b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560701121934o7457da9cj30bbff2848fb476b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A8F0E1.8080704@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] >> No Richard you miss my point. My argument is that one instance of a >> 'psyche' is always insufficient to establish a concealed partnership >> agreement. >> >> At university my statistics lecturer after we had sat a test was asked >> if they had been marked. He responded that he had been interupted >> after marking only one paper but that we had done well based on "an >> unbiased sample of one". >> >> If we could establish a CPU then I would all for punishing the >> players. If we cannot then I am against punishing innocent players. >> [nige1] What are the criteria for the *establishment* of an irregularity? [A] near certainty? [B] beyond reasonable doubt? [C] the balance of probability? IMO [A] If witnesses catch an already suspected repeat offender in the act, that might establish a crime with *near certainty*. [B] Most criminal convictions, especially of a *one-off offence*, have to be satisfied by *circumstantial evidence* and the *reasonable doubt* criterion. [C] In a civil case, if you rule for one side, you must rule against the other, so the *balance of probability* usually suffices. At the bridge table, unless complete records are assiduously kept, the director usually deals with a *one-off case*. Normally, the director has to judge on the *balance of probability*. The best legal analogy is a *civil* dispute rather than a *criminal* case because *one side or the other must suffer*. I fear that Wayne believes that if the director rules *red psych* against a pair, that he is accusing them of a CPU (cheating if they know the law) As Grattan makes clear, this pair could even be friends, whom the director believes to be pure as the driven snow. The director's ruling means merely that if a number of pairs fielded a similar psych in the same way, most of them would be likely to be guilty of a CPU or something similar. A practical alternative is to condone most implicit understandings about psychs -- but that sacrifices the principle of full disclosure. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 21:20:10 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:20:10 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45A8F0E1.8080704@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560701121934o7457da9cj30bbff2848fb476b@mail.gmail.com> <45A8F0E1.8080704@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701131220q61ee490fvdc4c184bfb05e676@mail.gmail.com> On 14/01/07, Nigel wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > > >> No Richard you miss my point. My argument is that one instance of a > >> 'psyche' is always insufficient to establish a concealed partnership > >> agreement. > >> > >> At university my statistics lecturer after we had sat a test was asked > >> if they had been marked. He responded that he had been interupted > >> after marking only one paper but that we had done well based on "an > >> unbiased sample of one". > >> > >> If we could establish a CPU then I would all for punishing the > >> players. If we cannot then I am against punishing innocent players. > >> > [nige1] > What are the criteria for the *establishment* of an irregularity? > [A] near certainty? > [B] beyond reasonable doubt? > [C] the balance of probability? > > IMO > [A] If witnesses catch an already suspected repeat offender in the act, > that might establish a crime with *near certainty*. > [B] Most criminal convictions, especially of a *one-off offence*, have > to be satisfied by *circumstantial evidence* and the *reasonable doubt* > criterion. > [C] In a civil case, if you rule for one side, you must rule against the > other, so the *balance of probability* usually suffices. > > At the bridge table, unless complete records are assiduously kept, the > director usually deals with a *one-off case*. Normally, the director > has to judge on the *balance of probability*. The best legal analogy is > a *civil* dispute rather than a *criminal* case because *one side or the > other must suffer*. I dislike balance of probabilities since it means in close cases nearly half of those found guilty are penalized or more accurately nearly half of those penalized are not guilty and we do not even bother to find out whether or not they are guilty. As noted below we just absolve ourselves of responsibility by saying that others who acted like this would be guilty so we are going to penalize you anyway. > I fear that Wayne believes that if the director rules *red psych* > against a pair, that he is accusing them of a CPU (cheating if they > know the law) As Grattan makes clear, this pair could even be friends, > whom the director believes to be pure as the driven snow. The director's > ruling means merely that if a number of pairs fielded a similar psych in > the same way, most of them would be likely to be guilty of a CPU or > something similar. No I don't care what the director is accusing me of doing if I am not doing it and I get my good score taken away and awarded a 30% board then I am not happy. The EBU acknowledges this problem in the Orange Book. Orange Book 6B2 "As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding." This is in direct conflict with L40A which allows that player to "make any call ... provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding". As such it is my opinion that the EBU regulation is outside the EBU's power in publishing supplementary regulations - L81F "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws". A regulation requiring that an innocent player is ruled against when the law allows that player to make 'any call' is clearly a significant conflict. Clearly we cannot use the call as a basis for establishing a 'partnership understanding' since we would see the same evidence whether the call was illegally based on an understanding or not. What other people do at a different table is no basis to make a ruling at my table. Years ago a friend of mine who at the time was a roll-your-own cigarette smoker bought a packet of filters. The label on the filters said 'average contents 100'. He said I don't want to know what is in every other packet I want to know what is in this packet. It is much better to investigate each case. > A practical alternative is to condone most implicit understandings about > psychs -- but that sacrifices the principle of full disclosure. I imagine if we had a "Red Psyche" rule in NZ I would be able to get most of the LOLs at our club in any session. They frequently misbid and their partner's frequently field their misbid with a misbid of their own. When the two misbids compensate and they land in the right spot I would be delighted if I could call the director and get a 60-30 adjustment. This rule must be chaos or perhaps most calls that meet the red psyche definition are just not reported. Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jan 14 03:42:18 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:42:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> > [Wayne Burrows] > Lets say I am aware that the bidding doesn't not 'add up' and further > than I suspect partner has psyched but without certain knowledge that > it is partner who does not have his bid and I take some action to > cater to the possibility that partner has psyched or does not have his > bid for some other reason then (in a simple world) two things may > occur ... > > 1. It may have been partner who psyched or whatever and we avert a disaster > > 2. It could have been the opponent who psyched and I create a disaster > > As long as there is some chance that it is 2 and not 1 that occurs > then it can not be claimed that my choice of calls is based on a CPU. > It is not clear what that chance should be but I would think that an > experienced player playing against 'normal' opponents even in a new > partnership would get this decision right more often than not - there > are some auctions that my opponents have never psyched; there are some > players that I know will never psyche etc there are many reasons that > are nothing to do with a CPU. > > Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient evidence to > establish whether or not a partnership ever gets these situations > wrong. And going wrong occasionally would be clear evidence that > there is not a concealed partnership agreement. > > Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly an attempt to > discourage psyches which are a legimate part of the game. To me this > is in conflict with L40A. Therfore I would argue it is an illegal > regulation L80F. > [nige1] Conveniently, Wayne omits from consideration the many other fielding cases where everyone may have the values for their call :) Wayne's example -- where it is certain that somebody lacks the values for his call -- is still interesting. I agree with Wayne that partners seem rapidly to acquire an awareness of each other's intentions, even in the absence of discernable unauthorised inrormation. Even in a context in which partner is prone to psych and opponents have never been known to psyche, however, I think that the director should still classify the fielded psych as *amber* at least. You have two opponents but only one partner. Hence, I concede that if, in this context, partner is twice as likely to misbid or psych than an opponent then the fielded psych should be categorised as *amber* at most. IMO the crucial problem with the present legislation is that the law is *too lax (and too complex)* not *too strict (and too simple)*. For example CPUs and UI seem to be common but most cases of fielding cater for deliberate *minor* departures from advertised methods (i.e. they involve fielded *deviations* rather than psychs). So they rarely occasion a director call and never attract adverse ruling. Many previous threads feature small deviations (for example in HCP) that even if reported would be unlikely to attract adverse comment because so many players and directors share Wayne's laissez faire attitude From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 07:49:52 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:49:52 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701132249h66841727jf681bd5cd7c5859e@mail.gmail.com> On 14/01/07, Nigel wrote: > > > [Wayne Burrows] > > Lets say I am aware that the bidding doesn't not 'add up' and further > > than I suspect partner has psyched but without certain knowledge that > > it is partner who does not have his bid and I take some action to > > cater to the possibility that partner has psyched or does not have his > > bid for some other reason then (in a simple world) two things may > > occur ... > > > > 1. It may have been partner who psyched or whatever and we avert a disaster > > > > 2. It could have been the opponent who psyched and I create a disaster > > > > As long as there is some chance that it is 2 and not 1 that occurs > > then it can not be claimed that my choice of calls is based on a CPU. > > It is not clear what that chance should be but I would think that an > > experienced player playing against 'normal' opponents even in a new > > partnership would get this decision right more often than not - there > > are some auctions that my opponents have never psyched; there are some > > players that I know will never psyche etc there are many reasons that > > are nothing to do with a CPU. > > > > Clearly one instance of a coincidence is not sufficient evidence to > > establish whether or not a partnership ever gets these situations > > wrong. And going wrong occasionally would be clear evidence that > > there is not a concealed partnership agreement. > > > > Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly an attempt to > > discourage psyches which are a legimate part of the game. To me this > > is in conflict with L40A. Therfore I would argue it is an illegal > > regulation L80F. > > > [nige1] > > Conveniently, Wayne omits from consideration the many other fielding > cases where everyone may have the values for their call :) It is not convenient at all. If there is no evidence that someone does not have the full values for a bid then an unusual action is a stronger indication that there might be a CPU. I would still argue that in most cases you would need to investigate further. I am merely trying to illustrate the problems with an automatic classification based on one instance of an event occurring. > > Wayne's example -- where it is certain that somebody lacks the values > for his call -- is still interesting. > > I agree with Wayne that partners seem rapidly to acquire an awareness of > each other's intentions, even in the absence of discernable unauthorised > inrormation. > > Even in a context in which partner is prone to psych and opponents have > never been known to psyche, however, I think that the director should > still classify the fielded psych as *amber* at least. > I disagree if it is certain that the opponents *never* psyche the it is equally certain that it must be partner who has psyched. Now you need no partnership understanding at all to be able to field any psyche. Your ability to field is a direct consequence of the opponents being solid citizens. > You have two opponents but only one partner. Hence, I concede that if, > in this context, partner is twice as likely to misbid or psych than an > opponent then the fielded psych should be categorised as *amber* at most. > Ok but when the odds of the opponents psyching are much less then than this then it is much more reasonable to assume it is partner that is operating than the opponents - and as i said before you can do this without any partnership understanding. > IMO the crucial problem with the present legislation is that the law is > *too lax (and too complex)* not *too strict (and too simple)*. > > For example CPUs and UI seem to be common but most cases of fielding > cater for deliberate *minor* departures from advertised methods (i.e. > they involve fielded *deviations* rather than psychs). So they rarely > occasion a director call and never attract adverse ruling. Many previous > threads feature small deviations (for example in HCP) that even if > reported would be unlikely to attract adverse comment because so many > players and directors share Wayne's laissez faire attitude > I do not think my approach is laissez faire. I am happy to penalize those with CPU. I am simply not happy to penalize based on no evidence. Or worse to penalize based on evidence contrived by a definition in a regulation. Especially when the regulation is of dubious legality. At the club recently I was playing against a pair - one who was a member of my learner's class 2 years ago (although he had played a little bridge some 20 years earlier) and the other a more experienced and keen club player who has been known to mix it up a bit. They were not a regular partnership. My learner had 13 hcp and heard his partner open the bidding but in a competitive auction sold out to 3D with a fit for partner. This worked as they had no game. And the operator had psyched. In England this is an automatic 'Red Psyche' - at least by my reading of the regulation no judgement is allowed - "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding." Orange Book 6B2. In NZ I simply enquired of the opponents how often they psyched found out that it had been very infrequent in that new partnership. I believed them and so moved on to the next board without a director call. I certainly think an enviroment in which the CPU is properly investigated is much better than one where no CPU is defined as CPU. Of course the opponents may lie in response to questions and so we might not establish the existence of a CPU when in fact there is one. But then the situation is not simply one of a CPU but of a partnership (or player) deliberately cheating. If this gets found out then I would expect much more severe consequences than an unfavourable ruling under L40A or B. Curiously Nigel's contention that there is more of a problem with deviations than wiht psyches is also regulated out of existence by the Orange Book which mandates the opposite: "A partnership's actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so than after a psyche. As with psyches, deviations may be classified as Red, Amber or Green." Orange Book 6B7 Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jan 14 09:52:51 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:52:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701132249h66841727jf681bd5cd7c5859e@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701132249h66841727jf681bd5cd7c5859e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A9EF63.8080101@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] > If there is no evidence that someone does not have the full values > for a bid then an unusual action is a stronger indication that there > might be a CPU. I would still argue that in most cases you would > need to investigate further. [nige1] Before giving a ruling, a conscientious director tries to establish the partnership methods and accords the alleged fielder ample opportunity to explain his action. What further investigations would Wayne recommend? > [wayne] > At the club recently I was playing against a pair - one who was a > member of my learner's class 2 years ago (although he had played a > little bridge some 20 years earlier) and the other a more experienced > and keen club player who has been known to mix it up a bit. They were > not a regular partnership. My learner had 13 hcp and heard his partner > open the bidding but in a competitive auction sold out to 3D with a > fit for partner. This worked as they had no game. And the operator > had psyched. > > In England this is an automatic 'Red Psyche' - at least by my reading > of the regulation no judgement is allowed - "If a player psyches and > his partner > takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as > fielding." Orange Book 6B2. > > In NZ I simply enquired of the opponents how often they psyched found > out that it had been very infrequent in that new partnership. I > believed them and so moved on to the next board without a director > call. > > I certainly think an enviroment in which the CPU is properly > investigated is much better than one where no CPU is defined as CPU. > [nige1] In NZ, do you record *all* "fielded" psychs? If the director selects cases to record (as appears to be the case in Australia), then a pair convicted of a CPU on historical evidence can reasonably complain that directors demonstrate prejudice against them by selectively recording incidents against them while ignoring those that involve friends and acquaintances. > Of course the opponents may lie in response to questions and so we > might not establish the existence of a CPU when in fact there is one. > But then the situation is not simply one of a CPU but of a partnership > (or player) deliberately cheating. If this gets found out then I would > expect much more severe consequences than an unfavourable ruling under > L40A or B. > [nige1] If ever there's a case where a pair confesses to a CPU, then the director's task is more straightforward. Although Wayne advances plausible arguments against the EBU protocol, IMO, he doesn't propose any alternative strategy that would be as effective at exposing even the tip of Grattan's CPU "iceberg". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 14 11:58:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:58:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701131220q61ee490fvdc4c184bfb05e676@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >>No Richard you miss my point. My argument is that one instance of >>a 'psyche' is always insufficient to establish a concealed >>partnership agreement. [snip] Richard Hills: **Always** insufficient evidence? Benefit of Clergy (from Wikipedia): >In English law, the benefit of clergy was originally a provision by >which clergymen could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction >of the secular courts and be tried instead under canon law. >Eventually, the course of history transformed it into a mechanism >by which first-time offenders could receive a more lenient sentence >for some lesser crimes. [snip] >As a result of this leniency in the ecclesiastical courts, a number >of reforms were undertaken to combat the abuse of the benefit of >clergy. Henry VII decreed that non-clergymen should be allowed to >plea the benefit of clergy only once: those taking the benefit of >clergy, but not able to prove through documentation of their holy >orders that they actually were clergymen, were branded on the >thumb, and the brand disqualified them from pleading the benefit of >clergy in the future. [snip] Richard Hills: So Wayne's point seems to be that the Henry VII version of "Benefit of Clergy" should apply to one's first-time concealed partnership agreement; one can automatically have one's lying plea of "psyche" accepted, but one is then branded on the thumb, so thereafter for one's second-time and subsequent concealed partnership agreements one may be convicted (and then hung, drawn and quartered). Grattan Endicott: +=+ Consider: 3 K T 5 3 A T 4 3 2 A Q 7 Q T 8 2 A J 6 5 4 J 9 8 6 4 A Q 7 2 K 6 J 9 5 9 2 T K 9 7 - Q 8 7 K J 8 6 5 4 3 Board 10 Dealer East W N E S --- --- 1S 3C 3S 4C 4S P P 5C all pass There were no alerts. East enquired at his turn about the 3C bid. North explained 3C as showing the red suits. North explained his actions by saying that he thought his hand and the auction suggested that South did not have red suits. The Director recorded this as an amber misbid. Upon review by the national authority the misbid was reclassified as red. North is a very strong player. South is a weaker player. Unfair? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In Grattan's "Benefit of Clergy" example, the evidence from North's bidding overwhelmingly suggests that although North-South notionally have an agreement that South's 3C overcall is the Ghestem convention, the actual implicit North-South agreement is that South's 3C overcall is two-way. South either shows red suits (on the times that South remembers the notional agreement), or South shows just clubs (on the frequent times that South forgets the notional agreement). The information legally available from the auction did not in itself preclude the possibility that North-South had a big double-fit in the red suits (with East-West having a matching double-fit in the black suits). Ergo, North's fielding by bidding and rebidding clubs was indeed **sufficient evidence** of an illegal concealed partnership understanding, so North was not "unfairly" denied Benefit of Clergy. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 14 12:20:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:20:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45A9EF63.8080101@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >If the director selects cases to record (as appears to be the >case in Australia), then a pair convicted of a CPU on >historical evidence can reasonably complain that directors >demonstrate prejudice against them by selectively recording >incidents against them while ignoring those that involve >friends and acquaintances. [snip] Richard Hills: "Reasonably complain"??? No, such a complaint against an Australian director is most unreasonable. While I am the lowest-ranking of all Australian directors, a mere Club Director, I consider Nigel Guthrie's statement a public slur on all Australian directors, and I suggest that Nigel Guthrie consider an unconditional public apology. The fact that I am a friend and acquaintance of the Chief Director of Australia (whose second hat is that of Director of the Canberra Bridge Club) does not inhibit him from ruling against me by the book whenever I infract a Law. 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 19:46:41 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:46:41 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560701131220q61ee490fvdc4c184bfb05e676@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701141046x4565dc14nb7f0f1b0e21d71f7@mail.gmail.com> On 14/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows: > > >>No Richard you miss my point. My argument is that one instance of > >>a 'psyche' is always insufficient to establish a concealed > >>partnership agreement. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > **Always** insufficient evidence? > > Benefit of Clergy (from Wikipedia): > > >In English law, the benefit of clergy was originally a provision by > >which clergymen could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction > >of the secular courts and be tried instead under canon law. > >Eventually, the course of history transformed it into a mechanism > >by which first-time offenders could receive a more lenient sentence > >for some lesser crimes. > > [snip] > > >As a result of this leniency in the ecclesiastical courts, a number > >of reforms were undertaken to combat the abuse of the benefit of > >clergy. Henry VII decreed that non-clergymen should be allowed to > >plea the benefit of clergy only once: those taking the benefit of > >clergy, but not able to prove through documentation of their holy > >orders that they actually were clergymen, were branded on the > >thumb, and the brand disqualified them from pleading the benefit of > >clergy in the future. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > So Wayne's point seems to be that the Henry VII version of "Benefit > of Clergy" should apply to one's first-time concealed partnership > agreement; one can automatically have one's lying plea of "psyche" > accepted, but one is then branded on the thumb, so thereafter for > one's second-time and subsequent concealed partnership agreements > one may be convicted (and then hung, drawn and quartered). > Exactly. Well not quite. There may be other suspicions and hence further investigations. Of course if one lies and thereafter is found out the accusation is no longer CPU but deliberate cheating for which the penalty is much more severe - hung, drawn and quartered - which would well as a deterent to those that might lie. Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jan 14 21:20:39 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:20:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AA9097.4040308@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] > "Reasonably complain"??? No, such a complaint against an > Australian director is most unreasonable. > > While I am the lowest-ranking of all Australian directors, a > mere Club Director, I consider Nigel Guthrie's statement a > public slur on all Australian directors, and I suggest that > Nigel Guthrie consider an unconditional public apology. > > The fact that I am a friend and acquaintance of the Chief > Director of Australia (whose second hat is that of Director of > the Canberra Bridge Club) does not inhibit him from ruling > against me by the book whenever I infract a Law. > [nige1] Sorry, Richard, I can manage only a qualified apology :( Does an Australian regulation really mandate that the director decide which fielded psyche to ignore and which to record? If so, then I formally apologise to any individual director (Richard Hills, in particular) who feels slighted by my criticism of that regulation. Criticism of the law-making body that instituted such a regulation seems justified because it seems so ineffectual and error-prone; and directors seem partially to blame if they don't protest against it. I accept Richard's assurance that Australian directors never abuse the system. But the system is so open to abuse that it can hardly inspire confidence among players. From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sun Jan 14 23:21:57 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:21:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cheater's paradise? Message-ID: <200701142221.l0EMLvbA012498@smtp50.hccnet.nl> North has: 63 765 A942 Q974 AQJ87 K KQ7 AKJ5 Bidding goes (South dealer): 2C-2H 2S-3NT North thought to show 3-6 points with 2H and a maximum with 3NT. So let's assume that use of UI is absent. However, South stated that NS had recently changed their system, 2H now showing a good suit. So he did not alert the 2H bid. Their convention card confirms this. North however keeps firm in that 2H shows points only. East has AQxxx of hearts and now doesn't lead the suit. Result 3NT+1, while with the lead of a small heart NS would have made 9 tricks (the king of spades was off side). I am not particularly interested in how to adjust, but about how to establish if there has been an infraction: Question 1: Misbid or misinformation? Question 2 : If misbid how to deal with Law 75D2 first paragraph vs 75D2 example 2? "After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy; after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, IN HIS OPINION, his partner's explanation was erroneous." But: (in the case of misbid) "South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently" -So: North should have called the director, failure to do so is an infraction and we can adjust even if we rule misbid? -Or: there was a misbid, so north did not have to call the TD, even though IN HER OPINION South had misexplained? No harm done: score stands? Question3: This situation seems to advantage both the player who doesn't know Law 75D2 and the cunning player who will state that he erred even if he knows that partner misexplained, while the honest, knowledgeable player will cause to find his opps the killing lead. How do you solve this? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 15 01:54:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:54:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Cheater's paradise? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200701142221.l0EMLvbA012498@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Andre Steffens: >North has: >63 >765 >A942 >Q974 > > >AQJ87 >K >KQ7 >AKJ5 > >Bidding goes (South dealer): >2C-2H >2S-3NT > >North thought to show 3-6 points with 2H and a maximum with 3NT. So >let's assume that use of UI is absent. > >However, South stated that NS had recently changed their system, 2H >now showing a good suit. So he did not alert the 2H bid. Their >convention card confirms this. North however keeps firm in that 2H >shows points only. > >East has AQxxx of hearts and now doesn't lead the suit. Result >3NT+1, while with the lead of a small heart NS would have made 9 >tricks (the king of spades was off side). > >I am not particularly interested in how to adjust, but about how to >establish if there has been an infraction: >Question 1: >Misbid or misinformation? Richard Hills: The De Wael School TD, going by North's bidding and firm statement, would rule misinformation. The Sven Pran School TD, going by the writing on the system card, would rule misbid. But the Richard Hills School TD, who is normally closer to the Sven Pran School TD than he is to the De Wael School TD, would ask a further question: which member of the partnership is the Keymaster? If I discover that South is the Keymaster, the one who writes up the key conventions on the system card and the key agreements in the system notes, then I may well rule that South's latest key amendment to the system on page 53 of the system notes and on page 3 of the system card is not a _mutual_ partnership agreement since North has not yet read about South's particular Keymaster change. Andre Steffens: >Question 2 : >If misbid how to deal with Law 75D2 first paragraph vs 75D2 example >2? >"After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity >(after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy; after play >ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the >opponents that, IN HIS OPINION, his partner's explanation was >erroneous." >But: (in the case of misbid) "South must not correct North's >explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no >responsibility to do so subsequently" >-So: North should have called the director, failure to do so is an >infraction and we can adjust even if we rule misbid? >-Or: there was a misbid, so North did not have to call the TD, even >though IN HER OPINION South had misexplained? No harm done: score >stands? Richard Hills: The footnote to Law 75D2 is meant to clarify Law 75D2. A close reading of example 2 in the footnote suggests that "in his opinion" should be construed as "in his _current_ opinion". Example 2: South responded to 1NT with 2D, intending it as a signoff in diamonds (this was written before transfers became popular). North described 2D as Forcing Stayman (this example was also written when double-barrelled Stayman was popular). And once North gave the correct explanation of 2D as Forcing Stayman, South realised that she had misbid and North had correctly explained the partnership agreement. Therefore, because South's _current_ opinion was that the explanation of 2D as Forcing Stayman was not erroneous, South had no responsibility to say anything immediately or subsequently. In Andre Steffen's case North has a _continuing_ firm belief that she has not misbid, so therefore North does have a Law 75D2 obligation to correct South's failure to alert. As Andre implies with his next question, it seems that North was unaware of Law 75D2. But ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Andre Steffens: >Question3: >This situation seems to advantage both the player who doesn't know >Law 75D2 and the cunning player who will state that he erred even if >he knows that partner misexplained, while the honest, knowledgeable >player will cause to find his opps the killing lead. > >How do you solve this? Richard Hills: In this particular case I suspect that I would rule misinformation, not misbid. And even if I ruled misbid, I would rule that the actual honest North (who continued to have a firm system disagreement with South) had involuntarily infracted the "in his [current] opinion" clause of Law 75D2, which would result in me (as TD) assigning the same adjusted score of 3NT making 9 tricks only. As for "the cunning player who will state that he erred even if he knows that partner misexplained", this is nothing new. But such cheating is easy to solve, if the political will is there. Due to the statistical nature of bridge, cheats are quickly noticed by their peers for getting good results in unusual ways. Cheats therefore attract an evil reputation long before the actual cheating mechanism they use is formally unveiled by an investigation of their local Conduct and Ethics Committee. And then the cheats get a 5-year "holiday" from playing in bridge events. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 15 02:21:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:21:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45AA9097.4040308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>If the director selects cases to record (as appears to be >>the case in Australia), then a pair convicted of a CPU on >>historical evidence can reasonably complain that >>directors demonstrate prejudice against them by >>selectively recording incidents against them while >>ignoring those that involve friends and acquaintances. Nigel Guthrie: >Sorry, Richard, I can manage only a qualified apology :( > >Does an Australian regulation really mandate that the >director decide which fielded psyche to ignore and which >to record? Richard Hills: No such Australian regulation exists. At Australian national events, such as the forthcoming Summer Festival of Bridge, there are two or three official Recorders (who are not Directors) who may be approached by players who are unhappy with the ethics of an opponent. Some of the major bridge clubs, for example the Canberra Bridge Club, have also appointed an official Recorder and/or a Conduct and Ethics Committee. Nigel Guthrie: >If so, then I formally apologise to any individual >director (Richard Hills, in particular) who feels >slighted by my criticism of that regulation. > >Criticism of the law-making body that instituted such a >regulation seems justified because it seems so >ineffectual and error-prone; and directors seem >partially to blame if they don't protest against it. > >I accept Richard's assurance that Australian directors >never abuse the system. But the system is so open to >abuse that it can hardly inspire confidence among >players. Richard Hills: Rubbish. Law 40B (and other Laws) can be easily and professionally enforced by Australian directors no matter who their friends and acquaintances may be. Time for a trip along memory lane, the "Director, darling!" thread, posting of 8th July 2004 -> Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >>Players are quite paranoid enough >>without having to worry whenever >>an opponent calls the TD and greets >>him warmly by his Christian name. [snip] Richard Hills replies: >Many years ago, top Aussie player >Annie Grenside was playing in the >Australian Women's Teams Championship. >After an infraction occurred at the >table, she raised her hand and called, >"Director, darling!" > >It so happened that Australia's CTD at >that time was Annie's then husband, >Richard Grenside. > >:-) > >Of course, Richard Grenside gave a >professional ruling, despite his then >wife being an interested party. > >More recently, Nigel (and others) had >some legitimate concerns about my TD >ruling against another Canberra expert. >(See the thread, "Penalised for not >knowing your system".) It so happens >that that ruling was another "Director, >darling!" case, since the Canberra >expert concerned is one of my regular >team-mates. But being a regular team- >mate did not prevent me giving him what >he (and some blmlers) thought was the >rough end of the pineapple. John (MadDog) Probst: Yeah, can you imagine the effect of "DA-----DDY!" across a 100-table Swiss? The whole friggin room erupts. He usually takes my rulings to appeal on various grounds: 1) He hates me 2) He's clueless 3) He always rules against me. OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed through the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the cork. John 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jan 16 01:38:25 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:38:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Just the 1 trick? Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070115163550.01db4050@mail.optusnet.com.au> The lead is a club, and declarer ruffs in dummy and discards a diamond from hand. Later declarer finds a club in hand and ruffs this in dummy. Just the 1 trick penalty? Tony (Sydney) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jan 15 08:10:07 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:10:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just the 1 trick? In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070115163550.01db4050@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20070115163550.01db4050@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1H6Lyp-1sy6pk0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> From: Tony Musgrove > The lead is a club, and declarer ruffs in dummy > and discards a diamond from hand. ?Later declarer > finds a club in hand and ruffs this in dummy. > > Just the 1 trick penalty? Yes, sure. Declarer (hand) did not win the revoke trick, nor did he win a club-trick in his hand afterwards. But remember Law 64 C - as with all revokes. Peter From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 15 09:12:38 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:12:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Just the 1 trick? In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070115163550.01db4050@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000001c7387c$ec436b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > The lead is a club, and declarer ruffs in dummy > and discards a diamond from hand. Later declarer > finds a club in hand and ruffs this in dummy. > > Just the 1 trick penalty? Yes, but don't forget Law 64C! Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jan 15 11:37:07 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:37:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AB5953.3070401@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] > No such Australian regulation exists. At Australian > national events, such as the forthcoming Summer Festival > of Bridge, there are two or three official Recorders > (who are not Directors) who may be approached by players > who are unhappy with the ethics of an opponent. Some of > the major bridge clubs, for example the Canberra Bridge > Club, have also appointed an official Recorder and/or a > Conduct and Ethics Committee. > [nige1] Thank you Richard. As you are aware, my criticism was predicated on such a hypothetical regulation so, I'm relieved and grateful that I can retract my apology. Wait... perhaps that may be premature... How much discretion do official recorders have in deciding which alleged ethical lapses to record and how to record them? Do they take the standing of the putative offender into account? Again, if the recorders do have discretion about which fielded psychs to record, then the system seems faulty even if (I hasten to add) the recorders, like Australian directors, are above reproach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070115/d3f0a097/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 15 14:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Cheater's paradise? In-Reply-To: <200701142221.l0EMLvbA012498@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: The Law75d2 requirement is clear - a correction before play is required only if there *has* been MI. Possible corrector's belief is irrelevant if the *agreement* actually is that 2H is natural - but his silence would get an automatic PP from me (in addition to any possible adjustment) were I to discover the agreement *was* to play 2H as something alertable. The difference between the two scenarios is that in the former the silence has in no way led opps to be misinformed. Like Richard I keep open the option of ruling that 2H natural was not actually the agreement. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 15 14:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45AA9097.4040308@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > I accept Richard's assurance that Australian directors never abuse > the system. But the system is so open to abuse that it can hardly > inspire confidence among players. Which really doesn't matter. If the players lack confidence in the TDs then no amount of "system" will reassure them. If they have confidence in the TDs the openness to abuse isn't an issue. This is consultancy 101 - no matter how good a system might be it cannot overcome a lack of trust in management. Tim From john at asimere.com Mon Jan 15 17:15:52 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:15:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 1:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Nigel" > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 7:21 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > >> >> IMO this penalty based on a single coincidence >> is grossly unfair and contrary to L40A which gives >> a player the right to make 'any' call. 5C is a superb 2-way call, caters for the probability partner has forgotten the convention HE insisted we played and easily arguable in front of the AC as "Bid a red suit you pillock!" :) TD and AC are insane. cheers john >> > +=+ Consider: > > 3 > K T 5 3 > A T 4 3 2 > A Q 7 > Q T 8 2 A J 6 5 4 > J 9 8 6 4 A Q 7 2 > K 6 J 9 5 > 9 2 T > K 9 7 > - > Q 8 7 > K J 8 6 5 4 3 > Board 10 Dealer East > W N E S > 1S 3C > 3S 4C 4S P > P 5C all pass > > There were no alerts. East enquired at his turn > about the 3C bid. North explained 3C as > showing the red suits. > North explained his actions by saying that he > thought his hand and the auction suggested > that South did not have red suits. > The Director recorded this as an amber misbid. > Upon review by the national authority the misbid > was reclassified as red. > North is a very strong player. South is a weaker > player. > Unfair? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jan 15 17:32:24 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:32:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ABAC98.50404@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] > Which really doesn't matter. If the players lack confidence in the TDs > then no amount of "system" will reassure them. If they have confidence > in the TDs the openness to abuse isn't an issue. This is consultancy > 101 - no matter how good a system might be it cannot overcome a lack of > trust in management > [nige1] Tim should ask for his consultancy 101 course fees back :) In real life the converse more often obtains... If the system is rotten and invites abuse then it foments distrust of those who implement it, especially if they make no effort to get it changed. Examples abound. For example, rather than campaign for reform of our political *system*, at local and national level, cynics impugn the honesty and integrity of *individual politicians*, going so far as to accuse some of corruption. A score or so of simple improvements to the system would greatly reduce the scope for abuse and so increase confidence. Justice should be done -- and *seen to be done*. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jan 15 17:32:42 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:32:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ABACAA.5040004@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] > Which really doesn't matter. If the players lack confidence in the TDs > then no amount of "system" will reassure them. If they have confidence > in the TDs the openness to abuse isn't an issue. This is consultancy > 101 - no matter how good a system might be it cannot overcome a lack of > trust in management > [nige1] Tim should ask for his consultancy 101 course fees back :) In real life the converse more often obtains... If the system is rotten and invites abuse then it foments distrust of those who implement it, especially if they make no effort to get it changed. Examples abound. For example, rather than campaign for reform of our political *system*, at local and national level, cynics impugn the honesty and integrity of *individual politicians*, going so far as to accuse some of corruption. A score or so of simple improvements to the system would greatly reduce the scope for abuse and so increase confidence. Justice should be done -- and *seen to be done*. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 15 21:01:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Consider: > > 3 > K T 5 3 > A T 4 3 2 > A Q 7 > Q T 8 2 A J 6 5 4 > J 9 8 6 4 A Q 7 2 > K 6 J 9 5 > 9 2 T > K 9 7 > - > Q 8 7 > K J 8 6 5 4 3 > Board 10 Dealer East > W N E S > 1S 3C > 3S 4C 4S P > P 5C all pass > > There were no alerts. East enquired at his turn > about the 3C bid. North explained 3C as > showing the red suits. > North explained his actions by saying that he > thought his hand and the auction suggested > that South did not have red suits. > The Director recorded this as an amber misbid. > Upon review by the national authority the misbid > was reclassified as red. > North is a very strong player. South is a weaker > player. > Unfair? It seems to be. We are not told the level of the event but assuming EBU3/4 there is (in the section on "Defence to Natural One of a Suit Opening Bids"): Allowed at Levels 3 and 4 11 N 13 Developments All continuations by the defenders are allowed with or without intervention. Compare that with 11 M Defence to Artificial and Forcing Bids 11 M 1 Developments All continuations are allowed by the defender side with or without intervention by the opening side. Thus 3C showing "either clubs or the reds" would appear to be legal and the case is an MI one rather than a matter of an illegal agreement. We are not told the vulnerability but I can't see why EW would sacrifice over 5C with the correct explanation (even allowing for the fact that pre-disclosure of the actual agreement might have given them the opportunity of agreeing a specific defence). Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 15 23:10:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:10:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> <00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > 5C is a superb 2-way call, caters for the probability > partner has forgotten the convention HE insisted we > played and easily arguable in front of the AC as "Bid > a red suit you pillock!" :) TD and AC are insane. > cheers john >>> +=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements" +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 16 00:16:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:16:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >This is consultancy 101 - no matter how good a system >might be it cannot overcome a lack of trust in management. Richard Hills: And there is marketplace 101 - if a tradesman one hires one year proves to be incompetent, one hires a different tradesman the following year. In the 2006 Summer Festival of Bridge I was an incompetent trainee National Director. As a result, my traineeship was terminated so I will be a mere player this year. (But in my performance review, the chairman of the assessors was kind enough to remark that the one aspect of my directing which was up to National standard was my knowledge of the Fabulous Lawbook.) Of course, if the Director _owns_ the club at which she directs, then she cannot be terminated for giving biased rulings in favour of her friends and acquaintances. But then the ruled-against players leave the club for an alternative club (in extreme cases founding a new club). Many years ago a number of non-smoking Canberra Bridge Club players were upset with the Club's powers-that-be inertia on the issue of smoking at the table. So a new smaller non-smoking club, the South Canberra Bridge Club, was founded, meeting only on Wednesday nights. Awoken from its apathy, the Canberra Bridge Club instituted a new social and non-smoking Friday night game. Nowadays all Aussie bridge clubs are non-smoking, but the South Canberra Bridge Club Wednesday night game and the Canberra Bridge Club Friday night game continue despite their original rationale no longer being applicable. :-) 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 00:53:44 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:53:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> <00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john> <001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701151553t3f588c37raff07945a6393339@mail.gmail.com> On 16/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Probst" > To: ; "BLML" > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:15 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > > 5C is a superb 2-way call, caters for the probability > > partner has forgotten the convention HE insisted we > > played and easily arguable in front of the AC as "Bid > > a red suit you pillock!" :) TD and AC are insane. > > cheers john > >>> > +=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may > create implicit agreements" +=+ > Exactly ... they do not necessarily create implicit agreements. Wayne From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 16 01:08:33 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:08:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: SO------???????????? Doesn't free enterprise operate in your ambiance??????? Smells to me like you'd like to have certain European arrangements where everything is micro managed, no one can have free enterprise, and we had best march in lock step. And to quickly clearly avoid naming the the offenders, I'm not talking about the Germans -- tain't them I'm thinking about! It isn't too hard to understand that when you run a bridge club you are presenting a product. If your product is inferior for whatever reason perceived by the customers, you lose. Do a better job. Meanwhile, Caveat emptor. Kojak. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Tim West-Meads: > > >This is consultancy 101 - no matter how good a system > >might be it cannot overcome a lack of trust in management. > > Richard Hills: > > And there is marketplace 101 - if a tradesman one hires > one year proves to be incompetent, one hires a different > tradesman the following year. > > In the 2006 Summer Festival of Bridge I was an incompetent > trainee National Director. As a result, my traineeship was > terminated so I will be a mere player this year. (But in > my performance review, the chairman of the assessors was > kind enough to remark that the one aspect of my directing > which was up to National standard was my knowledge of the > Fabulous Lawbook.) > > Of course, if the Director _owns_ the club at which she > directs, then she cannot be terminated for giving biased > rulings in favour of her friends and acquaintances. But > then the ruled-against players leave the club for an > alternative club (in extreme cases founding a new club). > > Many years ago a number of non-smoking Canberra Bridge Club > players were upset with the Club's powers-that-be inertia > on the issue of smoking at the table. So a new smaller > non-smoking club, the South Canberra Bridge Club, was > founded, meeting only on Wednesday nights. Awoken from its > apathy, the Canberra Bridge Club instituted a new social > and non-smoking Friday night game. > > Nowadays all Aussie bridge clubs are non-smoking, but the > South Canberra Bridge Club Wednesday night game and the > Canberra Bridge Club Friday night game continue despite > their original rationale no longer being applicable. > > :-) > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 16 01:12:27 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:12:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred><00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john><001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701151553t3f588c37raff07945a6393339@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" violations that create implicit agreements. One is usually enough. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Cc: "BLML" Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > On 16/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott > [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ***************************************** > > "Beware when the great God lets > > loose a thinker on this planet." > > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > > =========================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Probst" > > To: ; "BLML" > > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > > > > > > 5C is a superb 2-way call, caters for the probability > > > partner has forgotten the convention HE insisted we > > > played and easily arguable in front of the AC as "Bid > > > a red suit you pillock!" :) TD and AC are insane. > > > cheers john > > >>> > > +=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may > > create implicit agreements" +=+ > > > > Exactly ... they do not necessarily create implicit agreements. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 01:18:22 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:18:22 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> <00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john> <001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701151553t3f588c37raff07945a6393339@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701151618w65d3a0c4o4527b842acbc84c6@mail.gmail.com> On 16/01/07, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" violations that create > implicit agreements. One is usually enough. > Unfortunately for you Grattan quotes the law so it is his post that is accurate and your view that is not. It is sad that when the law only states that a habitual violation may create an implicit agreement that there are esteemed directors that are willing to rule on even less evidence that an implicit agreement must be created. At least for now the law book does not support this extreme view. Wayne > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:53 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > On 16/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > > [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > > ***************************************** > > > "Beware when the great God lets > > > loose a thinker on this planet." > > > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > > > =========================== > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "John Probst" > > > To: ; "BLML" > > > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5C is a superb 2-way call, caters for the probability > > > > partner has forgotten the convention HE insisted we > > > > played and easily arguable in front of the AC as "Bid > > > > a red suit you pillock!" :) TD and AC are insane. > > > > cheers john > > > >>> > > > +=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may > > > create implicit agreements" +=+ > > > > > > > Exactly ... they do not necessarily create implicit agreements. > > > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 16 01:46:26 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:46:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred><00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john><001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701151553t3f588c37raff07945a6393339@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001a01c73907$c0aa9eb0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; "Wayne Burrows" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations >I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" violations that create >implicit agreements. One is usually enough. We have no problem that an implicit agreement has now been created, even if one didn't previously exist. However, we have made a superb call that caters for all possibilities, and, as Tim says, need to rule it under MI not UI. There seems little basis to adjust, since we called 5C intending to play 5 of a red if pard had remembered the system and 5C if he'd forgotten. How anyone can call this "fielding" defeats me. I repeat, the TD and AC were insane to go a UI route. It's worse than any of Wolff's "convention disruption" diatribes from the 90's; and he was totally discredited in this forum, at least. The implicit agreement is irrelevant here (and of course the EBU wouldn't even let me tell my opponents that pard was a berk and forgets the b****y system he insists we play, so I can't even tell opps we have an implicit agreement if he'd done it before) Mind you the L&E has made a few other naff regulations recently, so I've given up hope on them. cheers john > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:53 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > >> On 16/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> > >> > Grattan Endicott> > [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> > ***************************************** >> > "Beware when the great God lets >> > loose a thinker on this planet." >> > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. >> > =========================== >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "John Probst" >> > To: ; "BLML" >> > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:15 PM >> > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations >> > >> > >> > >> > > 5C is a superb 2-way call, caters for the probability >> > > partner has forgotten the convention HE insisted we >> > > played and easily arguable in front of the AC as "Bid >> > > a red suit you pillock!" :) TD and AC are insane. >> > > cheers john >> > >>> >> > +=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may >> > create implicit agreements" +=+ >> > >> >> Exactly ... they do not necessarily create implicit agreements. >> >> Wayne >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 16 02:13:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:13:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder: >SO------???????????? Doesn't free enterprise operate in your >ambiance??????? Smells to me like you'd like to have certain >European arrangements where everything is micro managed, no >one can have free enterprise, and we had best march in lock >step. Richard Hills: Kojak misunderstood the nature of my posting. I support the operation of free enterprise in getting quality directors (despite my own poor quality directorship being selected out as a result). William Schoder: >And to quickly clearly avoid naming the offenders, I'm not >talking about the Germans -- tain't them I'm thinking >about! It isn't too hard to understand that when you run a >bridge club you are presenting a product. If your product >is inferior for whatever reason perceived by the customers, >you lose. Do a better job. Richard Hills: I fully agree. It is rather the Nigel Guthrie view that I disagree with. Nigel Guthrie seems to think that unless there is a rigid formal ABF regulation, perhaps with a special additional post of ABF Witchfinder-General, most Australian TDs will automatically give biased rulings in favour of their friends and acquaintances. Marketplace 101 rightly prevents that occurring. William Schoder: >Meanwhile, > >Caveat emptor. > >Kojak. Richard Hills: Indeed, "caveat emptor" also applies to over-hasty postings by the director who is the Greatest Of All Time. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 16 05:48:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:48:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701151618w65d3a0c4o4527b842acbc84c6@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills ("my dream" thread 21st December 2004): >>>>>I dreamt that Herman De Wael, myself and Wayne >>>>>Burrows were in a train arguing about the >>>>>definitional boundary between an "undiscussed" call, >>>>>and an implicit concealed partnership agreement. I >>>>>then dreamt that through the train's window, we >>>>>observed a black sheep in a field. >>>>> >>>>>Herman said, "How interesting; all sheep are black." >>>>> >>>>>I said, "Not so; some sheep are black." >>>>> >>>>>Wayne said, "There exists at least one field, which >>>>>contains at least one sheep, at least one side of >>>>>which is black." Grattan Endicott quoting Law 75B: >>>>+=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may >>>>create implicit agreements" +=+ Wayne Burrows black sheeping: >>>Exactly ... they do not necessarily create implicit >>>agreements. Kojak quoting experience: >>I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" >>violations that create implicit agreements. One is >>usually enough. Wayne Burrows black sheeping: >Unfortunately for you Grattan quotes the law so it is >his post that is accurate and your view that is not. > >It is sad that when the law only states that a habitual >violation may create an implicit agreement that there >are esteemed directors that are willing to rule on even >less evidence that an implicit agreement must be >created. Richard Hills: It is sad that when an implicit agreement exists an esteemed blmler tries to "black sheep" away the facts. Or as Kojak might say, Wayne is "blowing smoke". Law 75B does _not_ say, "habitual violations are ***the only way*** that implicit agreements may be created". Implicit agreements are very frequently created in other ways. For example, both members in a new partnership may be regular players at the Canberra Bridge Club's Thursday night session, so both partners may have the implicit assumption that their agreement to play "Aussie Acol" (which is totally different from old English Acol) includes the implicit agreement to play the convention "Canberra Crowhurst" (which is totally different from the eponymous convention of Eric Crowhurst). 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 16 06:56:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:56:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] alertability [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>I would argue "Incapable lawbook!" rather than >>"Incapable director!" Eric Landau: >The fallacy in the view that Richard ascribes to Marv is >that nowhere does TFLB say that "general knowledge and >experience" need not be disclosed. L75C says that >"*inferences from*... general knowledge and experience" >[emphasis mine] need not be disclosed, which is >something entirely different. > >My interpretation of L75C says that you must inform your >opponents that 3H is game-forcing, notwithstanding that >this may be GK&E, but need not respond, for example, to >the follow-up question "what's the point range for >that?", which you could readily figure out (and may well >have already) from your GK&E. (Of course, if you do >have an explicit agreement about point range, you've >already blown it by describing 3H only as "game- >forcing".) Richard Hills: My point is that **because** Eric, Marv and myself have three rather different interpretations of Law 75C, the Lawbook is automatically incapable. If three blmlers who have indulged in Talmudic dissection of the Laws still differ, why should a mere club TD be able to draw subtle inferences from "inferences from"? For what it's worth, my definition of "general knowledge and experience" is narrower even than Eric's definition. I disclose all of the negative and positive inferences pertaining to my partnership agreements, reserving my definition of "general knowledge and experience" to such truisms as, "you never go broke if you never sacrifice vulnerable". 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 twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 16 12:35:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001a01c73907$c0aa9eb0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > The implicit agreement is irrelevant here (and of course the EBU > wouldn't even let me tell my opponents that pard was a berk and > forgets the b****y system he insists we play, so I can't even tell > opps we have an implicit agreement if he'd done it before) Technically that's not what the EBU is currently claiming to have said. You must disclose your implicit agreement but without any reference to the forgetfulness. Thus the correct explanation (if one knows pard forgets) is "Either weak with clubs OR a red 2-suiter". This implicit agreement *is* important because it might be an illegal convention (were the event EBU level 2). Tim From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Jan 16 14:19:41 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:19:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > My point is that **because** Eric, Marv and myself have > three rather different interpretations of Law 75C, the > Lawbook is automatically incapable. If three blmlers who > have indulged in Talmudic dissection of the Laws still > differ, why should a mere club TD be able to draw subtle > inferences from "inferences from"? > > For what it's worth, my definition of "general knowledge > and experience" is narrower even than Eric's definition. > > I disclose all of the negative and positive inferences > pertaining to my partnership agreements, reserving my > definition of "general knowledge and experience" to such > truisms as, "you never go broke if you never sacrifice > vulnerable". Would you support a stronger view that the concept should be expunged entirely? What rights are protected by the clause? -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 16 15:37:37 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:37:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> <001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net> At 03:38 PM 1/12/07, Sven wrote: >L75C permits a player when explaining an auction to omit certain details >related to a call on the ground that such details are kind of >inference from >his general knowledge and experience. > >I have however a very firm opinion that no player may ever refuse to give >any relevant information in reply to a specific request from an opponent. > >The main intention of L75 is to place both sides at equal terms when >interpreting the auction. The purpose of the "need not" clause in L75C >is to >relieve the explaining player from including (lots of) obvious stuff with >his explanation; it is not to permit him denying opponents relevant >information which they feel they might need however obvious this >information >might seem. I'd have thought that no player may ever refuse to give any relevant information *about his partnership's agreements* in reply to a specific request from an opponent. Consider this situation: Partner makes a call for which we have an explicitly agreed point range. I know from previous experience with this partner that he will sometimes make that call with less than our agreed minimum, but only if we estimate that we are having a bad game to that point. That's clearly an implicit agreement, which I must disclose. Am I also obligated to tell the opponents whether or not we estimate that we are having a bad game? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 16 15:53:21 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:53:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116094306.02a357c0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:29 PM 1/12/07, richard.hills wrote: >Wayne Burrows: > > >Penalizing psyches based on one coincidence is clearly > >an attempt to discourage psyches which are a legitimate > >part of the game. To me this is in conflict with L40A. > >Therefore I would argue it is an illegal regulation > >L80F. > >Richard Hills: > >Wayne is clearly basing his argument on a "category >mistake". A concealed partnership understanding is not >a psyche. And penalising a concealed partnership >understanding is not penalising a psyche. And while >Law 40A permits psyches, Law 40B prohibits concealed >partnership understandings. > >If Wayne does have any point to his argument, it seems >to be that Wayne is arguing that some concealed >partnership understandings should go unpenalised so that >players are not discouraged from exercising their Law >40A right to psyche. > >This seems to me to be analogous to the argument that >some thieves should go unpunished so that the shoppers >are not discouraged from visiting the local shopping >mall (but I am not discouraged, since I am off to the >Belconnen Mall now). It is clearly inappropriate to penalize a single psych, and clearly appropriate to penalize a single instance of a CPU. Neither is relevant to the point at issue. We're talking about calls that are alleged by their perpetrator to be psychs, but appear to be possible CPUs due to a Wolffian "coincidence". The question on the table is whether it is legitimate to find that the alleged psych was in fact an instance of a CPU based on a single such coincidence. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 16 16:29:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:29:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116100222.02a36400@pop.starpower.net> At 08:27 PM 1/12/07, gesta wrote: >+=+ Consider: > > 3 > K T 5 3 > A T 4 3 2 > A Q 7 >Q T 8 2 A J 6 5 4 >J 9 8 6 4 A Q 7 2 >K 6 J 9 5 >9 2 T > K 9 7 > - > Q 8 7 > K J 8 6 5 4 3 >Board 10 Dealer East > W N E S > 1S 3C > 3S 4C 4S P > P 5C all pass > >There were no alerts. East enquired at his turn >about the 3C bid. North explained 3C as >showing the red suits. >North explained his actions by saying that he >thought his hand and the auction suggested >that South did not have red suits. >The Director recorded this as an amber misbid. >Upon review by the national authority the misbid >was reclassified as red. >North is a very strong player. South is a weaker >player. > Unfair? Probably not -- although it would be if North was not given the opportunity to justify his assertion that "his hand and the auction suggested that South did not have red suits", notwithstanding that no such justification appears likely to be accepted. But in this case, the finding that N-S were guilty of having a CPU does not appear to have been based on "coincidence", but rather on the rejection of North's explanation for his actions as false. No "coincidence" was asserted by N-S; no such claim needed to be accepted or rejected (which is where Mr. Wolff's rule comes in) by the adjudicators. Consider a slightly different case, in which a "coincidence" *is* asserted: East, rather than inquiring, examines the N-S CC, which says that 3C shows the red suits. Both North and South subsequently assert that they had forgotten their agreement (perhaps they had only recently added it to their methods), and thought 3C was natural, showing about what South actually held. Would the NA still have ruled North's action a "red psych" (i.e. a CPU)? Mr. Wolff's "rule" would mandate that they do so, and would appear tn be needed in order to justify such a finding (as opposed to a finding of "ordinary" MI). Fair? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 16 16:57:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:57:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> At 09:42 PM 1/13/07, Nigel wrote: >Conveniently, Wayne omits from consideration the many other fielding >cases where everyone may have the values for their call :) > >Wayne's example -- where it is certain that somebody lacks the values >for his call -- is still interesting. > >I agree with Wayne that partners seem rapidly to acquire an awareness of >each other's intentions, even in the absence of discernable unauthorised >inrormation. > >Even in a context in which partner is prone to psych and opponents have >never been known to psyche, however, I think that the director should >still classify the fielded psych as *amber* at least. > >You have two opponents but only one partner. Hence, I concede that if, >in this context, partner is twice as likely to misbid or psych than an >opponent then the fielded psych should be categorised as *amber* at most. For Nigel's notion of "context" to be useful in distinguishing among "green", "amber" and "red" psychs (it's not clear whether Nigel is suggesting that it is), a player would not only have to be presumed to know how likely partner was to psych in a given context, but also how likely his opponents were to do so. The former presumption is merely dubious; the latter is absurd. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From sarahamos at onetel.net Tue Jan 16 17:00:11 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:00:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: Message-ID: <000801c73987$67565db0$11019058@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > John wrote: >> The implicit agreement is irrelevant here (and of course the EBU >> wouldn't even let me tell my opponents that pard was a berk and >> forgets the b****y system he insists we play, so I can't even tell >> opps we have an implicit agreement if he'd done it before) > > Technically that's not what the EBU is currently claiming to have said. > You must disclose your implicit agreement but without any reference to > the forgetfulness. Thus the correct explanation (if one knows pard > forgets) is "Either weak with clubs OR a red 2-suiter". That is not an allowed method Two suited overcalls must show at least one specified suit OB 11 N 7 Mike > This implicit agreement *is* important because it might be an illegal > convention (were the event EBU level 2). > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 16 17:28:54 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:28:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred><00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john><001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701151553t3f588c37raff07945a6393339@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c7398c$58751020$b0ab403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Wayne Burrows" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations >I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" >violations that create implicit agreements. One is > usually enough. > > Kojak > +=+ Oh, I agree. I was merely quoting the law book. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 16 18:48:13 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:48:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> <001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5C65F0B5-B8F3-4287-8669-1635D003DE24@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 16, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Consider this situation: Partner makes a call for which we have an > explicitly agreed point range. I know from previous experience with > this partner that he will sometimes make that call with less than our > agreed minimum, but only if we estimate that we are having a bad game > to that point. That's clearly an implicit agreement, which I must > disclose. Am I also obligated to tell the opponents whether or not we > estimate that we are having a bad game? If you're not so obligated, then you are in effect permitted to have an encrypted agreement. As I don't think the latter is the case, it seems you must disclose your estimate (I note that your partner's estimate may differ). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 16 18:58:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:58:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000801c73987$67565db0$11019058@oakdene1> References: <000801c73987$67565db0$11019058@oakdene1> Message-ID: On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Mike Amos wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:35 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > >> John wrote: >>> The implicit agreement is irrelevant here (and of course the EBU >>> wouldn't even let me tell my opponents that pard was a berk and >>> forgets the b****y system he insists we play, so I can't even tell >>> opps we have an implicit agreement if he'd done it before) >> >> Technically that's not what the EBU is currently claiming to have >> said. >> You must disclose your implicit agreement but without any >> reference to >> the forgetfulness. Thus the correct explanation (if one knows pard >> forgets) is "Either weak with clubs OR a red 2-suiter". > > That is not an allowed method > Two suited overcalls must show at least one specified suit > > OB 11 N 7 This isn't a two suited overcall, it's a "either one suited or two suited" overcall. That aside, it seems that if John and Tim are correct, the EBU has in effect created a regulation that says "if your partner can't remember your agreement, you aren't permitted to play it." While I'm aware that a number of people support this position, and I agree that it may be viable in national and international championships and the like, I don't think extending it to *all* levels of play is a good idea. Are you not in effect saying, to all players, "don't bother trying to learn any new conventions, unless you're absolutely certain you will never forget them"? From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Jan 16 19:21:12 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:21:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9CFCA@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: 16 January 2007 17:58 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations That aside, it seems that if John and Tim are correct, the EBU has in effect created a regulation that says "if your partner can't remember your agreement, you aren't permitted to play it." While I'm aware that a number of people support this position, and I agree that it may be viable in national and international championships and the like, I don't think extending it to *all* levels of play is a good idea. Are you not in effect saying, to all players, "don't bother trying to learn any new conventions, unless you're absolutely certain you will never forget them"? _______________________________________________ Not quite. Not that I am happy defending this regulations. Its more like saying to all players, "don't bother trying to learn any new conventions, unless you're absolutely certain you will forget them sufficiently infrequently that partner will not allow for you forgetting"? 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 Tue Jan 16 20:38:38 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:38:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001a01c73907$c0aa9eb0$0701a8c0@john> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> <00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john> <001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701151553t3f588c37raff07945a6393339@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c73907$c0aa9eb0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116142204.03079cf0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:46 PM 1/15/07, John wrote: >From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > > >I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" violations that > create > >implicit agreements. One is usually enough. > >We have no problem that an implicit agreement has now been created, >even if >one didn't previously exist. However, we have made a superb call that >caters >for all possibilities, and, as Tim says, need to rule it under MI not UI. >There seems little basis to adjust, since we called 5C intending to >play 5 >of a red if pard had remembered the system and 5C if he'd forgotten. How >anyone can call this "fielding" defeats me. I repeat, the TD and AC were >insane to go a UI route. It's worse than any of Wolff's "convention >disruption" diatribes from the 90's; and he was totally discredited in >this >forum, at least. > >The implicit agreement is irrelevant here (and of course the EBU wouldn't >even let me tell my opponents that pard was a berk and forgets the b****y >system he insists we play, so I can't even tell opps we have an implicit >agreement if he'd done it before) Mind you the L&E has made a few >other naff >regulations recently, so I've given up hope on them. John raises the critical question of what we consider to be "fielding" a psyche. You have reason to believe from the auction that someone has psyched. If you were sure it was not partner, you would take action X. You deduce (or "guess") that partner has psyched, and take action Y, which optimizes your result if you are correct. It turns out that partner has indeed psyched, so Y turns out to work better than X would have. That is fielding. You have reason to believe from the auction that someone has psyched. If you were sure it was not partner, you would take action X. Since you do not know who has psyched, you take action Z, which optimizes the expected value of your result given your uncertainty. It turns out that it is partner who has psyched, and Z turns out to work better than X would have. That is not fielding; that is just good bridge. Where we have a problem is when Y and Z are the same action. Does that count as "fielding", as Mr. Wolff would like it to, or is that notion "insane", as John argues? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 16 21:03:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:03:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> At 08:19 AM 1/16/07, Todd wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > My point is that **because** Eric, Marv and myself have > > three rather different interpretations of Law 75C, the > > Lawbook is automatically incapable. If three blmlers who > > have indulged in Talmudic dissection of the Laws still > > differ, why should a mere club TD be able to draw subtle > > inferences from "inferences from"? > > > > For what it's worth, my definition of "general knowledge > > and experience" is narrower even than Eric's definition. > > > > I disclose all of the negative and positive inferences > > pertaining to my partnership agreements, reserving my > > definition of "general knowledge and experience" to such > > truisms as, "you never go broke if you never sacrifice > > vulnerable". > >Would you support a stronger view that the concept should be >expunged entirely? > >What rights are protected by the clause? The right to charge for bridge lessons, for one. I have had an auction which, so far, has been fully disclosed to and fully comprehended by my opponents. Now my partner jumps to game, and an opponent asks what that means. I reply that it means he thinks he is going to make it. So then they ask me what he would have to hold in order to think he is going to make it. Without the "inferences from GK&E" clause of L75C, I would be required to educate my opponents on the subject of how much strength is needed to expect to make a game. The current law, appropriately IMO, says that I am not obligated to do that. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 21:50:44 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:50:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/07, Eric wrote this hypothetical example: > > I have had an auction which, so far, has been fully disclosed to and > fully comprehended by my opponents. Now my partner jumps to game, and > an opponent asks what that means. I reply that it means he thinks he > is going to make it. So then they ask me what he would have to hold in > order to think he is going to make it. Without the "inferences from > GK&E" clause of L75C, I would be required to educate my opponents on > the subject of how much strength is needed to expect to make a > game. The current law, appropriately IMO, says that I am not obligated > to do that. > Thanks Eric, that looks very clear to me. (A quibble: He might have made the bid even expecting to go down if there is interference, and it might instead be that he thinks it is in our interests to bid game. But you are probably assuming that there is little or no chance of competition in your example.) Here is a more difficult case to explore what constitutes inferences from GK&E: None vulnerable, West opens 1C precision, North, my partner, doubles, which I alert "at least 4-4 in the majors with any HCP, but probably balanced because other calls are available to show better distribution." This is a long description, but my question is whether I need to add more to it, and also how North should alert my advance to1H. East passes, alerted, showing a game forcing hand with values in one or both majors. I have xxxx-Ax-xx-xxxxx. Rather than just bidding 1 or 2 spades now, I might try 1H first to encourage a heart lead, and then if it is doubled, revert to spades. It seems obvious that South is the captain here, and North will abide by South's decision or decisions. When North alerts 1H, can his alert simply be "Willing to play 1H if undoubled, and maybe doubled as well." Or is it important to try to convey something more complex?---I.e., that 1H is either South's final decision, or just a temporary decision, or maybe even an inferior suit bid with a hope to get a favorable lead or to trick the opponents into penalty doubling us in spades. Or maybe 1H needs no alert given the meaning of double and the resulting obvious captaincy of South. Given the "inferences from GK&E" clause of L75C, what would you say the two alerts should be (for North's double and for South's 1H)? -Jerry Fusselman From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 16 22:01:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000801c73987$67565db0$11019058@oakdene1> Message-ID: Mike Amos wrote: > > Technically that's not what the EBU is currently claiming to have > > said. > > You must disclose your implicit agreement but without any reference > > to the forgetfulness. Thus the correct explanation (if one knows > > pard forgets) is "Either weak with clubs OR a red 2-suiter". > > That is not an allowed method > Two suited overcalls must show at least one specified suit > > OB 11 N 7 In an EBU level 2 event - sure. But can you tell me why the restriction in OB11N7 is not abolished (as it were) by the later Allowed at Levels 3 and 4 11 N 13 Developments All continuations by the defenders are allowed with or without intervention. Perhaps my OB is defective. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 16 22:01:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > That aside, it seems that if John and Tim are correct, the EBU has in > effect created a regulation that says "if your partner can't > remember your agreement, you aren't permitted to play it. It's not as restrictive as that. In many situations the "forgotten" meaning can be added to the "explicit" meaning without causing the convention to be illegal (even at level 2 one can play *any* defence to precision or a NT opener). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 16 22:16:01 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:16:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <5C65F0B5-B8F3-4287-8669-1635D003DE24@rochester.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> <001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net> <5C65F0B5-B8F3-4287-8669-1635D003DE24@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116160708.03086d70@pop.starpower.net> At 12:48 PM 1/16/07, Ed wrote: >On Jan 16, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > Consider this situation: Partner makes a call for which we have an > > explicitly agreed point range. I know from previous experience with > > this partner that he will sometimes make that call with less than our > > agreed minimum, but only if we estimate that we are having a bad game > > to that point. That's clearly an implicit agreement, which I must > > disclose. Am I also obligated to tell the opponents whether or not we > > estimate that we are having a bad game? > >If you're not so obligated, then you are in effect permitted to have >an encrypted agreement. As I don't think the latter is the case, it >seems you must disclose your estimate (I note that your partner's >estimate may differ). If my estimate differs from partner's, have I not misled my opponents as to what partner might actually hold? Am I obligated to reveal my "partnership experience" as to how successful we have been in the past at estimating our game? Do we really want to go there? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jan 16 22:34:17 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:34:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] alertability References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> <001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net> <5C65F0B5-B8F3-4287-8669-1635D003DE24@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004901c739b6$166e31a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Eric Landau wrote: > > > Consider this situation: Partner makes a call for which we have an > > explicitly agreed point range. I know from previous experience with > > this partner that he will sometimes make that call with less than our > > agreed minimum, but only if we estimate that we are having a bad game > > to that point. That's clearly an implicit agreement, which I must > > disclose. Am I also obligated to tell the opponents whether or not we > > estimate that we are having a bad game? > > If you're not so obligated, then you are in effect permitted to have > an encrypted agreement. As I don't think the latter is the case, it > seems you must disclose your estimate (I note that your partner's > estimate may differ). This looks like an illegal change of system to me. ELECTION for Law 40E Both members of a partnership must employ the same system on their convention cards. 1. During a sesson of play, a system may not be varied, except with the permission of the Director. (A Director might allow pair to change a convention, but would not allow a pair to change their basic system.) Of course we see pros violating this rule all the time when playing with customers, principally by routinely opening 1NT with 14-18 HCP when the CC says 15-17. I know some that *never* make a takeout double with a book double (e.g., 4-4-4-1), to avoid the possibility that the customer will play the hand. If they freely get away with this, why can't everyone? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 16 22:39:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:39:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.co m> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:50 PM 1/16/07, Jerry wrote: >None vulnerable, West opens 1C precision, North, my partner, doubles, >which I alert "at least 4-4 in the majors with any HCP, but probably >balanced because other calls are available to show better >distribution." This is a long description, but my question is whether >I need to add more to it, and also how North should alert my advance >to1H. > >East passes, alerted, showing a game forcing hand with values in one >or both majors. > >I have xxxx-Ax-xx-xxxxx. Rather than just bidding 1 or 2 spades now, >I might try 1H first to encourage a heart lead, and then if it is >doubled, revert to spades. It seems obvious that South is the captain >here, and North will abide by South's decision or decisions. When >North alerts 1H, can his alert simply be "Willing to play 1H if >undoubled, and maybe doubled as well." Or is it important to try to >convey something more complex?---I.e., that 1H is either South's final >decision, or just a temporary decision, or maybe even an inferior suit >bid with a hope to get a favorable lead or to trick the opponents into >penalty doubling us in spades. > >Or maybe 1H needs no alert given the meaning of double and the >resulting obvious captaincy of South. Given the "inferences from >GK&E" clause of L75C, what would you say the two alerts should be (for >North's double and for South's 1H)? The explanation Jerry offers for North's double sounds sufficient to me; I would expect that if the opponents want more info than that, they will ask for it. There is no clear-cut rule as to how much to include in a reply to "please explain" (sufficiency of explanation being, like pornography, inherently subjective), but nothing you know about your agreements may be withheld if the opponents express a desire to be given all the details you are aware of. If North is aware from either explicit agreement or past experience with this partner that South's 1H bid may be a lead-director, from which he intends to run if doubled, it must be alerted and the possibility disclosed. But if North has no absolutely reason to suspect that South might do this *other than that North might do it himself in this situation*, then whatever suspicion he might harbor is based solely on an inference from his GK&E, and an alert would be inappropriate, even potentially misleading. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 16 22:48:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:48:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>For what it's worth, my definition of "general knowledge >>>and experience" is narrower even than Eric's definition. >>> >>>I disclose all of the negative and positive inferences >>>pertaining to my partnership agreements, reserving my >>>definition of "general knowledge and experience" to such >>>truisms as, "you never go broke if you never sacrifice >>>vulnerable". Todd M. Zimnoch: >>Would you support a stronger view that the concept should >>be expunged entirely? >> >>What rights are protected by the clause? Eric Landau: >The right to charge for bridge lessons, for one. > >I have had an auction which, so far, has been fully >disclosed to and fully comprehended by my opponents. Now >my partner jumps to game, and an opponent asks what that >means. I reply that it means he thinks he is going to >make it. So then they ask me what he would have to hold >in order to think he is going to make it. Without the >"inferences from GK&E" clause of L75C, I would be required >to educate my opponents on the subject of how much strength >is needed to expect to make a game. The current law, >appropriately IMO, says that I am not obligated to do that. Richard Hills: If that is what current Law says (and Sven Pran, for one, seems to agree with my narrower definition of GK&E) then I freely violate current Law. In previous threads I have revealed how I am careful to describe negative inferences from my Symmetric Relay auctions to my opponents, including when "partner jumps to game", even if previously available information allows the opponents the option of deducing those negative inferences for themselves. Why should the opponents be forced to use mental gymnastics to comprehend an unusual system when I can give them straightforward full and free disclosure? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 16 23:03:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:03:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] alertability [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004901c739b6$166e31a0$6601a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >I know some [professional players] that *never* make a >takeout double with a book double (e.g., 4-4-4-1), to >avoid the possibility that the customer will play the >hand. If they freely get away with this, why can't >everyone? Richard Hills: A former Aussie professional player once had a very lucrative arrangement with a very rich but very stupid Aussie bunny. But the pro killed the goose which laid the golden eggs by foolishly adopting a CPU of one-way transfers. When the ABF discovered their "private system", the pro and the sponsor were disciplined, such discipline including a bar on them ever partnering each other again. The pro is now poorer but wiser. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 17 00:02:26 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:02:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116094306.02a357c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >It is clearly inappropriate to penalize a single >psych, Richard Hills: Unless there is a Law 40D regulation which gives a player conditional permission to employ a convention, but the condition in question is a requirement that the convention is never psyched. Eric Landau: >and clearly appropriate to penalize a single >instance of a CPU. Neither is relevant to the >point at issue. > >We're talking about calls that are alleged by >their perpetrator to be psychs, but appear to be >possible CPUs due to a Wolffian "coincidence". >The question on the table is whether it is >legitimate to find that the alleged psych was in >fact an instance of a CPU based on a single such >coincidence. Richard Hills: The "one swallow does not make a summer" concept is presumably the rationale for the EBU having an intermediate "Amber Psyche", rather than the EBU merely using a binomial classification system of only "Green Psyche" (real psyche) or "Red Psyche" (CPU pseudo-psyche). In the Scottish justice system there are likewise three possible verdicts, "Innocent", "Guilty" and "Not Proven". The classic Wolffian "coincidence" once happened to me, when both my partner and I simultaneously forgot our agreement. In a competitive auction, pard doubled 3C, which according to our agreed system was a takeout double. But we both temporarily believed that it was a penalty double. However, my temporary belief was influenced by my void in clubs, while pard's temporary belief was influenced by her five-card holding in clubs. So even Bobby Wolff as TD (or Herman De Wael as TD) might accept as legitimate our mutual coincidental forgetting of our agreed methods. 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 john at asimere.com Wed Jan 17 00:35:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:35:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004901c739c6$f8e36b30$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > William Schoder: Greatest Of All Time. > truly wonderful; nominated for a wreck.games.bridge (or wreck.bridge.rtflb award) For 10 years I've been looking for this. Both coats fit :) John > :-) > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 17 00:47:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >>the EBU has in effect created a regulation that says >>"if your partner can't remember your agreement, you >>aren't permitted to play it." While I'm aware that a >>number of people support this position, and I agree >>that it may be viable in national and international >>championships and the like, I don't think extending it >>to *all* levels of play is a good idea. >> >>Are you not in effect saying, to all players, "don't >>bother trying to learn any new conventions, unless >>you're absolutely certain you will never forget them"? ABF Alert Regulation 10.1: >Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions >have a damaging effect on the tournament. The Director >is empowered by these Regulations to require such a >pair to play a simpler system or convention. In extreme >cases he may apply a procedural penalty under Law 90A. Richard Hills: It seems to me that there is a big gap between "never forget" and "frequently forget". And it seems to me that it is not national and international championships where "frequently forget" is the big problem; world- class experts do their homework on their methods, and when world-class experts "rarely forget" their methods, their world-class opponents enjoy the usual windfall of imps. Rather, "frequently forget" is a very big problem at lower levels. In England and The Netherlands the vile Ghestem convention and its associated "frequent forgets" in lower level competition has severely reduced the enjoyment of the game for opponents of the Ghestemeers. Likewise, in Australia, some bunnies have a reach which exceeds their grasp. They adopt over-complex gadgets they do not understand, with the resulting random auctions upsetting their bunny opponents. So the above ABF regulation (although rarely used) is necessary to protect the greatest good of the greatest number. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 17 01:13:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:13:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Consider: > > 3 > K T 5 3 > A T 4 3 2 > A Q 7 >Q T 8 2 A J 6 5 4 >J 9 8 6 4 A Q 7 2 >K 6 J 9 5 >9 2 T > K 9 7 > - > Q 8 7 > K J 8 6 5 4 3 > >Board 10 Dealer East > >W N E S >--- --- 1S 3C >3S 4C 4S P >P 5C all pass > >There were no alerts. East enquired at his turn >about the 3C bid. North explained 3C as >showing the red suits. >North explained his actions by saying that he >thought his hand and the auction suggested >that South did not have red suits. >The Director recorded this as an amber misbid. >Upon review by the national authority the misbid >was reclassified as red. >North is a very strong player. South is a weaker >player. > Unfair? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: One aspect of this case which has not yet been discussed is tempo. Did South bid 3C in tempo? If South's 3C call was in normal tempo, then I would argue that North therefore had UI that the Ghestem convention had been forgotten by South, and that South instead held a club pre-empt. For if South actually held a red two-suiter, "a weaker player" would have paused while calculating which of the possible Ghestem overcalls showed that particular two-suiter. It is these pauses and twitches which can make the fielding of psyches and misbids so easy, which is why the Kaplan-Sheinwold partnership gave up using psyches because Edgar correctly "knew in his bones" whenever Alfred had psyched. 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jan 17 03:30:46 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:30:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> > [Eric Landau] > For Nigel's notion of "context" to be useful in distinguishing among > "green", "amber" and "red" psychs (it's not clear whether Nigel is > suggesting that it is), a player would not only have to be presumed to > know how likely partner was to psych in a given context, but also how > likely his opponents were to do so. The former presumption is merely > dubious; the latter is absurd. > [nige1] Really Eric? I am sure that Eric Landau is right that you shouldn't take into account partner's propensity to choose which context in which to psyche; but I think it is OK to estimate the likelihood of an opponent's psych; there are some contexts in which nobody seems to psych. If opponents are in such a context, perhaps, you can justify "fielding" partner's psych. Manifestly, in contexts where somebody does not have the values for his call, but there is no evidence as to the culprit, it is 2:1 that an opponent has misbid or psyched rather than partner. So that fielding is normally an anti-percentage action; and a priori grounds for grave suspicion. Like Grattan, I feel that a single "red field" should justify an adjusted score. Most alternative strategies seem to encourage pairs to devise CPUs. It might work to record every psych and deviation and to collate the data internationally but it would be a massive administrative task and might even come into conflict with data-protection and privacy law. What CPU counter-measures would Eric Landau and Wayne Burrows advocate. Or do they recommend an even more permissive attitude to CPUs? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jan 17 04:27:15 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:27:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net><001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net><5C65F0B5-B8F3-4287-8669-1635D003DE24@rochester.rr.com> <004901c739b6$166e31a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <008901c739e7$632c1350$6400a8c0@rota> Marvin French writes: > > From: "Ed Reppert" > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> > Consider this situation: Partner makes a call for which we have an >> > explicitly agreed point range. I know from previous experience with >> > this partner that he will sometimes make that call with less than > our >> > agreed minimum, but only if we estimate that we are having a bad > game >> > to that point. That's clearly an implicit agreement, which I must >> > disclose. Am I also obligated to tell the opponents whether or not > we >> > estimate that we are having a bad game? Comparing scores with opponents at matchpoints in mid-game may itself be improper. >> If you're not so obligated, then you are in effect permitted to have >> an encrypted agreement. As I don't think the latter is the case, it >> seems you must disclose your estimate (I note that your partner's >> estimate may differ). > > This looks like an illegal change of system to me. > > ELECTION for Law 40E > > Both members of a partnership must employ the same system on their > convention cards. The ACBL has intepreted this as referring to system, not style; their example is that both partners must have the same range for opening 1NT, but one may choose never to open 1NT with a five-card major, and the other may sometimes open with a five-card major. And, in fact, it's impossible to police style issues; I can't agree with most partners on exactly what disqualifies a hand from preempting, or on which 17-counts are too strong for a 1NT opening. > 1. During a sesson of play, a system may not be varied, except with the > permission of the Director. (A Director might allow pair to change a > convention, but would not allow a pair to change their basic system.) However, it is standard to adjust your style according to the conditions, and according to the opponents. You might psych against experts and not psych on the same hand against novices, and you might take a slightly anti-percentage or non-standard call when you are behind in a match. In a matchpoint game, are you supposed to tell your opponents that you will be shooting because you need tops, or playing conservatively in the last round because you think you need only an average to win? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 17 04:51:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:51:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45AD8A56.2080703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >>a player would not only have to be presumed to >>know how likely partner was to psych in a given >>context, but also how likely his opponents were >>to do so. The former presumption is merely >>dubious; the latter is absurd. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Manifestly, in contexts where somebody does not >have the values for his call, but there is no >evidence as to the culprit, it is 2:1 that an >opponent has misbid or psyched rather than >partner. [snip] Richard Hills: Manifestly both Eric and Nigel are absurd. In the current era of over-scientific bidding the odds that a random unknown opponent will choose to perpetrate a psyche are infinitesimal. In the sixties there was a saying, "never trust anyone over thirty". Nowadays the majority of mature bridge players never psyche. So when my partner and I are playing at the South Canberra Bridge Club, and if(1) my partner notices that the auction has a distinct odour of red herring, my partner can then deduce that it is not 2:1 that an opponent has psyched, but rather 200:1 that I have psyched (yes, I am over thirty, but I have the happy-go-lucky attitude of a 12-year-old). (1) My psyches are sufficiently rare that mostly pard fails to notice until after the consequent bottom. :-) 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jan 17 04:53:49 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:53:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AD9DCD.7030808@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] North: S:3 H:KT53 D:AT432 C:AQ7 ---- -- (1S) 3C (3S) 4C (4S) _P (_P) 5C _AP_ [nige1] At favourable vulnerability, more and more pairs, who have "Ghestem" on their convention cards, jump in a suit with a weak jump overcall or a random two suiter. The suspicion is that their real agreement is "terrorist psycho suction". As here, responder treads warily to cater for the most common possibilities. In this auction, we are told that North-South don't even know whether 3C shows clubs or the red suits; but, in the latter case, some BLML commentators credit them with the understanding that responding and rebidding clubs is a *cuebid*. I agree with Grattan about the likelihood of such an interpretation. The band played "believe it if you like." The least the director should ask is what action responder would take with a long strong club suit. Poor opponents often suspect that they are being taken for a ride; but the law severely restricts what they can do to counter such methods. If a director judges any of their subsequent actions to be "wild and gambling", then they are likely to forfeit any possibility of redress. Not that they are likely to get much change from Tim or John, anyway. I seem to remember Sven Pran reporting that, in some Scandinavian jurisdictions, you aren't allowed to use random jump overcalls, whatever you describe them as. IMO that is a step in the right direction. If the law specified a *standard system*, then the law could be quite forgiving of those who forgot or made mistakes when trying to employ it; but there could be Wolff-like laws against those who made serendipitous mistakes with more sophisticated methods. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jan 17 05:25:36 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:25:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ADA540.6000807@NTLworld.com> > [nige1] > Manifestly, in contexts where somebody does not > have the values for his call, but there is no > evidence as to the culprit, it is 2:1 that an > opponent has misbid or psyched rather than > partner. > > >> [Richard Hills] >> >> Manifestly both Eric and Nigel are absurd. In the >> current era of over-scientific bidding the odds >> that a random unknown opponent will choose to >> perpetrate a psyche are infinitesimal. >> >> In the sixties there was a saying, "never trust >> anyone over thirty". Nowadays the majority of >> mature bridge players never psyche. >> >> So when my partner and I are playing at the South >> Canberra Bridge Club, and if(1) my partner notices >> that the auction has a distinct odour of red >> herring, my partner can then deduce that it is not >> 2:1 that an opponent has psyched, but rather 200:1 >> that I have psyched (yes, I am over thirty, but I >> have the happy-go-lucky attitude of a 12-year-old). >> >> (1) My psyches are sufficiently rare that mostly >> pard fails to notice until after the consequent >> bottom. :-) >> >> [nige2] For one so sensitive to perceived slights, Richard is quite free with personal invective :) Richard seems to be discussing a situation, where there *is* evidence as to the "culprit" -- it's Richard himself! :( Even in this context, I believe that I (and possibly Eric) would argue that Richard's regular partner shouldn't adjust his bidding to take into account Richard's psyching habits; although I suppose it might be OK if he previously divulged such proclivities to opponents. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 17 05:45:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:45:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] alertability [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008901c739e7$632c1350$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner: >Comparing scores with opponents at matchpoints in >mid-game may itself be improper. [snip] >In a matchpoint game, are you supposed to tell your >opponents that you will be shooting because you need >tops, or playing conservatively in the last round >because you think you need only an average to win? Richard Hills: On a first point, Law 90B4 prohibits unauthorised comparison of scores, but that seems to apply only to details of scores on particular boards (thus creating possible UI problems if overheard by a contestant yet to play a discussed particular board). Announcing, "I estimate we have 55% so we will be shooting for victory in this last round" does not seem to me to be necessarily a Law 90B4 violation. On a second point, the word "you" is ambiguous. If "you" is used in the singular sense, one having made a unilateral decision to shoot based only on one's personal (possibly over-pessimistic) assessment of the results to date, then one may ethically stay silent. If "you" is used as a plural, or the Deep South idiom "you-all", so a partnership agreement to shoot in the final round, then the opponents are entitled to be informed of your shooting star understanding (and perhaps take relevant counter-measures by modifying their own agreements to include more speculative penalty doubles). 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 17 05:50:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:50:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45AD9DCD.7030808@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >If the law specified a *standard system* ..... Robert Graves, I Claudius: "If the Wooden Horse of Troy had foaled ....." 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 17 06:38:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:38:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45ADA540.6000807@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >>>>a player would not only have to be presumed to >>>>know how likely partner was to psych in a given >>>>context, but also how likely his opponents were >>>>to do so. The former presumption is merely >>>>dubious; the latter is absurd. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>>Manifestly, in contexts where somebody does not >>>have the values for his call, but there is no >>>evidence as to the culprit, it is 2:1 that an >>>opponent has misbid or psyched rather than >>>partner. [snip] Richard Hills: >>Manifestly both Eric and Nigel are absurd. [snip] Nigel Guthrie: >For one so sensitive to perceived slights, >Richard is quite free with personal invective [snip] Richard Hills: I am so free with the personal invective that I save the best for myself, in recent posts describing myself (accurately) as "poor quality" and also "incompetent" as a former trainee National Director. :-) 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 twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 17 12:30:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45AD9DCD.7030808@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Not that they are likely to get much change from Tim or > John, anyway. Why not? I'm prepared to adjust for MI given that neither the explanation nor CC was not consistent with playing terrorist psycho-suction. I'm prepared to rule illegal convention in competitions where playing terrorist psycho-suction is illegal. I'm not going to rule "illegal convention" in an EBU3/4 competition until someone explains to me how TP-S can be illegal when OB11N13 clearly states: 11 N 13 Developments All continuations by the defenders are allowed with or without intervention. Why would Nigel expect me to do otherwise? Tim From tzimnoch at comcast.net Wed Jan 17 14:43:14 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:43:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AE27F2.4040205@comcast.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: >>I have had an auction which, so far, has been fully >>disclosed to and fully comprehended by my opponents. Now >>my partner jumps to game, and an opponent asks what that >>means. I reply that it means he thinks he is going to >>make it. So then they ask me what he would have to hold >>in order to think he is going to make it. Without the >>"inferences from GK&E" clause of L75C, I would be required >>to educate my opponents on the subject of how much strength >>is needed to expect to make a game. The current law, >>appropriately IMO, says that I am not obligated to do that. I think this game might be better if I never again hear, "I don't have to answer that." I don't believe that you can say your opponents have fully comprehended the auction if they ask such a question. The director should be involved if they're asking for another, potentially unethical, reason. > Richard Hills: > If that is what current Law says (and Sven Pran, for one, > seems to agree with my narrower definition of GK&E) then I > freely violate current Law. I wouldn't say you are violating current Law. There's nothing prohibiting you from exceeding your disclosure obligations except being obnoxious about it. I expected that the clause protects a player accused of inadequate disclosure -- what unmentioned details are considered too mundane that their exclusion should not have been a problem. I don't like that the clause is used to justify no disclosure. -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 17 15:29:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801c73a2f$c4ad8ad0$1c92f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: Mike wrote: > > I posted to the list yesterday an answer to this but for some reason > it awaits approval > > I know its set out in a confusing and hopeless manner but i have no > doubt that what it means is after a two suited overcall (or any of > the other types of overcall) then any continuation is allowed. B..b..but Mike. The text for 11N13 is in the section "11 N Defence to Natural One of a Suit Opening Bids" it immediately follows the restriction (or grant of permission as one might see it) "Allowed at levels 3 and 4". Contrast that with the structure in 11M 11 M Defence to Artificial and Forcing Bids 11 M 1 Developments All continuations are allowed by the defender side with or without intervention by the opening side. Now the EBU may not have *intended* to make *any* defence to natural calls legal but, until the OB is revised, my belief is that they have actually done so. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 17 15:38:59 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:38:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116160708.03086d70@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net> <001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net> <5C65F0B5-B8F3-4287-8669-1635D003DE24@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116160708.03086d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <1EB38185-7942-4E58-9245-6DEA07499042@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 16, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Do we really want to go there? Probably not. I suppose the question is "where do we draw the line?" :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 17 15:45:10 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:45:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jan 16, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > nothing you know about your agreements may be withheld if the > opponents express a desire to be given all the details you are > aware of. From the ACBL Alert regulation: "The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically." I submit that Eric should have placed the period above after the word "withheld", and omitted the "if" clause. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jan 17 16:24:22 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:24:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence Message-ID: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> Ciao! Many years ago I directed a tournament in which a player opened 1 in a major. According to the conv. card (and the players) they played "limit raises", with adequate support in suit and 8 losers they raised to 3. But, in this case the partner bid 1NT (with adequate trump support and 8 losers), which the opener passed for a decent score. Opener had something like 3 HCPs and a doubleton in his bid suit. Do you allow the score to stand? (I didn't, but then I rather approve of the law of coincidence, even when it has only happened once as in this case.) (Naturally I asked why the responder didn't make a limit raise but was not convinced by his explanation.) Later, another pair (from the same country) had a fairly similar bidding sequence. Opener psyched 1 in major, partner with an ideal limit raise bid 2 in a minor (normally forcing) which opener passed. Again decent score. Again, the first time it happened with this pair. Again I adjusted the score. Ciao, JE From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Jan 17 16:56:30 2007 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:56:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal books In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070103091236.02af4a50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006401c73a50$0dd499e0$2201a8c0@Karel3200> Hi all Quick question. The Appeal books (fall, summer etc etc ) edited by Rich Colker ... ran upto 2002, one in 2003. Were they discontinued or are there 2003+ ones about some place ? Karel From sarahamos at onetel.net Wed Jan 17 17:11:02 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:11:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001201c73a52$15d21fd0$1c92f257@oakdene1> 11M is even more peverse because it comes in the wrong sequence Defence is defence Contnuation is continuation that follows defence I don't know how to make it clearer Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Mike wrote: >> >> I posted to the list yesterday an answer to this but for some reason >> it awaits approval >> >> I know its set out in a confusing and hopeless manner but i have no >> doubt that what it means is after a two suited overcall (or any of >> the other types of overcall) then any continuation is allowed. > > B..b..but Mike. The text for 11N13 is in the section "11 N Defence to > Natural One of a Suit Opening Bids" it immediately follows the > restriction (or grant of permission as one might see it) "Allowed at > levels 3 and 4". > > Contrast that with the structure in 11M > > 11 M Defence to Artificial and Forcing Bids > 11 M 1 Developments > All continuations are allowed by the defender side with or without > intervention by the opening side. > > Now the EBU may not have *intended* to make *any* defence to natural > calls legal but, until the OB is revised, my belief is that they have > actually done so. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 17 17:14:04 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:14:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c73a52$82aacf30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > nothing you know about your agreements may be withheld if the > > opponents express a desire to be given all the details you are > > aware of. > > From the ACBL Alert regulation: > > "The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request > for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate > the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given > automatically." > > I submit that Eric should have placed the period above after the word > "withheld", and omitted the "if" clause. Now this understanding is clearly in conflict with Law 75C! When answering a question you need not include matters of general knowledge and experience on which you have an honest assumption that such matter should be known also to your opponents. For instance failing to mention that a simple overcall shows at least a five-card suit cannot be considered a violation of Law 75C (nor of the ACBL regulation). But once your opponents ask a specific question, whether directly or for clarification, then that question must be (fully) answered. Responding "I need not answer this" or words to that effect is in my opinion a clear violation of law 74A2 (just to mention one). To complete the example above: If opponents ask about the length of the suit named in a simple overcall then the answer should be "at least five cards"; saying something like "I do not need to answer this question" should be severely penalized! Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 17:18:53 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:18:53 -0600 Subject: [blml] Appeal books References: <006401c73a50$0dd499e0$2201a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:56 AM Subject: [blml] Appeal books > Hi all > > Quick question. The Appeal books (fall, summer etc etc ) edited by Rich > Colker ... ran upto 2002, one in 2003. Were they discontinued or are > there > 2003+ ones about some place ? > > Karel Several years ago Rich stopped editting, 2003 sounds right. Since then I believe the cases have been posted without comment. Some NABCs have been commented by blml. I found the url to the casebook page: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html regards roger pewick From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 17 17:35:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:35:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence In-Reply-To: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> References: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> Message-ID: <45AE505E.5000009@skynet.be> Hello Jeff, my general comment would be: if this is all that happened, you would be wrong in ruling like this. But probably there was more "table feeling" from you than you can express in a post to blml. And then your ruling would probably have my sympathy. Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ciao! Many years ago I directed a tournament in which a player opened 1 > in a major. According to the conv. card (and the players) they played > "limit raises", with adequate support in suit and 8 losers they raised > to 3. But, in this case the partner bid 1NT (with adequate trump > support and 8 losers), which the opener passed for a decent score. > Opener had something like 3 HCPs and a doubleton in his bid suit. Do > you allow the score to stand? (I didn't, but then I rather approve of > the law of coincidence, even when it has only happened once as in this > case.) (Naturally I asked why the responder didn't make a limit raise > but was not convinced by his explanation.) Later, another pair (from > the same country) had a fairly similar bidding sequence. Opener psyched > 1 in major, partner with an ideal limit raise bid 2 in a minor (normally > forcing) which opener passed. Again decent score. Again, the first > time it happened with this pair. Again I adjusted the score. Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 17 18:03:05 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:03:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000401c73a52$82aacf30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c73a52$82aacf30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Now this understanding is clearly in conflict with Law 75C! When > answering a > question you need not include matters of general knowledge and > experience on > which you have an honest assumption that such matter should be > known also to > your opponents. For instance failing to mention that a simple > overcall shows > at least a five-card suit cannot be considered a violation of Law > 75C (nor > of the ACBL regulation). > > But once your opponents ask a specific question, whether directly > or for > clarification, then that question must be (fully) answered. > Responding "I > need not answer this" or words to that effect is in my opinion a clear > violation of law 74A2 (just to mention one). To complete the > example above: > If opponents ask about the length of the suit named in a simple > overcall > then the answer should be "at least five cards"; saying something > like "I do > not need to answer this question" should be severely penalized! Pfui. The regulation I quoted says "all relevant disclosure". That does not include GK&E. Aside from that, my point was simply that Eric's assertion that if the opponents do not explicitly ask for "all the details you are aware of" you are not required to divulge some such details (not a matter of GK&E) is incorrect. I deplore hiding behind GK&E as an excuse for not disclosing something about one's methods. Nonetheless, Law 75C specifically exempts inferences from GK&E from the requirements of full disclosure. OTOH, the expected length of the suit in a simple overcall is not an inference; it is the GK&E itself. So yeah, if asked that specific question, you should answer it. But suppose there *is* a matter of inference from GK&E - you cannot be required to divulge that inference, and if it is the *only* relevant thing about the call in question (which seems to me ought to be a very rare occurrence) then how do you handle it? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 17 18:29:38 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:29:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence In-Reply-To: <45AE505E.5000009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c73a5d$10c899a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > Hello Jeff, > > my general comment would be: if this is all that happened, you would > be wrong in ruling like this. But probably there was more "table > feeling" from you than you can express in a post to blml. And then > your ruling would probably have my sympathy. > > Herman. Generally I would agree with Herman, but the "fielding" here appears so obvious that I would demand an extremely convincing story for letting the results stand rather than ruling CPU. (And I am not that easy to convince when I smell a rat!) Regards Sven > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > Ciao! Many years ago I directed a tournament in which a player opened 1 > > in a major. According to the conv. card (and the players) they played > > "limit raises", with adequate support in suit and 8 losers they raised > > to 3. But, in this case the partner bid 1NT (with adequate trump > > support and 8 losers), which the opener passed for a decent score. > > Opener had something like 3 HCPs and a doubleton in his bid suit. Do > > you allow the score to stand? (I didn't, but then I rather approve of > > the law of coincidence, even when it has only happened once as in this > > case.) (Naturally I asked why the responder didn't make a limit raise > > but was not convinced by his explanation.) Later, another pair (from > > the same country) had a fairly similar bidding sequence. Opener psyched > > 1 in major, partner with an ideal limit raise bid 2 in a minor (normally > > forcing) which opener passed. Again decent score. Again, the first > > time it happened with this pair. Again I adjusted the score. Ciao, JE > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 17 20:37:44 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:37:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c73a6e$f5ee7ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > The regulation I quoted says "all relevant disclosure". > That does not include GK&E. Well, IMO GK&E can be VERY relevant! > I deplore hiding behind GK&E as an excuse for not disclosing > something about one's methods. Absolutely. And in my opinion that possibility has never been the intention of Law 75C. > Nonetheless, Law 75C specifically > exempts inferences from GK&E from the requirements of full > disclosure. OTOH, the expected length of the suit in a simple > overcall is not an inference; it is the GK&E itself. So yeah, if > asked that specific question, you should answer it. > > But suppose there *is* a matter of inference from GK&E - you cannot > be required to divulge that inference, and if it is the *only* > relevant thing about the call in question (which seems to me ought to > be a very rare occurrence) then how do you handle it? It would be much easier if you provided an example (like I did with the "minimum 5 cards length") I should like to see at least one case where I would agree that the information could remain undisclosed in spite of a direct question. My position as a director is that if a player has asked for an explanation (with a not leading question) and some information was left out from the answer as being "generally knowledge" I would still rule misinformation if it should appear that the player has some reason for not being aware of this general knowledge or its importance in the situation. Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Jan 17 21:16:25 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:16:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:24:22 +0100." <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> Message-ID: <200701171950.LAA03602@mailhub.irvine.com> > Ciao! Many years ago I directed a tournament in which a player opened 1 > in a major. According to the conv. card (and the players) they played > "limit raises", with adequate support in suit and 8 losers they raised > to 3. But, in this case the partner bid 1NT (with adequate trump > support and 8 losers), which the opener passed for a decent score. > Opener had something like 3 HCPs and a doubleton in his bid suit. Do > you allow the score to stand? You haven't given us enough information. The hand may have had "adequate" support and 8 losers, but that doesn't mean the correct bid is automatic. In a recent thread on BLML, someone wondered whether those who use LTC would treat Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx the same as Axx Axx Axx Axxx, even though both hands have the same number of losers (8). So perhaps this pair is too experienced to think that LTC or any other evaluation system is something to be followed slavishly. Similarly with your second example. You say that responder failed to make a limit raise with an "ideal limit raise" bid, but can you say for sure that someone might not evaluate it differently? Some limit raise hands should bid a side suit to help partner evaluate his holding in that suit. Perhaps the player in question actually considered the hand to be too *good* for a limit raise. I have some sympathy with the idea that if a player fails to make an absolutely 100% clearcut bid, we can suspect him of fielding a psych. But you'd better make damn sure the bid is 100% clearcut---and that has to be more than just "that's what the director would have bid without giving it much thought". Specifically, rough evaluation formulas that reduce hands to a single number, like point count or loser count or Zar points or Kaplan-Rubens or whatever, can probably never, by themselves, make a certain bid clearcut or automatic enough to make this sort of ruling. And if the only thing you remember about the hand in the first case is that contained adequate support and "8 losers", then perhaps that means that's the only thing you based your ruling on. And if so, your ruling was likely wrong. But reality, there's no way any of us can legitimately judge your cases without seeing the exact hand of the player accused of fielding. -- Adam > (I didn't, but then I rather approve of > the law of coincidence, even when it has only happened once as in this > case.) (Naturally I asked why the responder didn't make a limit raise > but was not convinced by his explanation.) Later, another pair (from > the same country) had a fairly similar bidding sequence. Opener psyched > 1 in major, partner with an ideal limit raise bid 2 in a minor (normally > forcing) which opener passed. Again decent score. Again, the first > time it happened with this pair. Again I adjusted the score. Ciao, JE From joanandron at worldnet.att.net Wed Jan 17 21:49:13 2007 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:49:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appeal books References: <006401c73a50$0dd499e0$2201a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <003b01c73a78$f3f20700$5c344c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi, The NABC Appeals Books have been discontinued in hard copy. Currently, the cases, both NABC and Regional and posted on the internet as soon as the commentators have made their comments. We have 6-8 commentators and Gary Blaiss is currently putting the comments together along with the committee write-ups and having them posted. This has been happening in 2004-2006. This year only the commentators were allowed to comment (as was done in the days when Rich Colker was the editor). Best regards, Joan Gerard, Director NABC Appeals - 2006 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:56 AM Subject: [blml] Appeal books > Hi all > > Quick question. The Appeal books (fall, summer etc etc ) edited by Rich > Colker ... ran upto 2002, one in 2003. Were they discontinued or are there > 2003+ ones about some place ? > > Karel > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 17 22:16:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:16:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070117160651.02b73880@pop.starpower.net> At 09:45 AM 1/17/07, Ed wrote: >On Jan 16, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > nothing you know about your agreements may be withheld if the > > opponents express a desire to be given all the details you are > > aware of. > > From the ACBL Alert regulation: > >"The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request >for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate >the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given >automatically." > >I submit that Eric should have placed the period above after the word >"withheld", and omitted the "if" clause. Any request for information should, IMO, be the trigger for a suitable explanation, namely one that tells what you would expect most opponents to want to know. But if you spew forth every detail, possible follow-up, negative inference, possibly relevant partnership experience, etc. etc. you do a disservice to the vast majority of your opponents, who really just want to know what your bid means. That said, there will be some atypical opponents who will want to hear it all. All I was trying to say is that if they really want it, they have the right to hear it in all its grandeur and glory. But it's foolish to think that every explanation of every bid must include every last bit of information to which the opponents are entitled to know if they care to, or that we could continue to fit 24- or 26-board sessions into a mere three or four hours if it were required to. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 22:46:51 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:46:51 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560701151618w65d3a0c4o4527b842acbc84c6@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701171346h27a82354xa552800ff6cdb796@mail.gmail.com> On 16/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills ("my dream" thread 21st December 2004): > > >>>>>I dreamt that Herman De Wael, myself and Wayne > >>>>>Burrows were in a train arguing about the > >>>>>definitional boundary between an "undiscussed" call, > >>>>>and an implicit concealed partnership agreement. I > >>>>>then dreamt that through the train's window, we > >>>>>observed a black sheep in a field. > >>>>> > >>>>>Herman said, "How interesting; all sheep are black." > >>>>> > >>>>>I said, "Not so; some sheep are black." > >>>>> > >>>>>Wayne said, "There exists at least one field, which > >>>>>contains at least one sheep, at least one side of > >>>>>which is black." > > Grattan Endicott quoting Law 75B: > > >>>>+=+ "habitual violations within a partnership may > >>>>create implicit agreements" +=+ > > Wayne Burrows black sheeping: > > >>>Exactly ... they do not necessarily create implicit > >>>agreements. > > Kojak quoting experience: > > >>I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" > >>violations that create implicit agreements. One is > >>usually enough. > > Wayne Burrows black sheeping: > > >Unfortunately for you Grattan quotes the law so it is > >his post that is accurate and your view that is not. > > > >It is sad that when the law only states that a habitual > >violation may create an implicit agreement that there > >are esteemed directors that are willing to rule on even > >less evidence that an implicit agreement must be > >created. > > Richard Hills: > > It is sad that when an implicit agreement exists an > esteemed blmler tries to "black sheep" away the facts. > > Or as Kojak might say, Wayne is "blowing smoke". Law > 75B does _not_ say, "habitual violations are ***the only > way*** that implicit agreements may be created". > > Implicit agreements are very frequently created in other > ways. For example, both members in a new partnership > may be regular players at the Canberra Bridge Club's > Thursday night session, so both partners may have the > implicit assumption that their agreement to play "Aussie > Acol" (which is totally different from old English Acol) > includes the implicit agreement to play the convention > "Canberra Crowhurst" (which is totally different from > the eponymous convention of Eric Crowhurst). > I am not blowing smoke. There is nothing in my argument that prevents implicit agreements being established in some other way. You should know this by your "black sheep" argument. My argument above was only concerned with establishing an implicit agreement from 'one instance'. Of course if there is 'one instance' plus other collaborating evidence this maybe sufficient. However IMHO 'one instance' plus no other evidence can never be sufficient. Wayne From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jan 17 23:37:52 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:37:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence Message-ID: <45AEA540.3050204@aol.com> blmlers! I see from the comments that more info is needed. Cannot any longer describe the exact hand since the incident was more than 20 years ago. Here are, however some details, some of which might even be pertinent. I shall refrain from exact names of places and countries in case someone might come along and feel that his honour has been impugned. The tournament took place in an eastern european country in the time before the "iron curtain" fell. Players in most eastern european countries at that time had little or no access to contemporary or even older bridge literature and there were many pretty bizarre systems and conventions. It kept you on your toes as a TD. The players from two balkan countries (not the top players but the second line) did not have a very good reputation for highly ethical behaviour. The first instruction given to new players from western Europe when playing in this tournament for the first time was to keep your legs stretched out at all times under the table when playing against pairs from the two countries mentioned above so as to hinder foot contact by the opponents under the table. Anyway, in the cases mentioned in my earlier email, I, naturally, after being called by the other pair, questioned the pair which didn't make the apparently indicated limit raise (after checking their conv. card). As a blmler said, I am also skeptical and not easy to convince in such cases. In both cases the player not making the limit raise admitted that (a) they played limit raises and (b) his hand was a perfect, book, example for a limit raise. When I then asked why he didn't make one then I received nothing very convincing (no one even claimed to have forgotten the convention). As I recall the explanations were more like: "I didn't feel like it", "I had a hunch", "I decided to break out of the system". None of them convinced me. I had not been called previously to be told that one of these pairs had refused to make a limit raise when the partner had a genuine opening but that means little since the TD is often not called in such situations, particularly if there has been no damage. In any case, there had been two psyches in each case (at least bids that didn't conform to the announced system) and they compensated (each other), in short, the psyche was fielded and there was no explanation how or why. There was also no indication in the bidding that someone had psyched (the opponents had passed, apparently in normal tempo) but somehow, when the psyche was made, the partner of the psycher compensated and was unable to offer an even halfway convincing reason for doing so. So, despite it being the first occasion for each of these pairs, I adjusted the scores and, in fact, I'd do it again. But, as I said earlier, I see a great deal of value in Wolfies rule of coincidence (as long as TDs are careful and don't go overboard in applying it). Unrepentently, JE From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 18 01:33:54 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:33:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <004901c739c6$f8e36b30$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <004101c73a98$5556a450$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "John Probst" Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >First, John, up yours, but I love your comment. >We are now in a ridiculous, serious, and stupid and regrettable decision >that when your partner violates your conventional agreement, >and you can >escape to that being a psychic call.Younow make your psychic call and may >the Gods not destroy the game! Kojak, Listen to the mouths of babes and sucklings for a moment. Put yourself in the position of the bridge Pro doing his best to get the idiot sitting opposite some monster points. The bridge Pro, from /general knowledge and experience/, *knows* that idiots who insist on playing these stupid conventions forget them most of the time; and to be fair, the opponents know it too. On the hand in question, the value bid is to play at the 5-level in one of the red suits and the correct call to achieve this is 5C. Our bridge Pro has fallen mighty lucky that he can make this bid which, should his idiot partner have forgotten the system, will also turn out OK. Most of the time the structure of the calls will be such that our bridge Pro won't be able to get away with it but this time he can. Provided we can play "any defence" to 1-level openers there is no redress for use of UI. There may be redress for MI, and I'd certainly search very hard for it on this hand, since I don't like the auction any more than you do. I tell you, Kojak, you have to allow appalling bridge to get the occasional good result. I continue to insist the TD and AC were insane. Hmm, Rabid Dog and rancid goat fight to bite each other's throat When a Ghestem Club Allows one to sub Cue for a suit and claim a gloat. Dog and Goat at each others' throats, doesn't happen often. Best regards as ever, John From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 18 01:47:55 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:47:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] alertability References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070112101848.0307beb0@pop.starpower.net><001001c73689$90237210$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20070116092948.02a1f530@pop.starpower.net><5C65F0B5-B8F3-4287-8669-1635D003DE24@rochester.rr.com><004901c739b6$166e31a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <008901c739e7$632c1350$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <006801c73a9a$4a9371e0$0701a8c0@john> > > In a matchpoint game, are you supposed to tell your opponents that you > will > be shooting because you need tops, or playing conservatively in the last > round because you think you need only an average to win? > I've had Paul Hackett (with punter) ask me how I was doing during a late round of a pairs competition. It seemed a reasonable and justifiable question to me and I answered it. He would know that I would not lie. The punter had no idea what was going on and assumed it was just polite conversation. When I then took a view on a hand, Paul knew exactly what was going on, and it would have been manifestly unfair to him if he'd not known where I thought I was in the field. I took Paul's question as a back-handed compliment. cheers john > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 18 05:37:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:37:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000001c73a6e$f5ee7ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c73a6e$f5ee7ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > My position as a director is that if a player has asked for an > explanation > (with a not leading question) and some information was left out > from the > answer as being "generally knowledge" I would still rule > misinformation if > it should appear that the player has some reason for not being > aware of this > general knowledge or its importance in the situation. IOW, you would rule that the player was incorrect in his assumption that what he left out was GK. Fair enough, I suppose - what constitutes "general knowledge" is certainly not clearly delineated anywhere. As for an example, sorry, don't have one. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 18 05:40:53 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:40:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070117160651.02b73880@pop.starpower.net> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070117160651.02b73880@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <025C80EE-8D41-4FF1-B4F3-6B4868B3A991@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 17, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > it's foolish to think that every explanation of every bid must > include every last > bit of information to which the opponents are entitled to know if they > care to, or that we could continue to fit 24- or 26-board sessions > into > a mere three or four hours if it were required to. While I agree that, practically speaking, full compliance with the laws and regulations regarding disclosure may be detrimental to the game, that is nonetheless what those laws and regulations require. Maybe we should move to abolish "full disclosure" in favor of "maximum practical disclosure". :-) From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 18 05:54:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c73a52$15d21fd0$1c92f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: Mike wrote: > 11M is even more peverse because it comes in the wrong sequence 11M like N13 and 11P1 all come at the beginning of their respective sections. Were they at the end of the section they would mean "continuations after the first of the previous bids" but they aren't at the end so they mean "continuations over the initially listed bid". Probably not what the author intended but I didn't write the OB so that's not my problem :) Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 18 02:16:34 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:16:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Many mansions Message-ID: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <004901c739c6$f8e36b30$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: First, John, up yours, but I love your comment. We are now in a ridiculous, serious, and stupid and regrettable decision that when your partner violates your conventional agreement, and you can escape to that being a psychic call.Younow make your psychic call and may the Gods not destroy the game! This may have been the greatest crap that I've ever read in BLML. Is there even a shadow of a doubt that the call is based on what we "think" partner may have done, instead of what we have agreed his call to mean? Is our call and subsequent auction based on non-allowable bidding? This is the kind of sophistry that will kill the game of bridge if it remains unintended. As much as hurts me, I can see where Wolff was on the right track, thought with the wrong solution. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: John Probst To: blml Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > William Schoder: Greatest Of All Time. > truly wonderful; nominated for a wreck.games.bridge (or wreck.bridge.rtflb award) For 10 years I've been looking for this. Both coats fit :) John > :-) > _______________________________________________ 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/20070116/a4b380a3/attachment-0001.htm From sarahamos at onetel.net Wed Jan 17 02:01:23 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:01:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: Message-ID: <001901c739d3$01ea1830$1c92f257@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > Mike Amos wrote: > >> > Technically that's not what the EBU is currently claiming to have >> > said. >> > You must disclose your implicit agreement but without any reference >> > to the forgetfulness. Thus the correct explanation (if one knows >> > pard forgets) is "Either weak with clubs OR a red 2-suiter". >> >> That is not an allowed method >> Two suited overcalls must show at least one specified suit >> >> OB 11 N 7 > > In an EBU level 2 event - sure. But can you tell me why the restriction > in OB11N7 is not abolished (as it were) by the later > > Allowed at Levels 3 and 4 > 11 N 13 Developments > All continuations by the defenders are allowed with or without > intervention. > > Perhaps my OB is defective. > > Tim > > Don't blame me I didn't write the regulations nor do I approve of the mind-boggling layout, numbering etc which obscures rather than clarifies 11 N 13 Developments All continuations by the defenders are allowed with or without intervention means that after all the types of overcalls listed in the previous section then any continuation is allowed ie after a two-suited overcall then you can continue how you like (on reflection it is apparent that your OB is defective ...... but then so to are the other 5,000 copies) Trust me though .... I'm a TD 1S 3C to show Clubs or the reds is not an allowed method Mike > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070117/e59c097d/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 09:38:57 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:38:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence In-Reply-To: <200701171950.LAA03602@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> <200701171950.LAA03602@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On 17/01/07, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Ciao! Many years ago I directed a tournament in which a player opened 1 > > in a major. According to the conv. card (and the players) they played > > "limit raises", with adequate support in suit and 8 losers they raised > > to 3. But, in this case the partner bid 1NT (with adequate trump > > support and 8 losers), which the opener passed for a decent score. > > Opener had something like 3 HCPs and a doubleton in his bid suit. Do > > you allow the score to stand? > > You haven't given us enough information. The hand may have had > "adequate" support and 8 losers, but that doesn't mean the correct bid > is automatic. In a recent thread on BLML, someone wondered whether > those who use LTC would treat Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx the same as Axx Axx Axx > Axxx, even though both hands have the same number of losers (8). So > perhaps this pair is too experienced to think that LTC or any other > evaluation system is something to be followed slavishly. I agree with what Adam writes in general. But I really wonder, what kind of LTC count Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx as 8 losers? That's 10 losers. An unsupported queen doesn't count as 2 losers, rather 2.5 losers. QTx counts as 2 losers. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran [snip} From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 18 14:03:12 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:03:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Many mansions References: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred> Message-ID: Brings to mind some memories. When the proliferation of systems, conventions, agreements, etc., got into swing in the Washington DC area back in the 50s and 60s, the Dupont Circle Bridge Club took care of the alerts, explanations, and so forth on one night a week by holding a game where Kaplan/Sheinwold was the only system allowed. Ergo -- no alerts, no explanations, no lack of communication -- everybody played the same system and was expected to know it. Harry Goldwater extended this by playing his opponents convention card no matter what it described, and believe me he was capable of doing that. "No need to ask me -- I'm doing the same thing you are," caused many jaws to drop. We sure have come a long way into mystifying the game since then, haven't we? General Knowledge and Experience has little meaning anymore. Yeah, it's probably "better" in various ways, -- at least more complicated --giving the edge to the "students" of the game -- but our concentration then was on the entirety of the game. Good results from outmaneuvering opponents with tricky secrets are not my cup of tea. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:16 PM Subject: [blml] Many mansions Grattan Endicott _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 16:20:29 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:20:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence In-Reply-To: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> References: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118100128.02b7deb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:24 AM 1/17/07, Jeff wrote: >Ciao! Many years ago I directed a tournament in which a player opened 1 >in a major. According to the conv. card (and the players) they played >"limit raises", with adequate support in suit and 8 losers they raised >to 3. But, in this case the partner bid 1NT (with adequate trump >support and 8 losers), which the opener passed for a decent score. >Opener had something like 3 HCPs and a doubleton in his bid suit. Do >you allow the score to stand? (I didn't, but then I rather approve of >the law of coincidence, even when it has only happened once as in this >case.) (Naturally I asked why the responder didn't make a limit raise >but was not convinced by his explanation.) I have no problem with Jeff's adjusting the score here. In my view, that last (parenthetical) sentence provides all the grounds necessary for his finding. But it also obviates any necessity to cite the "Rule of Coincidence". An unconvincing explanation for a questionable action, whatever it might be called, cannot be said to be a "coincidence". If the RoC were law, the mere fact that opener psyched and responder bid 1NT, which opener passed for a decent score, would require an adjustment based on the "coincidence" of both odd actions working out well. There would have been no need for Jeff to ask why the responder didn't make a limit raise; the ruling would be automatic even if responder's explanantion had been entirely convincing. You don't need the RoC to rule CPU based on a single occurence when you have evidence beyond the mere coincidence of the actions working out well to suggest that there might be one. You need the RoC only if you're determined to find a CPU under every rock and sandpile. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 16:45:49 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:45:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000201c7398c$58751020$b0ab403e@Mildred> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <000201c736b2$62af6950$0f8d403e@Mildred> <00b301c738c0$6d9cb010$0701a8c0@john> <001901c738f2$33edc4d0$0b98403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701151553t3f588c37raff07945a6393339@mail.gmail.com> <000201c7398c$58751020$b0ab403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701180745y2549ce4ey6dd40b218a3ef847@mail.gmail.com> On 17/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: ; "Wayne Burrows" > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:12 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > >I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" > >violations that create implicit agreements. One is > > usually enough. > > > > Kojak > > > +=+ Oh, I agree. I was merely quoting the law book. > ~ G ~ +=+ > One violation can not ever of itself create an implicit agreement there must be something else not least of which is an agreement. If my partner violates our agreements then it is quite likely that I will disagree, although sometimes the violation exposes a gaping hole which is normally plugged by an explicit agreement. If I disagree then there is no way that this can create an agreement implicit or otherwise. A pattern of violations could but do not necessarily create an implicit agreement. In my serious partnerships however they are likely to create an explicit agreement or disagreement. If they continue to be a disagreement that does not mean they do not need to be disclosed as the disclosure requirements include 'experience' as well as 'agreements'. Another problem with the 'one violation' equals agreement is that it is impossible from one violation to establish the parameters of the supposed implicit agreement. I play (11)12-14 1NT 1st and 2nd seat - which is supposed to mean that we open all 12-14 and what we consider good 11 hcp 1NT. In some trials in 2006 I once opened 1NT with only 10 hcp. I had never done this before and I have never done this again. Would I do it again? Yes if the right hand came along in the right situation and I was in the right mood? If this is to be considered an 'agreement' how are we supposed to explain the parameters of this supposed agreement. Having experimented with this once I do not even know the parameters of this violation. So it is impossible to explain this supposed agreement to anyone. However it is very easy to say (11)12-14 by agreement but from experience rarely hands outside this range have been opened. Further from this one experience I have no idea whether partner agrees that this violation is properly part of our system. And since I doubt she reads BLML I doubt that she has any idea based on this one experiment whether I would perpetrate the same violation again. Much stronger inferences might be able to be drawn if there was a pattern of violations. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 16:54:09 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:54:09 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> On 17/01/07, Nigel wrote: > > > [Eric Landau] > > For Nigel's notion of "context" to be useful in distinguishing among > > "green", "amber" and "red" psychs (it's not clear whether Nigel is > > suggesting that it is), a player would not only have to be presumed to > > know how likely partner was to psych in a given context, but also how > > likely his opponents were to do so. The former presumption is merely > > dubious; the latter is absurd. > > > [nige1] > Really Eric? > > I am sure that Eric Landau is right that you shouldn't take into account > partner's propensity to choose which > context in which to psyche; but I think it is OK to estimate the > likelihood of an opponent's psych; there are > some contexts in which nobody seems to psych. If opponents are in such a > context, perhaps, you can justify > "fielding" partner's psych. > > Manifestly, in contexts where somebody does not have the values for his > call, but there is no evidence as > to the culprit, it is 2:1 that an opponent has misbid or psyched rather > than partner. > > So that fielding is normally an anti-percentage action; and a priori > grounds for grave suspicion. > > Like Grattan, I feel that a single "red field" should justify an > adjusted score. > > Most alternative strategies seem to encourage pairs to devise CPUs. This is speculative at best. > > It might work to record every psych and deviation and to collate the > data internationally but it would be a > massive administrative task and might even come into conflict with > data-protection and privacy law. > > What CPU counter-measures would Eric Landau and Wayne Burrows advocate. > Or do they recommend > an even more permissive attitude to CPUs? > I would advocate investigating whether a concealed partnership agreement exists. This should be easy with a few questions. If the players turn out to be not telling the truth in response to those questions then when they are found out we hit them with a serious cheating allegation. I would expect it would not take very many short to medium term bans to get the vast majority of players conforming to a proper disclosure of their methods. I am fully against a permissive attitude to CPUs but I am also strongly against a random regulation mandating a ruling of CPU where one does not exist. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 17:01:30 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:01:30 +1300 Subject: [blml] Many mansions In-Reply-To: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred> References: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701180801y20a5471eh2a416225402cb9e4@mail.gmail.com> On 18/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > +=+ I see references once more to that doughty > warrior General Knowledge and Experience, whose > mission so often appears to be to rescue the > sophist from the sword of the Director. What then > of GK&E? Can we put a definition to the name? Or > is this demon a spirit that takes a different shape > in the eye of each beholder? > My opinion is: first, that since the term sets > a standard by what is general to players, the usage > should relate it to the tournament in which the > question arises - that the knowledge and experience > should be 'general' to the participants in that > tournament; second, that accordingly the question > to determine is whether it is a reasonable > expectation that an opponent in that tournament > would share the knowledge and the experience. > That, in my opinion, is the judgement to be made. > However, because it is something we have each > to judge, the moment of truth will arrive when an > opponent says, unexpectedly, "I did not know that" > and "I have never experienced that". Prima facie we > are in the wrong. Inevitably we are on the back foot > if it turns out that something we omitted to say > affects the opponent's choice of action significantly. > So, instead of trying to assess and defend what is > GK&E, perhaps our time would be better occupied in > considering what special information about our > understandings is likely to affect the enquirer's > choice of action - and in ensuring that he is in > possession of this information. Attack is the best > form of defence? - or maybe not? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan you miss out one very important word in the use of this phrase in the lawbook. That word is 'his' - 'his general knowledge and experience'. The use of that word suggests that general knowledge and experience belongs to an individual and therefore may well differ from one person to another. To me this phrase is a contrast with 'special partnership understanding' which is something that I develop with my partner through discussion and experience whereas 'general knowledge and experience' comes from my personal reading and thoughts and experience and discussion with other bridge players etc. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 17:09:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:09:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E In-Reply-To: <45AE490C.2010102@NTLworld.com> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <45AE490C.2010102@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118102651.02b738e0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:04 AM 1/17/07, Nigel wrote: >IMO, a question about the final bid is an admission by your opponent >that he does *not* comprehend the complete auction. For instance, in >Eric's auction, there may be *negative inferences* inherent in a >completely natural jump to game. It may range from "Fast arrival" to a >descriptive "Picture bid". It may or may not deny the ability to >cue-bid with a control-rich minimum hand. > >Eric would also agree that *the whole may seem to be more than the sum >of its parts*. My favourite example is the following auction... > >2N (P) 3C* (P) >3D* (P) 3H* (P) >3N* AP > >2N "20-22 with 5332 4432 or 4333 shape" >3C "Relay (Puppet Stayman)" >3D "No 5 card major; also denies holding precisely 2 spades and 3 hearts." >3H "Exactly 4S; may also have 4H" >3N "Denies 3 spades." > >At least, that is how we used to explain it. Now. at the end of the >auction. we add a subtle inference, inherent in the above description; >but not immediately obvious even to those gifted with *general bridge >knowledge and experience*: "The 2N opener has 4 hearts." > >Under the current law, this may be over-kill. But all mention of >"General knowledge and experience" should be expunged from the next >version of the laws. Prevarication is already rife without providing >spurious justification. Nobody is arguing that negative inferences from one's partnership agreements need not be fully disclosed. Nigel seems to miss the point that things like "fast arrival", "picture bid", "denies the ability to cue bid", etc. are all partnership agreements. Nigel's scheme of rebids after 2NT-3C isn't something he has deduced from his general knowledge and experience; it is a partnership agreement. That the 2NT opener in his example has four hearts isn't an "inference[] drawn from his general knowledge and experience" [L75C]; it is an inference drawn from his very specific knowledge of his very specific partnership agreement. Of course it must be fully disclosed. And since, as Nigel says, it is "not immediately obvious", Nigel is quite right to offer it in reply to any inquiry without the need for further prompting; to fail to do so would leave his explanantion open to being deemed insufficient. I see nothing whatsoever in Nigel's example that pertains in any way to "inferences drawn from... general knowledge and experience" -- beyond the fact that "prevaricators" may cite L75C, entirely inappropriately and illogically, in an attempt to befuddle inexperienced adjudicators who don't comprehend the meaning of the phrase (even Nigel, quite correctly, labels such nonsense as "spurious"). I can only assure Nigel that in the venues where I play (and occasionally direct), we know spurious nonsense when we see it, and they do not get away with it. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 18 17:14:41 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:14:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <001901c739d3$01ea1830$1c92f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: <004501c73b1d$59897720$2ea987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Amos To: twm at cix.co.uk ; blml at rtflb.org Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > Trust me though .... I'm a TD Mike +=+ And a good one. However, the poacher is now swimming with the salmon. Not long ago he joined the L & E Committee. It will be an interesting experience for this onlooker. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 18 17:24:22 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:24:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) References: <000001c73a6e$f5ee7ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004601c73b1d$5a600100$2ea987d9@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: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) > > > IOW, you would rule that the player was incorrect > in his assumption that what he left out was GK. > Fair enough, I suppose - what constitutes "general > knowledge" is certainly not clearly delineated > anywhere. > > As for an example, sorry, don't have one. > +=+ Anything your opponent is unaware of is not GK&E? "Not specialized or limited in range of subject, application, activity etc. " (sic) +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 17:32:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:32:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000401c73a52$82aacf30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c73a52$82aacf30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118111535.02a4da50@pop.starpower.net> At 11:14 AM 1/17/07, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > nothing you know about your agreements may be withheld if the > > > opponents express a desire to be given all the details you are > > > aware of. > > > > From the ACBL Alert regulation: > > > > "The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request > > for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate > > the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given > > automatically." > > > > I submit that Eric should have placed the period above after the word > > "withheld", and omitted the "if" clause. > >Now this understanding is clearly in conflict with Law 75C! When >answering a >question you need not include matters of general knowledge and >experience on >which you have an honest assumption that such matter should be known >also to >your opponents. For instance failing to mention that a simple overcall >shows >at least a five-card suit cannot be considered a violation of Law 75C (nor >of the ACBL regulation). > >But once your opponents ask a specific question, whether directly or for >clarification, then that question must be (fully) answered. Responding "I >need not answer this" or words to that effect is in my opinion a clear >violation of law 74A2 (just to mention one). To complete the example >above: >If opponents ask about the length of the suit named in a simple overcall >then the answer should be "at least five cards"; saying something like >"I do >not need to answer this question" should be severely penalized! It should indeed. But I have yet to see what I would consider a relevant example (other than what I have offered myself) of what I believe the "GK&E" exception in L75C actually covers. This certainly isn't one. What you must disclose is (a) your knowledge of your agreements, (b) inferences drawn from your knowledge of your agreements, and (c) your GK&E. What you need not disclose is (d) inferences drawn from your GK&E. Your agreements are your agreements; the fact that a simple overcall shows at least five cards in the suit is one of your agreements, falls into category (a), and must be disclosed. Just because everyone you know has the same particular agreement that you do doesn't somehow make it not an agreement, nor does it somehow "reclassify" it from category (a) to category (d). Nobody argues that it does, except perhaps Nigel's semi-mythical "prevaricators". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 18 17:36:55 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:36:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence References: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070118100128.02b7deb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004c01c73b1e$f85de830$2ea987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence > > > You don't need the RoC to rule CPU based on > a single occurence when you have evidence beyond > the mere coincidence of the actions working out > well to suggest that there might be one. You need > the RoC only if you're determined to find a CPU > under every rock and sandpile. > > +=+ Counsel's opinion to which I am privy is that, for any standard ruling under the Laws, the Director must be satisfied on the evidence available to him that it reflects the balance of probability. A more rigorous standard may apply in matters of discipline. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 17:52:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:52:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000001c73a6e$f5ee7ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c73a6e$f5ee7ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118113810.02a2a060@pop.starpower.net> At 02:37 PM 1/17/07, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > The regulation I quoted says "all relevant disclosure". > > That does not include GK&E. > >Well, IMO GK&E can be VERY relevant! > > > I deplore hiding behind GK&E as an excuse for not disclosing > > something about one's methods. > >Absolutely. And in my opinion that possibility has never been the >intention >of Law 75C. > > > Nonetheless, Law 75C specifically > > exempts inferences from GK&E from the requirements of full > > disclosure. OTOH, the expected length of the suit in a simple > > overcall is not an inference; it is the GK&E itself. So yeah, if > > asked that specific question, you should answer it. > > > > But suppose there *is* a matter of inference from GK&E - you cannot > > be required to divulge that inference, and if it is the *only* > > relevant thing about the call in question (which seems to me ought to > > be a very rare occurrence) then how do you handle it? > >It would be much easier if you provided an example (like I did with the >"minimum 5 cards length") > >I should like to see at least one case where I would agree that the >information could remain undisclosed in spite of a direct question. Allow me: Opp: "What does that show?" Me: "Our explicit agreement is that it shows at least 13 HCP. However, I know from previous experience with this partner that he may have as few as 11 HCP, but only against pairs he thinks are not very good." Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?" Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 18:47:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:47:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <025C80EE-8D41-4FF1-B4F3-6B4868B3A991@rochester.rr.com> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070117160651.02b73880@pop.starpower.net> <025C80EE-8D41-4FF1-B4F3-6B4868B3A991@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118124302.02b7b950@pop.starpower.net> At 11:40 PM 1/17/07, Ed wrote: >On Jan 17, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > it's foolish to think that every explanation of every bid must > > include every last > > bit of information to which the opponents are entitled to know if they > > care to, or that we could continue to fit 24- or 26-board sessions > > into > > a mere three or four hours if it were required to. > >While I agree that, practically speaking, full compliance with the >laws and regulations regarding disclosure may be detrimental to the >game, that is nonetheless what those laws and regulations require. >Maybe we should move to abolish "full disclosure" in favor of >"maximum practical disclosure". :-) If The Law really required a full core dump of every possibly relevant piece of knowledge that might conceivably affect an opponent's subsequent choice of calls in response to any request for information whatsoever, why would it even mention the opponents' right to ask follow-up questions? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 19:00:25 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:00:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Many mansions In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118124954.02b79a30@pop.starpower.net> At 08:03 AM 1/18/07, WILLIAM wrote: >Harry Goldwater extended this by playing his opponents convention card no >matter what it described, and believe me he was capable of doing >that. "No >need to ask me -- I'm doing the same thing you are," caused many jaws to >drop. That's odd. I attempted to do exactly that sometime in the 1960s -- in lieu of a CC I carried a laminated card that read "We play your system for your convenience" -- until I was informed by an ACBL TD (whose rank and reputation were comparable to Mr. Goldwater's) that that was patently illegal under an ACBL regulation that prohibits varying one's bidding system in mid-session. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 19:14:26 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:14:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence In-Reply-To: <004c01c73b1e$f85de830$2ea987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070118100128.02b7deb0@pop.starpower.net> <004c01c73b1e$f85de830$2ea987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118130639.02b807a0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:36 AM 1/18/07, Grattan wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > You don't need the RoC to rule CPU based on > > a single occurence when you have evidence beyond > > the mere coincidence of the actions working out > > well to suggest that there might be one. You need > > the RoC only if you're determined to find a CPU > > under every rock and sandpile. > >+=+ Counsel's opinion to which I am privy is that, >for any standard ruling under the Laws, the Director >must be satisfied on the evidence available to him >that it reflects the balance of probability. A more >rigorous standard may apply in matters of discipline. "The Director must be satisfied on the evidence available to him that it reflects the balance of probability." That says that he may not be satisfied solely on the coincidence of unusual actions and a beneficial result. It is an explicit repudiation of Mr. Wolff's "Rule of Coincidence". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jan 18 19:25:03 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:25:03 -0800 Subject: [blml] Many mansions References: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701180801y20a5471eh2a416225402cb9e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004401c73b2d$fa59ba60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Wayne Burrows" > > Grattan you miss out one very important word in the use of this phrase > in the lawbook. That word is 'his' - 'his general knowledge and > experience'. > > The use of that word suggests that general knowledge and experience > belongs to an individual and therefore may well differ from one person > to another. > > To me this phrase is a contrast with 'special partnership > understanding' which is something that I develop with my partner > through discussion and experience whereas 'general knowledge and > experience' comes from my personal reading and thoughts and experience > and discussion with other bridge players etc. > And when we encounter players in our games who don't know what they ought to know at that level (strat A?) or at their level (life master?) because of laziness, Law 75C says we must disclose our SPECIAL partnership agreements, but not the common meanings of calls that these people should know. We are not obligated to teach bridge. I treasure a postcard from Edgar Kaplan agreeing with this, while hoping I would explain things to the inexperienced or to visitors from afar who might be ignorant of local "general knowledge." Yes, Edgar, I would. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 18 21:21:59 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:21:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118113810.02a2a060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c73b3e$4eaf7040$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > >I should like to see at least one case where I would agree that the > >information could remain undisclosed in spite of a direct question. > > Allow me: > > Opp: "What does that show?" > > Me: "Our explicit agreement is that it shows at least 13 HCP. However, > I know from previous experience with this partner that he may have as > few as 11 HCP, but only against pairs he thinks are not very good." > > Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?" Suggested reply: "Honestly I don't know!!!!!" Seriously, regardless of my experience with such partner my first answer would have been (and in fact is in similar situations): "At least 13 HCP, but I have experienced him to have as low as 11 HCP". A better example please. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 18 21:30:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:30:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118111535.02a4da50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c73b3f$83523610$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............ > What you must disclose is (a) your knowledge of your agreements, (b) > inferences drawn from your knowledge of your agreements, and (c) your > GK&E. What you need not disclose is (d) inferences drawn from your > GK&E. Your agreements are your agreements; the fact that a simple > overcall shows at least five cards in the suit is one of your > agreements, falls into category (a), and must be disclosed. I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. When I agree system with an occasional partner I discuss for instance whether we require 4- or 5-card suits for an opening bid of one in major. I never bother to ascertain that we need 5 cards for overcalling. Still, if asked this fact must of course also be disclosed. Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 21:57:48 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:57:48 -0600 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000301c73b3f$83523610$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118111535.02a4da50@pop.starpower.net> <000301c73b3f$83523610$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701181257o1fa7ef79m158375aa604a6313@mail.gmail.com> Sven Pran wrote: > > I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length of 5 cards for > a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. > > When I agree system with an occasional partner I discuss for instance > whether we require 4- or 5-card suits for an opening bid of one in major. I > never bother to ascertain that we need 5 cards for overcalling. Still, if > asked this fact must of course also be disclosed. > There some good players who overcall at the one level with a really good four-card suit. Mike Lawrence, for example. He's a good player. He talks about in his book, "Overcalls." I often cringe when a bridge player calls an agreement "common sense." -Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 22:36:07 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:36:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000201c73b3e$4eaf7040$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118113810.02a2a060@pop.starpower.net> <000201c73b3e$4eaf7040$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118160553.02b782f0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:21 PM 1/18/07, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >............. > > >I should like to see at least one case where I would agree that the > > >information could remain undisclosed in spite of a direct question. > > > > Allow me: > > > > Opp: "What does that show?" > > > > Me: "Our explicit agreement is that it shows at least 13 HCP. However, > > I know from previous experience with this partner that he may have as > > few as 11 HCP, but only against pairs he thinks are not very good." > > > > Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?" > >Suggested reply: "Honestly I don't know!!!!!" > >Seriously, regardless of my experience with such partner my first answer >would have been (and in fact is in similar situations): >"At least 13 HCP, but I have experienced him to have as low as 11 HCP". > >A better example please. Opp: "What does that show?" Sven: "At least 13 HCP, but I have experienced him to have as low as 11 HCP". Opp: "Do you have any prior experience to suggest under what circumstances he would be likely to have less than 13 HCP for his bid?" Unless Sven would decline to answer *that* question (which I, who stand accused of being overly tolerant of such refusals, would answer), we are back in the same scenario as before... Sven: "Well, I admit I've only seen him do it against pairs he thinks are not very good?" Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?" ...and here we are. Now Sven is entitled to volunteer any information he may care to, provided he doesn't violate L75A1-2, but, in my book, if he chooses to reply with, "Honestly I don't know!!!!!" it had better be the truth, or I shall have a lot less sympathy for his reply than for "I don't believe I'm required to answer that", which is, at least, an unassailably honest answer. So I challenge Sven to answer my question with something more responsive than, "A better example please." What does he say when he knows damned well that his partner thinks these opponents suck? (a) "Actually he thinks you suck." (b) "Honestly I don't know." (c) "I don't believe I'm required to answer that." I'm for (c). Sven? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 18 22:40:39 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:40:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118124302.02b7b950@pop.starpower.net> References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070117160651.02b73880@pop.starpower.net> <025C80EE-8D41-4FF1-B4F3-6B4868B3A991@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070118124302.02b7b950@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <58EC954E-F6FE-490D-BC64-FBCEE0AE7584@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > If The Law really required a full core dump of every possibly relevant > piece of knowledge that might conceivably affect an opponent's > subsequent choice of calls in response to any request for information > whatsoever, why would it even mention the opponents' right to ask > follow-up questions? It is the alert regulation, not the Law (Law 20F specifically) that, at least in the ACBL, says "Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically," and "The proper way to ask for information is 'please explain.' " The alert regulation does not address follow-up questions. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 18 22:52:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:52:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000301c73b3f$83523610$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118111535.02a4da50@pop.starpower.net> <000301c73b3f$83523610$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118163824.02b7feb0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:30 PM 1/18/07, Sven wrote: >On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > What you must disclose is (a) your knowledge of your agreements, (b) > > inferences drawn from your knowledge of your agreements, and (c) your > > GK&E. What you need not disclose is (d) inferences drawn from your > > GK&E. Your agreements are your agreements; the fact that a simple > > overcall shows at least five cards in the suit is one of your > > agreements, falls into category (a), and must be disclosed. > >I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length of 5 >cards for >a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. Simply common sense?? What has Sven been smoking? (I want some!) If it were "simply common sense" there would be no need for every (well, almost every) bridge book for beginners ever written to state it! Beginners, I submit, have just as much "simple common sense" as the rest of us. Indeed, what Sven really means is that *every* set of system agreements he knows of specifies a minimum length of five cards for a simple overcall. That particular agreement might even be 100% universal; in any case, it is undoubtedly so widespread that neither Sven nor I have ever felt the need to make it an explicit, as opposed to an implicit, partnership agreement. But it is just as much a partnership agreement as modified double-reverse super leaping Kickback. Widespread or even universal adoption of a specific partnership agreement doesn't turn it from a partnership agreement into an orange. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 19 01:05:16 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:05:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) References: <45ACD0ED.7030006@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116144737.0306a300@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701161250i46996c43hce34e4c87d3fe633@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116162546.0306ecb0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20070117160651.02b73880@pop.starpower.net> <025C80EE-8D41-4FF1-B4F3-6B4868B3A991@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070118124302.02b7b950@pop.starpower.net> <58EC954E-F6FE-490D-BC64-FBCEE0AE7584@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005801c73b5d$8193e8a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > If The Law really required a full core dump of every possibly relevant > > piece of knowledge that might conceivably affect an opponent's > > subsequent choice of calls in response to any request for information > > whatsoever, why would it even mention the opponents' right to ask > > follow-up questions? > > It is the alert regulation, not the Law (Law 20F specifically) that, > at least in the ACBL, says "Any request for information should be the > trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - > all relevant disclosure should be given automatically," and "The > proper way to ask for information is 'please explain.' " The alert > regulation does not address follow-up questions. > Nor does it address questions about non-Alertable or non-Announceable calls. The ACBL Code of Active Ethics specifies what the "Actively Ethical Bridge Player" does, not what is required. It says "the actively ethical player will go beyond what is required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side in an actively ethical partnership will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made." The "code" is properly voluntary, since its content is not stated in the form of an ACBL regulation and (unlike regulations) was not produced by the ACBL Board of Directors. A regulation requiring the declaring side to volunteer before the opening lead all special partnership agreements related to the auction is certainly called for. At least players should be advised to routinely ask for such information before leading, which very few do. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jan 19 04:11:07 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:11:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701181257o1fa7ef79m158375aa604a6313@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118111535.02a4da50@pop.starpower.net> <000301c73b3f$83523610$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0701181257o1fa7ef79m158375aa604a6313@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45B036CB.8050104@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. [Jerry Fusselman] There some good players who overcall at the one level with a really good four-card suit. Mike Lawrence, for example. He's a good player, He talks about in his book, "Overcalls." I often cringe when a bridge player calls an agreement "common sense." [nige1] Or "general knowledge and experience*. In bidding competition problems, the expert panel is often nearly unanimous in electing to overcall on a 4 card suit. From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 19 04:25:58 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:25:58 +0900 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <45B036CB.8050104@NTLworld.com> References: <45B036CB.8050104@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <200701190325.AA06919@geller204.nifty.com> This thread has gotten a bit too ethereal for me. Here's an example of what I consider to be a real problem (from an actual group of "non-disclosers" in Japan). The opponents bid: LHO RHO -- 1S 2S 2NT+ alerted 3C+ 4S P After the auction you ask the meaning of 2NT. LHO says "asks me to bid 3C." You ask the meaning of 3C. RHO says "as requested." Then you ask, "well, why didn't RHO just bid 4S over 2S, why the extra bids...." After further followup questions you finally get the real story, which is that if LHO has a super-minimum he will bid 3S, not 3C, in response to 2NT, so 2NT is a strength asking bid and 3C is a positive (or at least non-negative) answer. But obviously the laws mean for the opponents to reply to the first question "2NT asks me to bid 3S with a super-minimum, otherwise 3C." Things like that an overcall might be 4 cards needn't be explained (if opponents are novices playing in their first open game ever maybe it's another story....). -Bob Nigel ????????: >[Sven Pran] >I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length of 5 cards >for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. > >[Jerry Fusselman] >There some good players who overcall at the one level with a really >good four-card suit. Mike Lawrence, for example. He's a good player, >He talks about in his book, "Overcalls." >I often cringe when a bridge player calls an agreement "common sense." > >[nige1] >Or "general knowledge and experience*. In bidding competition problems, >the expert panel is often nearly unanimous in electing to overcall on a >4 card >suit. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jan 19 05:07:46 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:07:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118160553.02b782f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118113810.02a2a060@pop.starpower.net> <000201c73b3e$4eaf7040$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070118160553.02b782f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45B04412.10102@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] > I should like to see at least one case where I would agree that the > information could remain undisclosed in spite of a direct question. > [Eric Landau] Allow me: Opp: "What does that show?" Me: "Our explicit agreement is that it shows at least 13 HCP. However, I know from previous experience with this partner that he may have as few as 11 HCP, but only against pairs he thinks are not very good." Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?" [Sven Pran 2] Suggested reply: "Honestly I don't know!!!!!" Seriously, regardless of my experience with such partner my first answer would have been (and in fact is in similar situations): "At least 13 HCP, but I have experienced him to have as low as 11 HCP". A better example please. [Eric Landau] Opp: "What does that show?" Sven: "At least 13 HCP, but I have experienced him to have as low as 11 HCP". Opp: "Do you have any prior experience to suggest under what circumstances he would be likely to have less than 13 HCP for his bid?" Unless Sven would decline to answer *that* question (which I, who stand accused of being overly tolerant of such refusals, would answer), we are back in the same scenario as before... Sven: "Well, I admit I've only seen him do it against pairs he thinks are not very good?" Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?" ...and here we are. Now Sven is entitled to volunteer any information he may care to, provided he doesn't violate L75A1-2, but, in my book, if he chooses to reply with, "Honestly I don't know!!!!!" it had better be the truth, or I shall have a lot less sympathy for his reply than for "I don't believe I'm required to answer that", which is, at least, an unassailably honest answer. So I challenge Sven to answer my question with something more responsive than, "A better example please." What does he say when he knows damned well that his partner thinks these opponents suck? (a) "Actually he thinks you suck." (b) "Honestly I don't know." (c) "I don't believe I'm required to answer that." I'm for (c). Sven? [nige1] If Eric has a shrewd idea of partner's probable low opinion of the opposition, then he can reply "Notionally 13+ but he can have as few as 11, in the current context." An opponent who asked about point range shouldn't expect more than that; but if he continues "Why?", Eric can answer "from experience"; and if the opponent insists "But what what is so peculiar about this context.", IMO, then and only then Eric may refuse to answer. Eric is right that I'm more cynical about player honesty than most BLMLers are. IMO, players are a cross-section of society -- with honest people in a similar proportion. As in real-life, however, players rationalise their peccadilloes; hence most consider themselves honest. I would include a player who refused to divulge his partner's probable point count among the class of prevaricators that Eric dismisses as *mythical* (: present contributors excepted :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 19 11:09:27 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:09:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Appeal books [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006401c73a50$0dd499e0$2201a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ACBL appeals casebooks can be found on this webpage: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html EBU appeals casebooks plus two unofficial ACBL appeals casebooks (edited by me) can be found on this webpage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 19 11:21:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:21:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c73a52$82aacf30$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >For instance failing to mention that a simple overcall shows >at least a five-card suit cannot be considered a violation >of Law 75C (nor of the ACBL regulation). Richard Hills: But this is not General Knowledge and Experience. Mike Lawrence, former World Champion, wrote a well-received book on overcalls advocating the advantages (in some cases) of a simple overcall on a four-card suit. While recently I overcalled on a three-card suit (although it looked like a four-card suit, being AKQ). So when I ask an opponent about the meaning of their partner's overcall, I am indeed interested in whether or not they are stodgy Pran clones who guarantee at least five cards in the suit. Which confirms my main point in this thread; it is very rare that any knowledge can be described as "general"; almost all partnership agreements are "special". Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor National Training Branch (02) 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department?s website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 19 11:29:31 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:29:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118160553.02b782f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c73bb4$b518c540$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ......... > So I challenge Sven to answer my question with something more > responsive than, "A better example please." What does he say when he > knows damned well that his partner thinks these opponents suck? > > (a) "Actually he thinks you suck." > > (b) "Honestly I don't know." > > (c) "I don't believe I'm required to answer that." > > I'm for (c). Sven? (d) "We shall know when we see his hand." Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 19 13:00:56 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:00:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c73bc1$7a939e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Some posts make me wonder if we mean different things with "overcall"? To make it clear I use the word overcall to mean a bid after an opponent's (opening) bid, not on any bid made by the opener's partner over the opening bid. Literally I agree that all understandings of an auction are part of partnership agreements just as the word "convention" means "agreement" not "special agreement". However the same way as we distinguish between "conventional" and "not conventional" calls we may have a need to distinguish between "agreements" and "general knowledge". I understand Law 75C to establish the natural rule that when explaining an auction we do not need to include with the explanation such details as we should assume are obvious to the opponent. My position is that once an opponent however indicates the need for also such information we shall have to give that as well. (Even the inference that a player who has shown five cards in one suit and four cards in each of two other suits must be void in the last suit must be confirmed if specifically asked for!) Under no circumstance can I accept "I do not have to answer this question" (because it is general knowledge and/or experience) as a legitimate answer. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 19. januar 2007 11:22 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sven Pran: > > >For instance failing to mention that a simple overcall shows > >at least a five-card suit cannot be considered a violation > >of Law 75C (nor of the ACBL regulation). > > Richard Hills: > > But this is not General Knowledge and Experience. Mike > Lawrence, former World Champion, wrote a well-received book on > overcalls advocating the advantages (in some cases) of a > simple overcall on a four-card suit. > > While recently I overcalled on a three-card suit (although it > looked like a four-card suit, being AKQ). > > So when I ask an opponent about the meaning of their partner's > overcall, I am indeed interested in whether or not they are > stodgy Pran clones who guarantee at least five cards in the > suit. > > Which confirms my main point in this thread; it is very rare > that any knowledge can be described as "general"; almost all > partnership agreements are "special". > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Jan 19 13:19:54 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:19:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118160553.02b782f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118113810.02a2a060@pop.starpower.net> <000201c73b3e$4eaf7040$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070118160553.02b782f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45B0B76A.70004@comcast.net> Eric Landau wrote: > Opp: "Does he think we're not very good?" > > ... > > So I challenge Sven to answer my question with something more > responsive than, "A better example please." What does he say when he > knows damned well that his partner thinks these opponents suck? > > (a) "Actually he thinks you suck." > > (b) "Honestly I don't know." > > (c) "I don't believe I'm required to answer that." > > I'm for (c). Sven? This is well outside what I thought the topic of discussion was -- the disclosure of partnership bidding and carding agreements excluding GK&E. Opinions about player ability are not welcome and the disclosure of your agreements should not be coached in such terms. "13HCP to open if you're competent, 11 if you suck" is not a good answer. Bidding lightly against people who give up tricks in defense is good practice, but just answer the question simply as far as it is relevant to the current opponents without attempting to insult them under guise of following the rules. -Todd From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Jan 19 13:45:11 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:45:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000501c73bc1$7a939e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c73bc7$a8b5dcd0$4001a8c0@david> Well try this one. 1C P 1H 1S P 2S P P 2N Oppo enquire about the 2N bid. MY GK&E tells me that it is not natural (could have bid NT earlier) and so it shows a weakish hand with Clubs and Diamonds. What are your obligations? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** > Some posts make me wonder if we mean different things with "overcall"? > > To make it clear I use the word overcall to mean a bid after an opponent's > (opening) bid, not on any bid made by the opener's partner over the > opening > bid. > > Literally I agree that all understandings of an auction are part of > partnership agreements just as the word "convention" means "agreement" not > "special agreement". > > However the same way as we distinguish between "conventional" and "not > conventional" calls we may have a need to distinguish between "agreements" > and "general knowledge". > > I understand Law 75C to establish the natural rule that when explaining an > auction we do not need to include with the explanation such details as we > should assume are obvious to the opponent. My position is that once an > opponent however indicates the need for also such information we shall > have > to give that as well. (Even the inference that a player who has shown five > cards in one suit and four cards in each of two other suits must be void > in > the last suit must be confirmed if specifically asked for!) > > Under no circumstance can I accept "I do not have to answer this question" > (because it is general knowledge and/or experience) as a legitimate > answer. > > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Sent: 19. januar 2007 11:22 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Sven Pran: >> >> >For instance failing to mention that a simple overcall shows >> >at least a five-card suit cannot be considered a violation >> >of Law 75C (nor of the ACBL regulation). >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> But this is not General Knowledge and Experience. Mike >> Lawrence, former World Champion, wrote a well-received book on >> overcalls advocating the advantages (in some cases) of a >> simple overcall on a four-card suit. >> >> While recently I overcalled on a three-card suit (although it >> looked like a four-card suit, being AKQ). >> >> So when I ask an opponent about the meaning of their partner's >> overcall, I am indeed interested in whether or not they are >> stodgy Pran clones who guarantee at least five cards in the >> suit. >> >> Which confirms my main point in this thread; it is very rare >> that any knowledge can be described as "general"; almost all >> partnership agreements are "special". >> >> >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.440 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 18/01/2007 > 18:47 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.440 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 18/01/2007 18:47 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 19 13:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001901c739d3$01ea1830$1c92f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: Mike wrote: > > (on reflection it is apparent that your OB is defective ...... but > then so to are the other 5,000 copies) Well, if they are all defective I'm ruling on the basis of what they actually say rather than what they might be trying to say. (That should please DWS - he always complains when I try to interpret regulations rather than applying them!). Besides, level 4 events aren't supposed to be kindergarten classes, 3C for C or Reds *should* be legal :) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 19 13:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118113810.02a2a060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > Me: "Our explicit agreement is that it shows at least 13 HCP. > However, I know from previous experience with this partner that he > may have as few as 11 HCP, but only against pairs he thinks are not > very good." The laws require us to disclose inferential information, they also require courtesy. Why not just say "In this position it could be as few as 11". Opps don't need to know that "position" in this context means "when sitting between two drongoes" - they are entitled to the info about his hand available from inferences but not the reasons for making those inferences. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 19 15:21:19 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:21:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000501c73bc1$7a939e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Some posts make me wonder if we mean different things with "overcall"? > > To make it clear I use the word overcall to mean a bid after an opponent's > (opening) bid, not on any bid made by the opener's partner over the > opening > bid. > > Literally I agree that all understandings of an auction are part of > partnership agreements just as the word "convention" means "agreement" not > "special agreement". > > However the same way as we distinguish between "conventional" and "not > conventional" calls we may have a need to distinguish between "agreements" > and "general knowledge". There is no such need. The duty is to discern and tell what is the partnership agreement and understanding. It being neither here nor there that it is impossible to do so. regards roger pewick > I understand Law 75C to establish the natural rule that when explaining an > auction we do not need to include with the explanation such details as we > should assume are obvious to the opponent. My position is that once an > opponent however indicates the need for also such information we shall > have > to give that as well. (Even the inference that a player who has shown five > cards in one suit and four cards in each of two other suits must be void > in > the last suit must be confirmed if specifically asked for!) > Under no circumstance can I accept "I do not have to answer this question" > (because it is general knowledge and/or experience) as a legitimate > answer. > > Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 19 15:37:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:37:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) In-Reply-To: <000001c73bb4$b518c540$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070118160553.02b782f0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c73bb4$b518c540$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070119093512.02aadd60@pop.starpower.net> At 05:29 AM 1/19/07, Sven wrote: >On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > So I challenge Sven to answer my question with something more > > responsive than, "A better example please." What does he say when he > > knows damned well that his partner thinks these opponents suck? > > > > (a) "Actually he thinks you suck." > > > > (b) "Honestly I don't know." > > > > (c) "I don't believe I'm required to answer that." > > > > I'm for (c). Sven? > >(d) "We shall know when we see his hand." I like it. It carries the same message as my (c), but sounds so much more polite. Should such a situation arise at the table, I shall use it. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri Jan 19 15:36:08 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:36:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261493B8@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> I don't really understand this argument. If OB11N13 meant all overcalls were allowed (rather than all continuations after an overall were allowed) why do we have 11N14-11N17 permitting various specific overcalls? Robin ________________________________ From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org on behalf of Tim West-Meads Sent: Fri 19/01/2007 12:59 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations Mike wrote: > > (on reflection it is apparent that your OB is defective ...... but > then so to are the other 5,000 copies) Well, if they are all defective I'm ruling on the basis of what they actually say rather than what they might be trying to say. (That should please DWS - he always complains when I try to interpret regulations rather than applying them!). Besides, level 4 events aren't supposed to be kindergarten classes, 3C for C or Reds *should* be legal :) Tim _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070119/03e1890f/attachment-0001.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 19 15:59:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:59:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E In-Reply-To: <000501c73bc1$7a939e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c73bc1$7a939e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070119094301.02aaceb0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:00 AM 1/19/07, Sven wrote: >However the same way as we distinguish between "conventional" and "not >conventional" calls we may have a need to distinguish between "agreements" >and "general knowledge". The key point here is that, as Sven suggests, "knowledge of agreements" and "general knowledge" are disjoint. I suggest approaching the difference via a "thought experiment": Imagine that you and every other bridge player in the world adopted currently unknown, radically different, bidding methods. Could that affect the specific piece of knowledge in question? If so, it falls into "knowledge of agreements", and cannot be classified as "general knowledge". In particular, this would make it clear that, as I have argued previously, "knowledge of agreements" does not turn into "general knowledge" just because the agreement in question is widely known and commonly used. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jan 19 16:05:27 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:05:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] OB? Message-ID: <45B0DE37.7090307@aol.com> What is OB? I don't find it on my abbreviation list. How do I get one? Ciao, JE From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 19 16:31:03 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:31:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E In-Reply-To: <000301c73bc7$a8b5dcd0$4001a8c0@david> References: <000501c73bc1$7a939e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000301c73bc7$a8b5dcd0$4001a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070119100340.02aad8f0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:45 AM 1/19/07, David wrote: >Well try this one. > >1C P 1H 1S >P 2S P P >2N > >Oppo enquire about the 2N bid. >MY GK&E tells me that it is not natural (could have bid NT earlier) >and so it shows a weakish hand with Clubs and Diamonds. >What are your obligations? This is a good example of the misinterpretation and misuse of the GK&E exception in L75C. David's knowledge that 2NT shows the minors is a direct consequence of his knowledge that partner, by viture of his partnership's bidding agreements, could have bid NT naturally earlier (it is certainly conceivable that, given an entirely different set of agreements, that might not be the case). Thus it is an inference drawn directly from his knowledge of his partnership's bidding agreements, not even close to being an inference from his GK&E. One's GK&E, by definition, cannot change as a result of any possible change to one's bidding agreements. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jan 19 16:30:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:30:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] > I would advocate investigating whether a concealed partnership > agreement exists. This should be easy with a few questions. If the > players turn out to be not telling the truth in response to those > questions then when they are found out we hit them with a serious > cheating allegation. I would expect it would not take very many short > to medium term bans to get the vast majority of players conforming to > a proper disclosure of their methods. > > I am fully against a permissive attitude to CPUs but I am also > strongly against a random regulation mandating a ruling of CPU where > one does not exist. > [nige1] After thousands of words of argument, it appears that we have been in agreement from the start :) Wayne and Eric imagined that Grattan and his supporters insist that the director rule on the hands and auction alone, but we took it for granted that the director would gather available evidence :) Grattan and his supporters were under the impression that W&E refuse to rule CPU on the basis of a single board -- but W&E assumed that Grattan & Co would not ask appropriate questions as well :) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 19 16:57:41 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:57:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] OB? In-Reply-To: <45B0DE37.7090307@aol.com> References: <45B0DE37.7090307@aol.com> Message-ID: <7E71862B-1806-4E9E-A580-9C9BF9A7F736@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 19, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > What is OB? I don't find it on my abbreviation list. How do I get > one? The EBU's Orange Book. http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and% 20Ethics%20Publications/The%20Orange%20Book/2006%20Orange%20Book.pdf From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 21:27:27 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:27:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> On 20/01/07, Nigel wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > > I would advocate investigating whether a concealed partnership > > agreement exists. This should be easy with a few questions. If the > > players turn out to be not telling the truth in response to those > > questions then when they are found out we hit them with a serious > > cheating allegation. I would expect it would not take very many short > > to medium term bans to get the vast majority of players conforming to > > a proper disclosure of their methods. > > > > I am fully against a permissive attitude to CPUs but I am also > > strongly against a random regulation mandating a ruling of CPU where > > one does not exist. > > > [nige1] > > After thousands of words of argument, it appears that we have been in > agreement from the start :) > > Wayne and Eric imagined that Grattan and his supporters insist that the > director rule on the hands and auction alone, but we took it for granted > that the director would gather available evidence :) > > Grattan and his supporters were under the impression that W&E refuse to > rule CPU on the basis > of a single board -- but W&E assumed that Grattan & Co would not ask > appropriate questions as well :) > >From the Orange Book we have: "6 B 1 The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche ? and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself ? may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account. 6 B 2 As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding. 6 B 3 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle (eg 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche." I object to: 1. "The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's peers; intent will not be taken into account" This seems to suggest to me that if a bid looks like a CPU then it will be considered a CPU whether or not I have an explanation. 2. "some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding" To me this suggests that it is known that some innocent actions will be considered as illegal fields. I contend that it is very easy to sift the illegal actions from the legal here except if a player or pair are intent on cheating and in that case when they are finally caught they should be treated correspondingly harshly. There is no need to use the arguement 'that looks like a field so it must be a field' and punish innocent players. 3. "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient ..." I don't believe that a partnership's actions would ever be sufficient. If they were sufficient then there would be no need to ask questions that you content Grattan and co. would ask. I am happy that a partnership's actions on one board could create a suspicion and they frequently do for me. Nevertheless simple questions will usually clear up the situation and as I contend unless they are intent on cheating by answering those questions falsely will normally easily establish whether or not there is a CPU. But it is never that the actions on the one board were sufficient to convict. It is possible particularly with an inexperienced partnership that they answer any questions falsely without intent simply because they have not noticed a pattern. My experience however is that at least as often in their naivity they will convict themselves by their answers. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 19 22:20:27 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:20:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.co m> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070119161120.02b58640@pop.starpower.net> At 03:27 PM 1/19/07, Wayne wrote: > >From the Orange Book we have: > >"6 B 1 The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche ? and, >possibly, further actions >by the psycher himself ? may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and >therefore >illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have >'fielded' the psyche. >The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's >peers; that is to say >intent will not be taken into account. >6 B 2 As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may >be understandably >upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches >and his partner >takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as >fielding. >6 B 3 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the >TD to find that it has an >unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle >(eg 60% to the >non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). >This is classified >as a Red psyche." > >I object to: > >1. "The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a >player's peers; intent will not be taken into account" > >This seems to suggest to me that if a bid looks like a CPU then it >will be considered a CPU whether or not I have an explanation. Yup -- back to the dreaded "rule of coincidence". "Objectively"... "intent will not be taken into account" would seem to boil down to the RoC, which says that unusual actions (based on "the standards of a player's peers") by both members of a partnership leading to a favorable result must be treated as an instance of a CPU, even if the TD or AC adjudicating the case is 100% convinced that the partnership does not have a CPU. IOW, the RoC may require a director to tell a player, "I am absolutely certain that you do not have a CPU, but the law requires me to find you guilty of having a CPU anyhow." I can see where someone told this "may be understandably upset" indeed. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 19 22:59:44 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:59:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI Message-ID: <008e01c73c15$22e71da0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> The subject procedures were poorly written, done in haste as mere notes and published on BLML prematurely because the subject had come up. Thanks to Jerry Fusselman for some good criticism, and to John Probst for reminding me that TDs must be allowed some flexibility when making rulings. Also thanks to David Grabiner for his comments. I have rewritten the whole thing, first citing and discussing the pertinent laws, then offering a procedure for implementing them. Comments would be very welcome, as this is a difficult subject and I probably have some things wrong. To see the procedures, go to my website www.marvinfrench.com, click on Bridge Laws and Regulations, then on Procedures for Handling Unauthorized Information. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 19 23:14:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:14:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070119161120.02b58640@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c73c17$208db260$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................. > Yup -- back to the dreaded "rule of coincidence". "Objectively"... > "intent will not be taken into account" would seem to boil down to the > RoC, which says that unusual actions (based on "the standards of a > player's peers") by both members of a partnership leading to a > favorable result must be treated as an instance of a CPU, even if the > TD or AC adjudicating the case is 100% convinced that the partnership > does not have a CPU. > > IOW, the RoC may require a director to tell a player, "I am absolutely > certain that you do not have a CPU, but the law requires me to find you > guilty of having a CPU anyhow." I can see where someone told this "may > be understandably upset" indeed. > Hold it there please! If a player in a partnership makes a psyche and his partner "happens" to respond with a very successful call that would have been insane had the psyche not been that psyche they shall have an almost impossible job trying to convince me (as TD) that this "coincidence" was not the result of some kind of CPU. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 20 02:03:15 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:03:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Many mansions References: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701180801y20a5471eh2a416225402cb9e4@mail.gmail.com> <004401c73b2d$fa59ba60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c73c2f$58b86f00$e9ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Many mansions > > From: "Wayne Burrows" >> >> Grattan you miss out one very important word in the use of > this phrase in the lawbook. That word is 'his' - 'his general > knowledge and experience'. >> +=+ Oh, indeed, but to be 'general' it must be acquired in all partnerships and from all manner of opponents. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 20 11:22:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:22:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] novel irregularity Message-ID: <45B1ED48.6000502@skynet.be> Yesterday I comitted an irregularity I had never seen before. I'm dummy, and my partner leads the CQ. "Aren't you on the table?" inquires my RHO "No" I say. And RHO contributes the CK. While partner is playing my CA to the trick, my LHO says "Yes, you were", and we establish that indeed the trick was in dummy. Obviously RHO wishes to retract his CK. We did not find a rule allowing a player to retract his "acceptance" based on false information from the opponents. (we played on and found that it made no difference at the end, always intending to award an AS if it did) I did find L84E, but is there really nothing else? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Jan 20 12:47:08 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:47:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] novel irregularity In-Reply-To: <45B1ED48.6000502@skynet.be> References: <45B1ED48.6000502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1H8Ege-19Yq7U0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Therefore the Lord gave us Law 12 A1 ;-) Peter From: Herman De Wael > Yesterday I comitted an irregularity I had never seen before. > > I'm dummy, and my partner leads the CQ. > > "Aren't you on the table?" inquires my RHO > > "No" I say. And RHO contributes the CK. > > While partner is playing my CA to the trick, my LHO says "Yes, you > were", and we establish that indeed the trick was in dummy. > > Obviously RHO wishes to retract his CK. > > We did not find a rule allowing a player to retract his "acceptance" > based on false information from the opponents. > (we played on and found that it made no difference at the end, always > intending to award an AS if it did) > > I did find L84E, but is there really nothing else? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 20 13:34:57 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:34:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > [Wayne Burrows] >> I would advocate investigating whether a concealed >> partnership agreement exists. This should be easy > . with a few questions. If the players turn out to be not > > telling the truth in response to those questions then > > when they are found out we hit them with a serious >> cheating allegation. I would expect it would not take > > very many short to medium term bans to get the vast > > majority of players conforming to a proper disclosure > > of their methods. >> >> I am fully against a permissive attitude to CPUs but > . I am also strongly against a random regulation mandating > > a ruling of CPU where one does not exist. >> +=+ The Director asks questions. However, there is no alchemy to distinguish between identical answers given by two partnerships, one of which has a CPU. The legal advice is that the Director must determine what his opinion of the probability is, and if it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. The SO is entitled to guide the Director on the ascertainment of probability and the word 'random' in the above is not justified. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri Jan 19 16:23:03 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:23:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) References: <000001c73bb4$b518c540$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261493BC@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> >> I'm for (c). Sven? > (d) "We shall know when we see his hand." > Sven Not necessarily, partner may have been dealt and opened a full 13 HCP hand but still think the opponents are a pair of plonkers. Robin P.S. I'm not sure whether "plonker" is a part of international English - I'm sure you can substitute something appropriate. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070119/3b0b30bb/attachment.htm From john at asimere.com Sat Jan 20 20:25:59 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:25:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] novel irregularity References: <45B1ED48.6000502@skynet.be> <1H8Ege-19Yq7U0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000801c73cc8$d11839a0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] novel irregularity > Therefore the Lord gave us Law 12 A1 ;-) 72B1. No problem. Standard law for a Probst cheat. John > > Peter > > From: Herman De Wael >> Yesterday I comitted an irregularity I had never seen before. >> >> I'm dummy, and my partner leads the CQ. >> >> "Aren't you on the table?" inquires my RHO >> >> "No" I say. And RHO contributes the CK. >> >> While partner is playing my CA to the trick, my LHO says "Yes, you >> were", and we establish that indeed the trick was in dummy. >> >> Obviously RHO wishes to retract his CK. >> >> We did not find a rule allowing a player to retract his "acceptance" >> based on false information from the opponents. >> (we played on and found that it made no difference at the end, always >> intending to award an AS if it did) >> >> I did find L84E, but is there really nothing else? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 22:37:38 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:37:38 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> On 21/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:30 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > [Wayne Burrows] > >> I would advocate investigating whether a concealed > >> partnership agreement exists. This should be easy > > . with a few questions. If the players turn out to be not > > > telling the truth in response to those questions then > > > when they are found out we hit them with a serious > >> cheating allegation. I would expect it would not take > > > very many short to medium term bans to get the vast > > > majority of players conforming to a proper disclosure > > > of their methods. > >> > >> I am fully against a permissive attitude to CPUs but > > . I am also strongly against a random regulation mandating > > > a ruling of CPU where one does not exist. > >> > +=+ The Director asks questions. However, there is no > alchemy to distinguish between identical answers given > by two partnerships, one of which has a CPU. It ought to be easy to distinguish. Has this happened before? How often has it happened? What is your partnership agreement in this case? If someone with a CPU answers these questions as if they have no PU then simply they are cheating. Except in the case of a pair that is cheating the answers to these and further questions, if necessary, will be significantly different. > The legal > advice is that the Director must determine what his opinion > of the probability is, and if it waddles like a duck, swims > like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it > probably is a duck. This advice is directly contrary to L40A which says if you have no partnership understanding then you are entitled to waddle like a duck, swim like a duck, fly like a duck and quack like a duck even though you are an elephant. There for if it is in a regulation that regulation is contrary to Law 80F. > The SO is entitled to guide the Director > on the ascertainment of probability and the word 'random' > in the above is not justified. If it is not random but calculated to convict innocent players then it is worse than 'random'. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 22:41:10 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:41:10 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000e01c73c17$208db260$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070119161120.02b58640@pop.starpower.net> <000e01c73c17$208db260$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701201341o7f9090aqd4402de319310525@mail.gmail.com> On 20/01/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ................. > > Yup -- back to the dreaded "rule of coincidence". "Objectively"... > > "intent will not be taken into account" would seem to boil down to the > > RoC, which says that unusual actions (based on "the standards of a > > player's peers") by both members of a partnership leading to a > > favorable result must be treated as an instance of a CPU, even if the > > TD or AC adjudicating the case is 100% convinced that the partnership > > does not have a CPU. > > > > IOW, the RoC may require a director to tell a player, "I am absolutely > > certain that you do not have a CPU, but the law requires me to find you > > guilty of having a CPU anyhow." I can see where someone told this "may > > be understandably upset" indeed. > > > > Hold it there please! > > If a player in a partnership makes a psyche and his partner "happens" to > respond with a very successful call that would have been insane had the > psyche not been that psyche they shall have an almost impossible job trying > to convince me (as TD) that this "coincidence" was not the result of some > kind of CPU. > How then do you uphold the right of a player to make 'any call ... not based on a partnership understanding'. 'any call' will include from time to time a successful call even when there is no partnership understanding. Wayne From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 20 23:44:00 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:44:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0D6AA007-929F-4A5D-9D62-D9AF2A1546A8@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > It is possible particularly with an inexperienced partnership that > they answer any questions falsely without intent simply because they > have not noticed a pattern. I'm no expert in information theory, but it seems to me that in order for information to be conveyed, someone must produce it, and someone must receive it. If a player (more likely, I admit, an inexperienced one) doesn't notice the information, then it seems to me no UI has been conveyed - a player cannot act on information he does not have, and it is *acting* on UI that is illegal. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 21 01:01:34 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:01:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations >> > >> The legal >> advice is that the Director must determine what his opinion >> of the probability is, and if it waddles like a duck, swims >> like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it >> probably is a duck. > > This advice is directly contrary to L40A which says if you > have no partnership understanding then you are entitled to > waddle like a duck, swim like a duck, fly like a duck and > quack like a duck even though you are an elephant. > > There for if it is in a regulation that regulation is contrary > to Law 80F. > +=+ The question to be determined on the balance of probability is whether the partnership has a CPU contrary to Law 40A. It is not a matter of regulation, it is Law. The SO is entitled to, has a duty to, guide Directors as to what constitutes evidence of such probability - the Director and the AC are still making the decision - or ultimately the national authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 21 01:39:50 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:39:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> <0D6AA007-929F-4A5D-9D62-D9AF2A1546A8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c73cf4$e11b0680$01a0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> It is possible particularly with an inexperienced >> partnership that they answer any questions falsely >> without intent simply because they have not noticed >> a pattern. > > I'm no expert in information theory, but it seems to me > that in order for information to be conveyed, someone > must produce it, and someone must receive it. If a player > (more likely, I admit, an inexperienced one) doesn't notice > the information, then it seems to me no UI has been > conveyed - a player cannot act on information he does > not have, and it is *acting* on UI that is illegal. > +=+ We must pay attention, of course, to the wording of the law. It does not say 'convey' - it says 'makes available'. It does not say 'acts upon information' - it says 'chooses from among logical alternative actions' one that 'could demonstrably have been suggested by' (the information made available). There is no requirement to show that the information was received, only to find that it was made available and that the subsequent action is consistent with its use. The subsequent action of partner is sufficient evidence unless it can be explained satisfactorily in bridge terms. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 21 03:35:14 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:35:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000101c73cf4$e11b0680$01a0403e@Mildred> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> <0D6AA007-929F-4A5D-9D62-D9AF2A1546A8@rochester.rr.com> <000101c73cf4$e11b0680$01a0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 20, 2007, at 7:39 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > We must pay attention, of course, to the wording of > the law. It does not say 'convey' - it says 'makes available'. > It does not say 'acts upon information' - it says 'chooses > from among logical alternative actions' one that 'could > demonstrably have been suggested by' (the information > made available). There is no requirement to show that the > information was received, only to find that it was made > available and that the subsequent action is consistent with > its use. The subsequent action of partner is sufficient > evidence unless it can be explained satisfactorily in bridge > terms. Well now, as the Church Lady said, isn't that special? Grattan, you're absolutely right, by a literal reading of the law. So poor Mrs. Guggenheim, in fact all the poor Mrs. Guggenheims, have been seeing their scores adjusted for violation of Law 16A2 for years, in spite of the fact they have no clue what UI was made available. I wonder if they've figured out yet why that's happening. :-/ I note that the heading to Law 73C is "Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner". However the text of that law uses, as in Law 16, "has available to him..." I know, I know, the headings are not part of the laws. I would not be surprised if that interpretation first came about because the heading said, as this one does, something literally different from what the body said. Nice way to wriggle out of a dilemma, but perhaps attention will be paid in the next version to ensuring we don't have to use (or be subject to, depending on which side of the bench we sit) that particular copout. Your last sentence sounds an awful lot like "guilty until proven innocent." :-( Perhaps the lawmakers, in making these laws, *assumed* that "receives" and "has available to him" are the same thing. Just a thought. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 08:22:30 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:22:30 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> On 21/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > >> > > > >> The legal > >> advice is that the Director must determine what his opinion > >> of the probability is, and if it waddles like a duck, swims > >> like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it > >> probably is a duck. > > > > This advice is directly contrary to L40A which says if you > > have no partnership understanding then you are entitled to > > waddle like a duck, swim like a duck, fly like a duck and > > quack like a duck even though you are an elephant. > > > > There for if it is in a regulation that regulation is contrary > > to Law 80F. > > > +=+ The question to be determined on the balance of > probability is whether the partnership has a CPU contrary to > Law 40A. It is not a matter of regulation, it is Law. The > SO is entitled to, has a duty to, guide Directors as to what > constitutes evidence of such probability - the Director and > the AC are still making the decision - or ultimately the > national authority. You cannot consistently say that balance of probabilities is used and then use a regulation that allows for no judgement. The EBU requires a determination of red psyche when both partner's psyche on the same hand - there is no latitude to determine 'balance of probabilities'. Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jan 21 11:43:59 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:43:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@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: "Wayne Burrows" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > You cannot consistently say that balance of > probabilities is used and then use a regulation > that allows for no judgement. > > The EBU requires a determination of red > psyche when both partner's psyche on the > same hand - there is no latitude to determine > 'balance of probabilities'. > +=+ Where, Wayne, do you see such a statement in the OB? The OB does say that the actions of a psycher's partner following the psyche may provide evidence of an illegal partnership understanding, and sufficiently so without requiring proof of intent. That is guidance on the conclusions that may be drawn from circumstantial evidence. The OB does say that the Director will so find if he considers the subsequent action of the partner "appears to allow for" the psyche. The judgement of the evidence is in the hands of the Director. When both partners psyche on the same hand the Director has to judge whether the second psyche is prompted by illegal recognition of the first, whether it 'allows for it'. If you read Section 6 of the OB thoroughly you will find that is made up of guidance for the Director in judging circumstantial evidence from the players' actions subsequent to a psyche. The Director is assessing the strength of the evidence of collusive action and he categorizes his findings as Green, Amber, or Red, according to his assessment. It is, of course, best practice to consult in judgemental matters. And: when a psyche, misbid or deviation, is reported it is the subsequent action of the partner that is in question and he is given opportunity (OB 6C2) to explain his subsequent action(s) in writing on the report form. A bridge judgement has to be made about any such explanation when classifying the occurrence. The relevant section of the OB uses 'may' not 'shall' or 'must'; only when the Director has judged the question does the OB tell him what to do in consequence of his judgement. Also, in the White Book he is told to take experienced opponents' view into account in his classification if they say they do not think the psyche has been fielded. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 14:41:52 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:41:52 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701210541i7d83fd24xeaf8d6dc4f8d6544@mail.gmail.com> On 21/01/07, 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: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > > > > > > You cannot consistently say that balance of > > probabilities is used and then use a regulation > > that allows for no judgement. > > > > The EBU requires a determination of red > > psyche when both partner's psyche on the > > same hand - there is no latitude to determine > > 'balance of probabilities'. > > > +=+ Where, Wayne, do you see such a statement > in the OB? I went too far here. What the OB says is ... "The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche ? and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself ? may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche." OB 6B1 "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding" OB 6B2 "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding" OB 6B3 6B2 says that the director *will* treat the suspicious actions as fielding which 6B1 defines fielding as an illegal understanding. I cannot see how actions on one board can ever be sufficient evidence. If the actions were sufficient evidence then no further investigation would be required. This is contrary to what Grattan is saying where he believes the director is charged with investigating. Therefore to me 6B3's statement that the actions from one board may be sufficient is too strong. 6B2's requiring directors to treat suspicious actions as illegal understandings (fielding) is also too strong. And also contrary to L40A which allows players to make 'any bid' not based on an understanding. L40A allows me to make any bid without an understanding but when that is suspicious OB 6B2 requires the director to rule that I have an illegal understanding. That is a circular argument. As I only have an understanding because the OB requires it not because I have any real understanding with my partner. Wayne From schoderb at msn.com Sun Jan 21 15:06:50 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:06:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: At the risk of antagonizing the community, may I express the following? A mistake in one's agreements is NOT a psychic call. It is a mistake. Please refer to the definition of Psychic Call in the Laws. When partners both make calls that are violations of their agreements it is extremely rare that they are both psyching -- in particular the first one to call. For the second partner to convince me that he is making a psychic call while expecting his partner to hold what he has shown is also rare. For both partners to claim compensating "mistakes" that lands them on their feet is magical, beautiful, and so rare as to be in the realm of b--ls--t to me. My invitation to ask for an AC to review my ruling is seldomly accepted when it means they have to face their peers -- remember, I'm not a "peer". If I were I'd be out there playing instead of earning TD munificent sums. Please don't confuse the two problems. One is very prevalent (mistake which partner "reads" in a multitude of ways), the other is usually quick thinking when caught with the goods, Quick thinking, but a hard sell. The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements sounds great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present infraction when this is the first time that THIS TD has had THIS PROBLEM with THIS PAIR. Nor does it do anything to rectify the probable screwing of these opponents. Written records of violations, collated by partnership(s) and fully and readily available to the TD at the table would be great to have, but I ain't seen 'em yet. Kojak From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 21 16:23:51 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:23:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com><002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > At the risk of antagonizing the community, may I express the following? > snip some great stuff > when caught with the goods, Quick thinking, but a hard sell. > > The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements sounds > great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present infraction > when this is the first time that THIS TD has had THIS PROBLEM with THIS > PAIR. Nor does it do anything to rectify the probable screwing of these > opponents. Written records of violations, collated by > partnership(s) and fully and readily available to the TD at the table > would be great to have, but I ain't seen 'em yet. Kojak, I am in total agreement with you. If we revisit the hand where the auction has gone 1S (3C) etc and where 3C is by agreement the reds, and if aspartner of the overcaller we have a hand where it seems right to play at the 5-level in the reds then, holding first round control of clubs the call a bridge player will make is 5C over 4S. This is what happened on the hand in question. It is not relevant (to me at least) whether partner has forgotten the system (although as the "pro" I'm pretty sure the idiot will have done so from my GKE of punters who play stupid systems). And I'll be pretty relieved that on this occasion at least his likely screw up won't cost the usual 1400. Now if he has done so previously I have to tell the opponents this before the opening lead - and a TD who is awake will certainly be asking "Are you a regular partnership?", "Have you had a 2-suited screw-up previously?" etc If we start from the premise that a player will lie in answer to these question then there is no hope left for our game; we should just take up internet poker. So we must assume if told that this is a first occurrence. If it isn't then we can get the partnership under "playing illegal conventions", which to all intent is what a CPU is. BUT, we have to be SO SO careful before we conclude that an illegal agreement exixts, particularly so in this auction. It is highly unlikely As an aside, I have a UK pair who play a 16+ precision and a 12-14 NT. Twice I have seen the husband open 1NT on 15 with bad diamonds, and he has been unable satisfactorily to explain to me what he opens with 2 diamonds, a flat hand and a 15 count. He is now under no illusions that should he open 1NT on this hand again and I'm around, he will get ruled against if I deem damage to have been caused by the MI unless he modifies his CC. This pair does clearly have a CPU and the hand has high frequency. I consider this example to be far more grave than the original one we discussed. Ghestem screw-ups are always spectacular; but one gets no more than about one opportunity a year to overcall 3C showing reds, and much the same to overcall 3C natural, so on frequency grounds alone, awarding a CPU to this action is bizarre. A pair, unless they have many years of regular partnership under their belt will find it impossible to establish a CPU in this auction. I strongly insist that, in this particular case, we are unable to shoot the terrorists (much as you and I would like to), that screw ups do sometimes get good results, and that it is illegal to remove a fluked good result because of prejudice about these stupid methods. I also insist that the TD and AC were insane. Kojak, are we still fighting or do you see where I come from? best, john > > Kojak > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Sun Jan 21 21:10:20 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:10:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com><002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: Never have been in a fight with you, and this isn't going to be the first one on any account. Best Regards, Kojak. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 2:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > At the risk of antagonizing the community, may I express the following? > > > snip some great stuff > > > when caught with the goods, Quick thinking, but a hard sell. > > > > The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements sounds > > great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present infraction > > when this is the first time that THIS TD has had THIS PROBLEM with THIS > > PAIR. Nor does it do anything to rectify the probable screwing of these > > opponents. Written records of violations, collated by > > partnership(s) and fully and readily available to the TD at the table > > would be great to have, but I ain't seen 'em yet. > > Kojak, I am in total agreement with you. If we revisit the hand where the > auction has gone 1S (3C) etc and where 3C is by agreement the reds, and if > aspartner of the overcaller we have a hand where it seems right to play at > the 5-level in the reds then, holding first round control of clubs the > call a bridge player will make is 5C over 4S. This is what happened on the > hand in question. It is not relevant (to me at least) whether partner has > forgotten the system (although as the "pro" I'm pretty sure the idiot will > have done so from my GKE of punters who play stupid systems). And I'll be > pretty relieved that on this occasion at least his likely screw up won't > cost the usual 1400. Now if he has done so previously I have to tell the > opponents this before the opening lead - and a TD who is awake will > certainly be asking "Are you a regular partnership?", "Have you had a > 2-suited screw-up previously?" etc > > If we start from the premise that a player will lie in answer to these > question then there is no hope left for our game; we should just take up > internet poker. So we must assume if told that this is a first occurrence. > If it isn't then we can get the partnership under "playing illegal > conventions", which to all intent is what a CPU is. BUT, we have to be SO > SO careful before we conclude that an illegal agreement exixts, > particularly so in this auction. It is highly unlikely > > As an aside, I have a UK pair who play a 16+ precision and a 12-14 NT. > Twice I have seen the husband open 1NT on 15 with bad diamonds, and he has > been unable satisfactorily to explain to me what he opens with 2 diamonds, > a flat hand and a 15 count. He is now under no illusions that should he > open 1NT on this hand again and I'm around, he will get ruled against if I > deem damage to have been caused by the MI unless he modifies his CC. This > pair does clearly have a CPU and the hand has high frequency. I consider > this example to be far more grave than the original one we discussed. > > Ghestem screw-ups are always spectacular; but one gets no more than about > one opportunity a year to overcall 3C showing reds, and much the same to > overcall 3C natural, so on frequency grounds alone, awarding a CPU to this > action is bizarre. A pair, unless they have many years of regular > partnership under their belt will find it impossible to establish a CPU in > this auction. > > I strongly insist that, in this particular case, we are unable to shoot > the terrorists (much as you and I would like to), that screw ups do > sometimes get good results, and that it is illegal to remove a fluked good > result because of prejudice about these stupid methods. I also insist that > the TD and AC were insane. > > Kojak, are we still fighting or do you see where I come from? best, > john > > > > > Kojak > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 22:14:49 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:14:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701211314n38845b20w4fee95ea3137390a@mail.gmail.com> On 22/01/07, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > At the risk of antagonizing the community, may I express the following? > > A mistake in one's agreements is NOT a psychic call. It is a mistake. > Please refer to the definition of Psychic Call in the Laws. When partners > both make calls that are violations of their agreements it is extremely rare > that they are both psyching -- in particular the first one to call. For the > second partner to convince me that he is making a psychic call while > expecting his partner to hold what he has shown is also rare. For both > partners to claim compensating "mistakes" that lands them on their feet is > magical, beautiful, and so rare as to be in the realm of b--ls--t to me. My > invitation to ask for an AC to review my ruling is seldomly accepted when it > means they have to face their peers -- remember, I'm not a "peer". If I were > I'd be out there playing instead of earning TD munificent sums. > > Please don't confuse the two problems. One is very prevalent (mistake which > partner "reads" in a multitude of ways), the other is usually quick thinking > when caught with the goods, Quick thinking, but a hard sell. > > The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements sounds > great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present infraction when > this is the first time that THIS TD has had THIS PROBLEM with THIS PAIR. Nor > does it do anything to rectify the probable screwing of these opponents. > Written records of violations, collated by > partnership(s) and fully and readily available to the TD at the table would > be great to have, but I ain't seen 'em yet. > If you do not have records then ask the players and they will tell you? If they do not then they are cheating. If they do then on balance they have a right to be believed unless you have other evidence that they are habitual liars or you are suspicious for some other reason then you may have to probe more deeply. My experience is that most players will cooperate. There are 1000s of games where the director is more experienced than the majority of the players or even that both the players and the director are inexperienced. It is my experience that violations of agreements by both partners are common in these games often leading to disaster but occasionally compensating each other and leading to a normal result. Very rarely when these good results happen is there any suggestion of a CPU - its just bad bridge that happened to survive this time. Wayne From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 21 22:29:01 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:29:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com><002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000801c73da3$f6967e90$e009e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > I also insist that the TD and AC were insane. > +=+ What AC was that? +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 22:36:03 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:36:03 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> On 22/01/07, John Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 2:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > > At the risk of antagonizing the community, may I express the following? > > > snip some great stuff > > > when caught with the goods, Quick thinking, but a hard sell. > > > > The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements sounds > > great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present infraction > > when this is the first time that THIS TD has had THIS PROBLEM with THIS > > PAIR. Nor does it do anything to rectify the probable screwing of these > > opponents. Written records of violations, collated by > > partnership(s) and fully and readily available to the TD at the table > > would be great to have, but I ain't seen 'em yet. > > Kojak, I am in total agreement with you. If we revisit the hand where the > auction has gone 1S (3C) etc and where 3C is by agreement the reds, and if > aspartner of the overcaller we have a hand where it seems right to play at > the 5-level in the reds then, holding first round control of clubs the call > a bridge player will make is 5C over 4S. This is what happened on the hand > in question. It is not relevant (to me at least) whether partner has > forgotten the system (although as the "pro" I'm pretty sure the idiot will > have done so from my GKE of punters who play stupid systems). And I'll be > pretty relieved that on this occasion at least his likely screw up won't > cost the usual 1400. Now if he has done so previously I have to tell the > opponents this before the opening lead - and a TD who is awake will > certainly be asking "Are you a regular partnership?", "Have you had a > 2-suited screw-up previously?" etc > > If we start from the premise that a player will lie in answer to these > question then there is no hope left for our game; we should just take up > internet poker. So we must assume if told that this is a first occurrence. > If it isn't then we can get the partnership under "playing illegal > conventions", which to all intent is what a CPU is. BUT, we have to be SO > SO careful before we conclude that an illegal agreement exixts, particularly > so in this auction. It is highly unlikely > I agree except that a CPU does not have to be illegal. Your example below is if a CPU is in no way illegal if it had been disclosed as the PU. > As an aside, I have a UK pair who play a 16+ precision and a 12-14 NT. Twice > I have seen the husband open 1NT on 15 with bad diamonds, and he has been > unable satisfactorily to explain to me what he opens with 2 diamonds, a flat > hand and a 15 count. He is now under no illusions that should he open 1NT on > this hand again and I'm around, he will get ruled against if I deem damage > to have been caused by the MI unless he modifies his CC. This pair does > clearly have a CPU and the hand has high frequency. I consider this example > to be far more grave than the original one we discussed. > To me this is not so clear. There are other possibilities than CPU. If their system is not well defined for this hand then perhaps he might open 1NT sometimes, 1D other times or even 1Major on a four-card suit sometimes. They may not have a 'partnership understanding' of which action to take - he may be inclined to open 1NT while she is inclined to open 1D having never discussed the issue. To me their PU remains 12-14. Of course they have to disclose the in practice variation - perhaps a note on the CC that says 15 Balanced with weak diamonds is undefined but also these variations need to told in answer to a question. And that answer could easily vary depending on who bid the 1NT - "12-14 Balanced but 15 with weak diamonds is a problem hand in our system, I never open 1NT with these hands but from experience he sometimes does". > Ghestem screw-ups are always spectacular; but one gets no more than about > one opportunity a year to overcall 3C showing reds, and much the same to > overcall 3C natural, so on frequency grounds alone, awarding a CPU to this > action is bizarre. A pair, unless they have many years of regular > partnership under their belt will find it impossible to establish a CPU in > this auction. > > I strongly insist that, in this particular case, we are unable to shoot the > terrorists (much as you and I would like to), that screw ups do sometimes > get good results, and that it is illegal to remove a fluked good result > because of prejudice about these stupid methods. I also insist that the TD > and AC were insane. > It is illegal and insane to remove a fluked good result. Basically if you do then you are saying that if you make a bad bid then you automatically deserve a bad result. There is no law that supports this approach. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 21 22:40:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:40:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45B036CB.8050104@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length >>>of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. Jerry Fusselman: >>There some good players who overcall at the one level with a >>really good four-card suit. Mike Lawrence, for example. He's a >>good player. He talks about in his book, "Overcalls." I often >>cringe when a bridge player calls an agreement "common sense." Nigel Guthrie: >Or "general knowledge and experience*. In bidding competition >problems, the expert panel is often nearly unanimous in >electing to overcall on a 4 card suit. Australian Bridge Bidding Forum, February 1989, problem 7 Matchpoint pairs, dealer North, neither side vulnerable WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C ? You, South, hold: T986 JT94 AKQ 43 What call do you make? 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 schoderb at msn.com Mon Jan 22 01:49:04 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:49:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com><002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It is illegal and insane to remove a fluked good result. Basically if > you do then you are saying that if you make a bad bid then you > automatically deserve a bad result. There is no law that supports > this approach. > > Wayne > Kindly stop ascribing to me odious use of the laws or rulings. I am neither insane nor illegal nor am I prone to remove a fluked good result. Your position that I am anywhere near to the Wolffian idea of bad bid = bad result is insulting after the years I've spent fighting it. You obviously have little knowledge of what I stand for. Nor do you understand the importance of not allowing spurious, illegal, and nasty use of the laws and stupid excuses made of whole cloth to harm non-offending players. There seems to be an underlying theme that we can get away from having to bite the bullet as TDs on an infraction by relegating it to a possible "habitual" category and/or anything else we can find from rectifying a situation. My approach is simply to put the proof of the pudding on the possible infractor --- NOW!!!!. But it takes a level of ba-ls that is appearing to be more and more infrequent, and I'm sure wimps would not agree with me. (some females included who don't even have ba-ls). Kojak > > > >> _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 22 01:53:15 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:53:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com><002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2a1c3a560701210541i7d83fd24xeaf8d6dc4f8d6544@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c73dc2$3699b020$fcd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > I cannot see how actions on one board can ever be sufficient evidence. If the actions were sufficient evidence then no further investigation would be required. This is contrary to what Grattan is saying where he believes the director is charged with investigating. << +=+ This misrepresents what I said. The Director seeks to establish the facts. He bases his findings as to the facts on the balance of probability. He may judge that the facts of the one occurrence suffice to establish a probability and he will then rule accordingly. While you, Wayne, may not think the events of one board can ever be sufficient evidence, higher authority has decreed that they can and that it is a matter for the Director to judge. The 1997 Laws do not lay down a standard of proof, the question has been left open, but a standard has been laid down in guidance to Directors. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jan 21 16:56:04 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:56:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com><0D6AA007-929F-4A5D-9D62-D9AF2A1546A8@rochester.rr.com><000101c73cf4$e11b0680$01a0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000501c73dc6$23604880$ba9487d9@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, January 21, 2007 2:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > > Perhaps the lawmakers, in making these laws, *assumed* that > "receives" and "has available to him" are the same thing. Just a > thought. > +=+ I do not think the lawmakers believed that. I do think they decided to avoid the question whether the information was received. The attitude was, is, very much if it quacks like a duck etc it probably is a duck and it is up to the player to show that it is a swan. Now, as to the next code of laws, it is too early to say what the final position will be. I would expect the law to be stated more explicitly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jan 22 05:34:11 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:34:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45B43EC3.40108@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] > It is illegal and insane to remove a fluked good result. Basically if > you do then you are saying that if you make a bad bid then you > automatically deserve a bad result. There is no law that supports > this approach. Wayne rejects "balance of probability" arguments in the case of fielded psychs and fielded deviations; but directors must apply such arguments in many other cases. For example, take this common RKCB auction by WE with NS silent... 1S - 4N*- 5S*- 5N*- 6D*-..6S 7S Suppose East bid 6S after several minutes thought. Suppose, *after thorough investigation*, the director (who is not a mind reader) determines that the main relevant facts are that then 7S is borderline but it made and that West claims "I would have bid 7S directly over 5N but I did not want to prevent partner from investigating 7N" -- the standard mantra in this context :) IMO many directors would rule the contract back to 6S. Some would impose an PP on an expert EW. All on the balance of probability. West is *not* necessarily a cheat. Just as in the fielded psych case, he may not know the law. Or he may delude himself (most human beings are good at rationalization of law-breaking -- listen to your friends talking about tax-fiddling, breaking speed limits and so on. Few such people regard themselves as criminals). But as in the psych case it is quite possible that West is innocent. So how would Wayne rule? And Wayne he would rule against EW, how is this case different from the fielded psych case. From geller at nifty.com Mon Jan 22 05:44:13 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:44:13 +0900 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <45B43EC3.40108@NTLworld.com> References: <45B43EC3.40108@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <200701220444.AA06960@geller204.nifty.com> What this discussion shows is that every country should have a system for recording incidents of this type and looking for multiple occurrences involving the same player. This requires a bit of work, but no reason it couldn't be done. Except for flagrant cases education should be pursued befor banning. -Bob Nigel ????????: >[Wayne Burrows] >> It is illegal and insane to remove a fluked good result. Basically if >> you do then you are saying that if you make a bad bid then you >> automatically deserve a bad result. There is no law that supports >> this approach. >Wayne rejects "balance of probability" arguments in the case of fielded >psychs and fielded deviations; but directors must apply such arguments >in many other cases. > >For example, take this common RKCB auction by WE with NS silent... >1S - 4N*- >5S*- 5N*- >6D*-..6S >7S > >Suppose East bid 6S after several minutes thought. Suppose, *after >thorough investigation*, the director (who is not a mind reader) >determines that the main relevant facts are that then 7S is borderline >but it made and that West claims "I would have bid 7S directly over 5N >but I did not want to prevent partner from investigating 7N" -- the >standard mantra in this context :) > >IMO many directors would rule the contract back to 6S. Some would impose >an PP on an expert EW. All on the balance of probability. > >West is *not* necessarily a cheat. Just as in the fielded psych case, he >may not know the law. Or he may delude himself (most human beings are >good at rationalization of law-breaking -- listen to your friends >talking about tax-fiddling, breaking speed limits and so on. Few such >people regard themselves as criminals). > >But as in the psych case it is quite possible that West is innocent. So >how would Wayne rule? And Wayne he would rule against EW, how is this >case different from the fielded psych case. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 22 09:26:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:26:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com><45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net><45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com><002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <45B4754E.1060109@skynet.be> Far from me to want to intrude when John has agreed with Kojak, but John then starts a new story: John Probst wrote: > > As an aside, I have a UK pair who play a 16+ precision and a 12-14 NT. Twice > I have seen the husband open 1NT on 15 with bad diamonds, and he has been > unable satisfactorily to explain to me what he opens with 2 diamonds, a flat > hand and a 15 count. He is now under no illusions that should he open 1NT on > this hand again and I'm around, he will get ruled against if I deem damage > to have been caused by the MI unless he modifies his CC. This pair does > clearly have a CPU and the hand has high frequency. I consider this example > to be far more grave than the original one we discussed. > I consider this a prime example of a case where even the first "infraction" is MI. If the player cannot explain a "correct" bid with his hand (as you said, a quite frequent one), then this hand is systemically opened 1NT in their system and the explanation "12-14" is simply wrong, it should be "12-14, or 15 with bad diamonds". And this even the first time. However, I doubt if this would result in damage. It can though! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 22 09:30:36 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:30:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c73dff$9764d0f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >>>I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length > >>>of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. ........... > Australian Bridge Bidding Forum, February 1989, problem 7 > Matchpoint pairs, dealer North, neither side vulnerable > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C ? > > You, South, hold: > > T986 > JT94 > AKQ > 43 > > What call do you make? What is wrong with a double? My alternative is Pass Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 22 11:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > 3. "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient ..." > > I don't believe that a partnership's actions would ever be > sufficient. They can be: EW vul, Dealer East. (1D)-1N-AP. Partner of 1N overcaller (North) has a balanced 14, 1D opener is on the CC as 11+, possible 3 card suit. 1N overcall is a 2236 5 count. While one will ask questions of NS it is extremely unlikely the pass of 1N will be justifiable.* In a level 4 event I'll have to decide if NS were playing Mollo or Gardener and whether the lack of alert caused damage. In a Level 2/3 event I'll check the CC for evidence that NS are illegally playing Mollo/Gardener (banned conventions in such events) and if there is nothing on the CC I'll rule CPU. * "We have only just met", and "West reached for the double card before passing and then changed his mind. There aren't enough points in the pack for that and I decided that nv partner was much more likely to have psyched than vul dealer." would be acceptable. Same start to the auction but North on his Jxxxx,AQx,Axx,Kx bids 2C which is passed out. The NS CC is silent on whether "system on" is played after 1N overcalls and NS admit to the issue being undiscussed. Now 2C is a *perfectly reasonable bid*, the major suit quality is such that one might prefer a Moysian H contract or NT to a 5-3 S game and it gives better chances of catering to the lack of system agreement. As the OB says "Intent will not be taken into account" so the question is "Might some of North's peers have bid 2C?" since the answer is "Yes" the 2C bid is clearly not evidence of a CPU. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 22 11:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > So poor > Mrs. Guggenheim, in fact all the poor Mrs. Guggenheims, have been > seeing their scores adjusted for violation of Law 16A2 for years, in > spite of the fact they have no clue what UI was made available. If Mrs Guggenheim has no clue what UI was made available and no clue what action is suggested even were she to understand the UI we would not adjust. Whether a particular piece of UI "suggests" something is wholly dependent on the reasoning powers of the notional recipient. Mrs G is largely exempted from such considerations. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 14:02:11 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:02:11 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701220502s7954835em41c7e56efd8c95e8@mail.gmail.com> On 22/01/07, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > It is illegal and insane to remove a fluked good result. Basically if > > you do then you are saying that if you make a bad bid then you > > automatically deserve a bad result. There is no law that supports > > this approach. > > > > Wayne > > > Kindly stop ascribing to me odious use of the laws or rulings. I am neither > insane nor illegal nor am I prone to remove a fluked good result. As far as I can tell I wrote this in response to something that John Probst wrote. > Your > position that I am anywhere near to the Wolffian idea of bad bid = bad > result is insulting after the years I've spent fighting it. You obviously > have little knowledge of what I stand for. Nor do you understand the > importance of not allowing spurious, illegal, and nasty use of the laws and > stupid excuses made of whole cloth to harm non-offending players. There > seems to be an > underlying theme that we can get away from having to bite the bullet as TDs > on an infraction by relegating it to a possible "habitual" category and/or > anything else we can find from rectifying a situation. My approach is simply > to put the proof of the pudding on the possible infractor --- NOW!!!!. But > it takes a level of ba-ls that is appearing to be more and more infrequent, > and I'm sure wimps would not agree with me. (some females included who don't > even have ba-ls). > > Kojak > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 22 10:54:26 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:54:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c73dff$9764d0f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c73e33$d8d7bd20$479c87d9@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: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL > > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > Sven Pran: > > > > I know of no system agreements that >> specify a minimum length of 5 cards for >> a simple overcall, this is simply common >> sense. > ........... +=+ See EBU Orange Book, Section 4D. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 22 16:00:34 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:00:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000e01c73c17$208db260$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070119161120.02b58640@pop.starpower.net> <000e01c73c17$208db260$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070122094728.02ae0eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:14 PM 1/19/07, Sven wrote: >On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > Yup -- back to the dreaded "rule of coincidence". "Objectively"... > > "intent will not be taken into account" would seem to boil down to the > > RoC, which says that unusual actions (based on "the standards of a > > player's peers") by both members of a partnership leading to a > > favorable result must be treated as an instance of a CPU, even if the > > TD or AC adjudicating the case is 100% convinced that the partnership > > does not have a CPU. > > > > IOW, the RoC may require a director to tell a player, "I am absolutely > > certain that you do not have a CPU, but the law requires me to find you > > guilty of having a CPU anyhow." I can see where someone told this "may > > be understandably upset" indeed. > >Hold it there please! > >If a player in a partnership makes a psyche and his partner "happens" to >respond with a very successful call that would have been insane had the >psyche not been that psyche they shall have an almost impossible job >trying >to convince me (as TD) that this "coincidence" was not the result of some >kind of CPU. They may have an almost impossible job trying to convince Sven that they do not have a CPU, but if the RoC were law they would, in effect, not be entitled to even try to, as it could not legally affect Sven's ruling if they were to succeed. The problem with the Rule of Coincidence isn't about providing redress for evidence-based judgments of violations of the law (we don't need it to do that); it is that it provides "redress" for coincidences. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 22 16:19:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:19:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.co m> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070122100620.02ae56e0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:37 PM 1/20/07, Wayne wrote: >On 21/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > The legal > > advice is that the Director must determine what his opinion > > of the probability is, and if it waddles like a duck, swims > > like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it > > probably is a duck. > >This advice is directly contrary to L40A which says if you have no >partnership understanding then you are entitled to waddle like a duck, >swim like a duck, fly like a duck and quack like a duck even though >you are an elephant. Indeed, isn't it the whole point of a legal psych that, in order to succeed, it must waddle like a duck, swim like a duck, fly like a duck and quack like a duck even though it is an elephant? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 22 16:49:42 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:49:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <82EDF6A7-82F2-440C-9553-ECC52A8FAA80@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I agree except that a CPU does not have to be illegal. Your example > below is if a CPU is in no way illegal if it had been disclosed as the > PU. This makes no sense. If an understanding has been disclosed it cannot be a "concealed" understanding. Conversely, if it is concealed it is illegal *because* it is concealed. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 22 19:10:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:10:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <000101c73cf4$e11b0680$01a0403e@Mildred> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701121121y68c917bet84e49d0413f0da54@mail.gmail.com> <45A9988A.2010507@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070116104550.02a87130@pop.starpower.net> <45AD8A56.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701191227h72e42ae3ra957d7ab06ee3159@mail.gmail.com> <0D6AA007-929F-4A5D-9D62-D9AF2A1546A8@rochester.rr.com> <000101c73cf4$e11b0680$01a0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070122130226.02acc0e0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:39 PM 1/20/07, gesta wrote: >+=+ We must pay attention, of course, to the wording of >the law. It does not say 'convey' - it says 'makes available'. >It does not say 'acts upon information' - it says 'chooses >from among logical alternative actions' one that 'could >demonstrably have been suggested by' (the information >made available). There is no requirement to show that the >information was received, only to find that it was made >available and that the subsequent action is consistent with >its use. The subsequent action of partner is sufficient >evidence unless it can be explained satisfactorily in bridge >terms. I'm afraid I just do not understand how someone's action "could demonstrably have been suggested by" information that he did not possess. Do I really subject my partner to the constraints specified in L40A if I "make available" some info about my hand to my opponents while pard is off to the loo? What am I missing? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 20:33:10 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:33:10 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <82EDF6A7-82F2-440C-9553-ECC52A8FAA80@rochester.rr.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> <82EDF6A7-82F2-440C-9553-ECC52A8FAA80@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701221133l1e89270fk5ea1da2880a19d79@mail.gmail.com> On 23/01/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I agree except that a CPU does not have to be illegal. Your example > > below is if a CPU is in no way illegal if it had been disclosed as the > > PU. > > This makes no sense. If an understanding has been disclosed it cannot > be a "concealed" understanding. Conversely, if it is concealed it is > illegal *because* it is concealed. > It makes a whole lot more sense if you quoted me in context. I was responding to John Probst who said "If it isn't then we can get the partnership under "playing illegal conventions", which to all intent is what a CPU is." I was just trying to say that a CPU did not have to be an 'illegal convention' not that a CPU was in anyway legimate. I suppose I could have made this more clear but it seemed clear to me at the time I wrote it. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 20:45:01 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:45:01 +1300 Subject: [blml] Many mansions In-Reply-To: <000401c73c2f$58b86f00$e9ca403e@Mildred> References: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701180801y20a5471eh2a416225402cb9e4@mail.gmail.com> <004401c73b2d$fa59ba60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c73c2f$58b86f00$e9ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701221145i5605688eq3b286b3588d7727b@mail.gmail.com> On 20/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Beware when the great God lets > loose a thinker on this planet." > ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Many mansions > > > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > >> > >> Grattan you miss out one very important word in the use of > > this phrase in the lawbook. That word is 'his' - 'his general > > knowledge and experience'. > >> > +=+ Oh, indeed, but to be 'general' it must be acquired in all > partnerships and from all manner of opponents. ~ G ~ +=+ > That is not the normal meaning of 'General Knowledge'. If everyone's 'General Knowledge' was the same then a 'General Knowledge Quiz' would be a waste of time since we would all give the same answers. But these quizzes are commonplace because it is acknowledged that 'General Knowledge' varies from individual to individual. 'General Knowledge' is simple knowledge that is generally available to everyone. It is not necessary acquired by everyone. In the bridge law book it is contrasted with 'Special Information ... through partnership understanding or experience' (Capitalisation is mine). Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 22 22:57:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:57:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c73dff$9764d0f0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length >>>of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. Richard Hills: >>Australian Bridge Bidding Forum, February 1989, problem 7 >>Matchpoint pairs, dealer North, neither side vulnerable >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass 1C ? >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>T986 >>JT94 >>AKQ >>43 >> >>What call do you make? Sven Pran: >What is wrong with a double? >My alternative is Pass Call Award Panel 1D 100 12 Pass 90 18 Dble 60 9 Moderator Keith McNeil: "Here you are, facing a passing partner, not vulnerable, with ten lousy points and almost half the panel lose their courage, commonsense, composure and cave in. And at pairs, where overtricks cost the earth! Here South has the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: indicate the best lead for the defence and deflect opponents from the likely 3NT contract." Eddie Kantar: "Pass. Only tournament winners overcall 1D." Al Roth: "1D. I'm getting into the Australian style. This bid will win in the long run." Jeff Rubens: "1D. Likely to stop 3NT and might stop fewer no-trumps and get the best lead." Neville Moses: "1D. 'Well, I sort of made it up,' said Pooh. 'It comes to me some times.' (A.A. Milne)" Richard Hills: I submitted this problem to Bidding Forum after reading about it in a collection of Jeremy Flint's bridge columns. In the event 3NT making was a common score. But at the table where the 1D overcall occurred, because East and West each had three small diamonds, they played 4H in their 4-3 fit, down one after losing three diamond tricks and a trump trick. (By the way, the late Keith McNeil's book featuring the best of Bidding Forum, "Match Your Bidding Against The Masters", is an entertaining and informative read.) 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 svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 23 00:14:15 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:14:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c73e7b$0a1471c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au .................. > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>--- Pass 1C ? > >> > >>You, South, hold: > >> > >>T986 > >>JT94 > >>AKQ > >>43 > >> > >>What call do you make? > > Sven Pran: > > >What is wrong with a double? > >My alternative is Pass > > Call Award Panel > 1D 100 12 > Pass 90 18 > Dble 60 9 ...... (snipped all the comments from that poll) This is all very well, but a systemic agreement should not be judged on how it worked in one particular deal, the important thing is how it works in the long run. Experience may reveal that bidding 1D on a hand like this is a good principle; I suppose that depends on your partner not expecting more than a strong three-card suit for the overcall. And if that is the case you have an agreement that must be disclosed to your opponents and alerted when it can have occurred (IMO it should be pre-alerted in areas where pre-alerts are applicable). Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 23 01:22:31 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:22:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com><45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com><001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com><000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com><002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john><2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> <82EDF6A7-82F2-440C-9553-ECC52A8FAA80@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001a01c73e84$928d56d0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > On Jan 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> I agree except that a CPU does not have to be illegal. Your example >> below is if a CPU is in no way illegal if it had been disclosed as the >> PU. > > This makes no sense. If an understanding has been disclosed it cannot > be a "concealed" understanding. Conversely, if it is concealed it is > illegal *because* it is concealed. Yes, I wasn't as clear as I might have been. Often a CPU turns out to be an illegal convention, but not necessarily so. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 23 03:49:48 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:49:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701221133l1e89270fk5ea1da2880a19d79@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> <82EDF6A7-82F2-440C-9553-ECC52A8FAA80@rochester.rr.com> <2a1c3a560701221133l1e89270fk5ea1da2880a19d79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 22, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I suppose I could have made this more clear but it seemed clear to me > at the time I wrote it. Well, apparently it wasn't clear to me when I read it. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 23 03:51:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:51:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <001a01c73e84$928d56d0$0701a8c0@john> References: <45A6CF12.1090103@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560701180754oe009daamcfd851f0af288ef1@mail.gmail.com> <45B0E402.7000407@NTLworld.com> <001501c73c8f$674e67d0$2600e150@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701201337y28fbe33ci3941bf765c921af0@mail.gmail.com> <000001c73cf4$e0172b10$01a0403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701202322r13bcd716wfdba4fc39d5360cb@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73d4a$6ddf8d70$43be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001c01c73d70$27be8fa0$0701a8c0@john> <2a1c3a560701211336p4855510ane35eed73344dfd14@mail.gmail.com> <82EDF6A7-82F2-440C-9553-ECC52A8FAA80@rochester.rr.com> <001a01c73e84$928d56d0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On Jan 22, 2007, at 7:22 PM, John Probst wrote: > Yes, I wasn't as clear as I might have been. Often a CPU turns out > to be an > illegal convention, but not necessarily so. I see. Using "illegal convention in the sense of "not allowed by the SO", whether concealed or not. Got it. :-) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 23 01:44:00 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:44:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Many mansions References: <001a01c73a9e$5369b9b0$e307e150@Mildred><2a1c3a560701180801y20a5471eh2a416225402cb9e4@mail.gmail.com><004401c73b2d$fa59ba60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><000401c73c2f$58b86f00$e9ca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560701221145i5605688eq3b286b3588d7727b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c73f30$d3f18770$7d98403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> +=+ Oh, indeed, but to be 'general' it must be acquired in all >> partnerships and from all manner of opponents. ~ G ~ +=+ >> > > That is not the normal meaning of 'General Knowledge'. If everyone's > 'General Knowledge' was the same then a 'General Knowledge Quiz' would > be a waste of time since we would all give the same answers. But these > quizzes are commonplace because it is acknowledged that 'General > Knowledge' varies from individual to individual. > > 'General Knowledge' is simple knowledge that is generally available to > everyone. It is not necessary acquired by everyone. In the bridge > law book it is contrasted with 'Special Information ... through > partnership understanding or experience' (Capitalisation is mine). > > Wayne > +=+ This has been an interesting discussion. I do not expect to open your mind to what it does not wish to entertain. On your part you have no expectation that anything will change in the administration of the game under the current laws. However, the chatter is not wholly idle; it serves to clarify future issues and this is no doubt beneficial in a wry kind of way. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 24 08:17:38 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:17:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: EBU Orange Book: >A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an >unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of >itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified >as an Amber psyche. Richard Hills: Imps Dlr: South Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1D Pass 1H X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass Pass! X ? (1) 15-17 (2) Artificial game force You, South, hold: QJ AKT53 543 985 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 24 08:56:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:56:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c73e33$d8d7bd20$479c87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>I know of no system agreements that >>>specify a minimum length of 5 cards for >>>a simple overcall, this is simply common >>>sense. >>>........... Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ See EBU Orange Book, Section 4D. +=+ Orange Book section 4D2: >If a partnership habitually overcalls on >four card suits, or five card suits without >an honour, or with fewer than 6 HCP or more >than 18 HCP, then this should be disclosed >on the convention card. Richard Hills: There is a flaw in this Orange Book clause, since if I was an EBU player I would not have to disclose on my convention card that I habitually overcall on three card suits. :-) Perhaps the next edition of the Orange Book should say "habitually overcalls on four (or fewer) card suits". Another Canberra player I know raised partner's preempt with a void in order to get a ruff against the opponents' subsequent slam. Again, such an idiosyncratic style should be disclosed. 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 09:16:23 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:16:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > EBU Orange Book: > > >A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an > >unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of > >itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified > >as an Amber psyche. > > Richard Hills: > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1D Pass 1H > X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) > Pass Pass! X ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Artificial game force > > You, South, hold: > > QJ > AKT53 > 543 > 985 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? Since partner isn't known for forgetting our agreements in this novel position, he's revieled a light opener by passing my GF. There can thus be no "fielding". I'd raise to 3D as a tactical/preemtive action. I'd consider pass and 2H, but quickly discard those alternatives. I'd expect partner to be short (2-) in H, since else he might have passed 1H. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 24 12:21:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >If a partnership habitually overcalls on > >four card suits, or five card suits without > >an honour, or with fewer than 6 HCP or more > >than 18 HCP, then this should be disclosed > >on the convention card. > > Richard Hills: > > There is a flaw in this Orange Book clause, > since if I was an EBU player I would not > have to disclose on my convention card that > I habitually overcall on three card suits. Consider it in the context of: 11 N 2 Natural suit overcalls Natural suit overcalls are permitted showing a minimum of four cards in the suit bid. Overcalls which may be on as few as 3 cards are thus not considered "natural" by the EBU and thus, as artificial bids, must be alerted (the EBU has tried to give the impression that they are not allowed but such calls are not conventional and cannot be regulated). The artificial designation of these calls brings them within the ambit of: 4 L 1 The section on the front of the EBU 20B marked ?Other Aspects of System which opponents should note? should include very brief details of such things as short minors, canap?, special doubles at a high level, 2-suited overcalls (eg ?Ghestem?), matters of style which are uncommon (eg very weak pre-empts). Note that these names are sufficient in this section of the card so long as they are described in full (and not merely by name) inside the card. No EBU TD will allow anything less than disclosure on the CC *and* an alert for a player known habitually to overcall on 3 card suits. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 24 12:21:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1D Pass 1H > X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) > Pass Pass! X ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Artificial game force > > You, South, hold: > > QJ > AKT53 > 543 > 985 > > What call do you make? Dig out the old bluey and send it back. Whatever partner is doing he should be able to handle that. > What other calls do you consider making? None really. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 24 13:24:04 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:24:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004101c73fb2$ba498f20$7dba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard wrote: > >If a partnership habitually overcalls on > >four card suits, or five card suits without > >an honour, or with fewer than 6 HCP or more > >than 18 HCP, then this should be disclosed > >on the convention card. > > Richard Hills: > > There is a flaw in this Orange Book clause, > since if I was an EBU player I would not > have to disclose on my convention card that > I habitually overcall on three card suits. Consider it in the context of: 11 N 2 Natural suit overcalls Natural suit overcalls are permitted showing a minimum of four cards in the suit bid. Overcalls which may be on as few as 3 cards are thus not considered "natural" by the EBU and thus, as artificial bids, must be alerted (the EBU has tried to give the impression that they are not allowed but such calls are not conventional and cannot be regulated). The artificial designation of these calls brings them within the ambit of: 4 L 1 The section on the front of the EBU 20B marked 'Other Aspects of System which opponents should note' should include very brief details of such things as short minors, canap?, special doubles at a high level, 2-suited overcalls (eg 'Ghestem'), matters of style which are uncommon (eg very weak pre-empts). Note that these names are sufficient in this section of the card so long as they are described in full (and not merely by name) inside the card. No EBU TD will allow anything less than disclosure on the CC *and* an alert for a player known habitually to overcall on 3 card suits. Tim +=+ See OB 10.E.2 ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 24 15:24:40 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:24:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001101c73fc3$767489b0$49a987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Sven Pran: > > >>>I know of no system agreements that > >>>specify a minimum length of 5 cards for > >>>a simple overcall, this is simply common > >>>sense. > >>>........... > > Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ See EBU Orange Book, Section 4D. +=+ > > Orange Book section 4D2: > > >If a partnership habitually overcalls on > >four card suits, or five card suits without > >an honour, or with fewer than 6 HCP or more > >than 18 HCP, then this should be disclosed > >on the convention card. > > Richard Hills: > > There is a flaw in this Orange Book clause, > since if I was an EBU player I would not > have to disclose on my convention card that > I habitually overcall on three card suits. > > :-) > > Perhaps the next edition of the Orange Book > should say "habitually overcalls on four > (or fewer) card suits". Another Canberra > player I know raised partner's preempt with > a void in order to get a ruff against the > opponents' subsequent slam. Again, such an > idiosyncratic style should be disclosed. > +=+ The 'next' edition of the OB took effect on 1st August 2006. It contains the relevant statement that I have referred to in another reply. ("See OB 10E2"). ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 24 16:30:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:30:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001601c73fcc$9e867a40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 24/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > EBU Orange Book: > > >A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an > >unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of > >itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified > >as an Amber psyche. > > Richard Hills: > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1D Pass 1H > X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) > Pass Pass! X ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Artificial game force > > You, South, hold: > > QJ > AKT53 > 543 > 985 > > What call do you make? Pass, not my party > What other calls do you consider making? Pass, same reason. 2nd choice: Redouble for the game bonus at imps. Since partner isn't known for forgetting our agreements in this novel position, he's revieled a light opener by passing my GF. There can thus be no "fielding". I'd raise to 3D as a tactical/preemtive action. The 1NT rebid should pronise a sound opener. Players who routinely open light in 3rd do so on balanced hands so that they CAN pass partner's response. I'd consider pass and 2H, but quickly discard those alternatives. I'd expect partner to be short (2-) in H, since else he might have passed 1H. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 24 21:32:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004101c73fb2$ba498f20$7dba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > No EBU TD will allow anything less than disclosure on the CC *and* an > alert for a player known habitually to overcall on 3 card suits. > > Tim > > +=+ See OB 10.E.2 ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I know the existence of OB10.E.2 makes clear that such overcalls are, themselves, legal and unregulated but doesn't, IMO, change the impression created by OB11N2 that such overcalls aren't allowed. That impression would not be created were there a direct reference to 10E2 within 11n2. Instead one would form the impression that the bureaucrats are attempting to eliminate sound natural bidding on a technicality allowed them by a supine WBFLC. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 25 10:14:43 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:14:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003101c74061$b49334a0$4c9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > > > +=+ See OB 10.E.2 ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I know the existence of OB10.E.2 makes clear that > such overcalls are, themselves, legal and unregulated > but doesn't, IMO, change the impression created by > OB11N2 that such overcalls aren't allowed. That > impression would not be created were there a direct > reference to 10E2 within 11n2. Instead one would > form the impression that the bureaucrats are attempting > to eliminate sound natural bidding on a technicality > allowed them by a supine WBFLC. > > Tim > +=+ Well, the 'bureaucrats' are at least elected by the NBOs, and as for the supine position of the WBF, this is linked to a conscious policy of decentralization in matters such as system policy which are susceptible to local variation in the view of the WBF. It is interesting that in international competition overcalls of a natural bid of one of a suit that by agreement do not show a suit of at least four cards are directly forbidden in all but Category 1 events. (An exception is made of an overcall in no trumps.) In England, however, there is no excuse for a TD who is blind to the regulation in 10E2. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 25 14:12:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:12:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be> Hallo Patrick, Ik noteer dat je in geen geval de geautoriseerde inlichting van de hartenbiedingen en dubbels laat tellen en dat de man moet passen (zelfs op 6H). Ik ben echter niet van plan om meer dan ??n alternatief te weerhouden en noteer jouw stem voor 7HX-4. OK? pf001 at pandora.be wrote: > Beste Herman, > > Mijn bijdrage vind je in bijlage. > > Groetjes, > > Patrick > >> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- >> Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw at skynet.be] >> Verzonden: dinsdag, januari 23, 2007 08:25 AM >> Aan: 'Herman De Schrijver', 'Patrick Finaut', 'Norbert Fornoville', 'Paul Gysemans', >> 'Octav Munteanu', 'Fred Van Meerbeeck' >> Onderwerp: Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut >> >> Beste Leden van de Beroepscommissie (en Octav - zie verder), >> >> We moeten een beslissing nemen in een lastige zaak. Graag had ik van U >> allen Uw mening, waarna ik de meerderheid zal laten beslissen. Hierbij >> een volledig document, maar indien U nog extra vragen hebt mag dat >> uiteraard. >> >> Mag ik nog deze week een antwoord ontvangen? >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 24/01/2007 18:48 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 25 15:28:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:28:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut In-Reply-To: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be> References: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> Sorry, Indeed wrong list. Very interesting case though, which I shall share with you after I've received all my replies and finished the appeal. No need having two teams wait for blml consensus (which would be half an hour before hell freezes over at the earliest). Or shall I ? You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner bids 6Di. They double. You bid 6Sp. Partner now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need your hand to tell me what you would do? Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jan 25 16:46:30 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:46:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut In-Reply-To: <45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> References: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be> <45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45B8D0D6.9000105@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] > You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner bids 6Di. They double. > You bid 6Sp. Partner now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need > your hand to tell me what you would do? > > Herman De Wael wrote: > [nige1] Usually Pass would be automatic but if your spades are solid against any break, then 7S is possible; but it could still be wrong e.g. YOU S:AKQJT987 H:xx D:42 C:xx OXO S- H- D:AQJT987653 C:Axx Where 7D is the only making slam. From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 25 16:52:02 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:52:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut References: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be> <45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut > Sorry, > > Indeed wrong list. > > Very interesting case though, which I shall share with you after I've > received all my replies and finished the appeal. No need having two > teams wait for blml consensus (which would be half an hour before hell > freezes over at the earliest). > > Or shall I ? > > You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner bids 6Di. They double. > You bid 6Sp. Partner now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need > your hand to tell me what you would do? > > Herman De Wael wrote: > [snip] I once had a hand with both majors and decided that I didn't want the opponents to sacrifice in diamonds, so I OC 1D. It eventuated that I wouldn't believe my partner and partner wouldn't believe me. Well, Dummy hit with DKQJT98 and out. In America 4D is a preempt with 8.5 to 9 tricks plus significant defense. It would seem silly for it to be different in Europe but maybe it is? Assuming it is? then 6D must be some sort of splinter or fit jump either weak or strong [either a sacrifice or to make]. 6S denies H control or interest in 7 [in D or S]. The first X suggests [a] that 6D is not a fit jump and [b] that partner believes that 4D was natural. That makes 7D he has lost his marbles since [a] it is clear that there is no makable contract as opener has made it clear when he bid 6S that 6DX doesn't make and [b] the contract was 6DX so why would opener pull in order to bid a grand in diamonds when he could have XX if he really had a D preempt? therefore, imo, 6S reveals that opener has spades rather than D to any thinking responder. I may not need my hand, but I need to know who my partner is . regards roger pewick From jrmayne at mindspring.com Thu Jan 25 17:51:12 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:51:12 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut Message-ID: <20235759.1169743872253.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Roger Pewick >Sent: Jan 25, 2007 7:52 AM >To: blml >Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "blml" >Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:28 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut > > >> Sorry, >> >> Indeed wrong list. >> >> Very interesting case though, which I shall share with you after I've >> received all my replies and finished the appeal. No need having two >> teams wait for blml consensus (which would be half an hour before hell >> freezes over at the earliest). >> >> Or shall I ? >> >> You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner bids 6Di. They double. >> You bid 6Sp. Partner now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need >> your hand to tell me what you would do? Yes. If there was no alert to 4D, and partner bid 6D, I still need more information. (How strong is 4D? Are non-jumps asks, or cues?) But if I had nothing to say - which would be normal - I'd typically pass 6D. That's what I'd do otherwise to let partner do whatever it was he was going to do; with no agreement on 6D, passing would be the *safest* thing to do if there had been an alert and correct description. Why wouldn't it be now? >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> [snip] > > >I once had a hand with both majors and decided that I didn't want the >opponents to sacrifice in diamonds, so I OC 1D. It eventuated that I >wouldn't believe my partner and partner wouldn't believe me. Well, Dummy >hit with DKQJT98 and out. > >In America 4D is a preempt with 8.5 to 9 tricks plus significant defense. >It would seem silly for it to be different in Europe but maybe it is? I think Roger's point is that the Namyats 4D (good spade preempt) shows some defense. A regular 4D preempt guarantees zero defense and the number of tricks depends on the usual preemptive factors. > >Assuming it is? then 6D must be some sort of splinter or fit jump either >weak or strong [either a sacrifice or to make]. 6S denies H control or >interest in 7 [in D or S]. The first X suggests [a] that 6D is not a fit >jump and [b] that partner believes that 4D was natural. Not (b), necessarily. Maybe the opponent wanted a diamond lead. Heck, maybe he's void and thinks this will end up in spades. That makes 7D he >has lost his marbles since [a] it is clear that there is no makable contract >as opener has made it clear when he bid 6S that 6DX doesn't make How can he make that clear, if you have no agreement on 6D? You trust your opponents more than I do. and [b] the >contract was 6DX so why would opener pull in order to bid a grand in >diamonds when he could have XX if he really had a D preempt? No, if you really have a diamond preempt you're doomed and would not redouble - the redouble cannot mean, "I have no idea what any of my prior bids mean." therefore, >imo, 6S reveals that opener has spades rather than D to any thinking >responder. > >I may not need my hand, but I need to know who my partner is . > If you don't pass 6Dx, you probably deserve what you get. If you don't pass 7Dx, you definitely deserve whatever bad thing happens to you, assuming UI. (If there's no UI, then, hey, you're on your own.) --JRM From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 18:38:34 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:38:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut In-Reply-To: References: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be> <45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0701250938r17baa3acr3437495e1269a1ff@mail.gmail.com> On 1/25/07, Roger Pewick wrote: > In America 4D is a preempt with 8.5 to 9 tricks plus significant defense. > It would seem silly for it to be different in Europe but maybe it is? Say what? A NAMYATS type 4D opening is a disciplined and constructive preempt, however, it sure as hell doesn't promise significant defense. Here are the "requirements" for a 4C/4D opening (taken from "Preemts from A to Z") 1. 4C and 4D are constructive, showing hearts and Spades respectively 2. The trump suit is always self-sufficient and never contains more than one loser. it is at least seven cards in length, frequenty eight. 2. No more than one Ace or King (but not both) outside the trump suit 4 Eight or nine playing tricks. Auken and Anderson offered the following example hand: S 7 H AKJT8754 D KT4 C 9 This is certainly not a defensive powerhouse. >From the looks of things, there's significant disagreement about the definition of a 4D opening within the US... -- "We only wish to represent things as they are, and to expose the error of believing that a mere bravo without intellect can make one distinguished in war" Clausewitz From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 25 17:53:31 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:53:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut References: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be><45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> <45B8D0D6.9000105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000801c740aa$65fe2180$41b487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut > [Herman De Wael] > > > You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner > < bids 6Di. They double. You bid 6Sp. Partner > > now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need > > your hand to tell me what you would do? > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > [nige1] > Usually Pass would be automatic but if your spades > are solid against any break, then 7S is possible; but > it could still be wrong e.g. > YOU S:AKQJT987 H:xx D:42 C:xx > OXO S- H- D:AQJT987653 C:Axx > Where 7D is the only making slam. > +=+ I would like to know what our systemic understanding is in relation to the 6D bid - i.e. was my 6S bid correct? But the information would have no effect upon my Pass of 7D - partner is in control and has not invited me to do anything more. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 25 22:03:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:03:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1D Pass 1H X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass Pass! X ? (1) 15-17 (2) Artificial game force You, South, hold: QJ AKT53 543 985 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? * * * And now the real auction: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1D Pass 1H X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass Pass Pass(3) X ? (1) You, South, incorrectly explain upon East's enquiry that the 1NT rebid was 15-17, since your North-South partnership is playing Acol. However, your partnership plays a three- quarter weak 1NT opening bid. In third seat a 1NT opening bid is 15-17, therefore causing a 1NT rebid to be 12-14. (2) Not alerted, because your partnership agreement is that a passed hand could not artificially force to game opposite a 12-14 1NT rebid, so in those circumstances your 2D rebid is natural and non-forcing. (3) Consistent with Law 75D2, North summons the TD before the opening lead and corrects your misexplanation. Consistent with Law 21B1 the TD offers East the option of changing their call. And East chooses to change their call from a pass to a double. What are your legal logical alternatives? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 25 22:14:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:14:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c740aa$65fe2180$41b487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I would like to know what our systemic >understanding is in relation to the 6D bid - i.e. >was my 6S bid correct? But the information >would have no effect upon my Pass of 7D - >partner is in control and has not invited me >to do anything more. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Indeed. Many years ago my partner Steve Hurley and I had a Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) auction. He signed off in 7D, which happened to be my void. I was tempted to remove to 7NT, since he had "obviously" got one of the relays wrong. However, I chose to pass. The luck of the relays meant that I was declarer. But I was pleased to see Steve's solid nine-card diamond suit appear in dummy, and even more pleased to note that 7D was cold and 7NT was hopeless. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 25 22:53:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:53:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c73fc3$767489b0$49a987d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Orange Book section 4D2: >>>>If a partnership habitually overcalls on >>>>four card suits, or five card suits without >>>>an honour, or with fewer than 6 HCP or more >>>>than 18 HCP, then this should be disclosed >>>>on the convention card. Richard Hills nitpicker: >>>There is a flaw in this Orange Book clause, >>>since if I was an EBU player I would not >>>have to disclose on my convention card that >>>I habitually overcall on three card suits. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The 'next' edition of the OB took effect >>on 1st August 2006. It contains the relevant >>statement that I have referred to in another >>reply. ("See OB 10E2"). ~ G ~ +=+ Orange Book clause 10E2(b): >A partnership may agree to overcall on 3 cards >by agreement, but only if it does not agree to >play ANY artificial calls in the subsequent >auction after an overcall made with such an >agreement. Richard Hills nitpicker: Clause 10E2(b) limits the use of three-card overcalls, but does not require that such an agreement to use three-card overcalls must be disclosed on the EBU convention card. An interesting question is whether a sponsoring organisation's regulatory power under Law 40B can be used to over-ride the "fully and freely available" requirement of Law 75B. Jeff Rubens noted (in a recent Bridge World editorial) that a few decades ago the ACBL Alert regulations were somewhat ineffective, so some actively ethical ACBL experts said "Alert! Really alert!" when their highly unusual method differed from the to-be-expected meaning of the alerted call. In the same editorial Jeff Rubens noted that some 21st century ACBL experts were sadly taking the opposite tack. Like me, they nitpickingly examined regulations for loopholes. But unlike me, those ACBL experts used loopholes in the ACBL alert regulations to limit disclosure of their system in order to gain unearned tops. Perhaps the 21st century ACBL expert problem could be solved if the ACBL adopted a general principles clause as a preamble to its Alert regulations. ABF Alert Regulation (slightly paraphrased): "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that a player must not have secret agreements with his partner, either in bidding or in card play. A partnership's agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to their opponents. A player must follow this principle of full disclosure when obeying regulations requiring explanations of calls and plays. The principle the player must follow is to disclose as much as the player can, and as comprehensibly as the player can." 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 25 23:16:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:16:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] The moon belongs to ev'ryone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7403c$afa351c0$0201a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >The moon belongs to ev'ryone >The best things in life are free >The stars belong to ev'ryone >They gleam there for you and me At yesterday's Annual General Meeting of the Australian Bridge Directors Association, it was announced that all existing members of the ABDA would now have to pay an annual subscription of zero dollars. New members will pay a one-off joining fee of Australian $25. New non- Australian members are welcome. The reason that annual fees are being cut to zero is that copies of the ABDA Directors Bulletin are no longer being mailed to members. Instead information is available on the ABDA website: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html Parts of the ABDA website can be freely viewed by non- members who may wish to "try before they buy". For other parts (for example, an archive of ABDA Directors Bulletins) only members have access. Key stars gleaming on the ABDA website are Laurie Kelso, who will be moderating an Appeals panel, and Matthew McManus, who will be answering Dear Director questions. These online forums are at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/forum/index.php Non-members can view postings on these forums, but only ABDA members can register to create their own postings. 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jan 26 03:37:19 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:37:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations In-Reply-To: <200701221520.l0MFKlt8019734@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200701221520.l0MFKlt8019734@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45B9695F.9060601@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements sounds >great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present infraction It might help to focus on what question the TD is trying to answer, namely, _What is the true partnership agreement?_ Suppose a player opens 1S holding a weak hand and a doubleton spade. If the true agreement for 1S is something normal -- and this is a psych -- there's no infraction. If, on the other hand, the true agreement is "either normal with spades or some weak hand," that will be an illegal agreement in most jurisdictions (and in virtually all, if not properly disclosed). The real question, then, is _what evidence_ does the TD use to decide what the true agreement is. Grattan and Wayne both seem to think the main evidence is partnership history, but I'd argue (apparently along with Kojak) that history is the _least_ important element. Far more relevant, it seems to me, are what methods the partnership plays and any evidence of "fielding" by partner of the putative psycher. Personally, I'd go so far as to argue that partnership history should matter not at all as far as this main question, but I know that extreme view will receive little support. (Of course partnership history matters a great deal for _disclosure_, but that's another issue.) Even without being extreme, though, there's plenty of evidence besides history on which a TD can make a decision. Another reminder might be pertinent: we're arguing here about a score adjustment. If the TD gets the ruling wrong _in either direction_, one side is unfairly damaged. That's why the ruling is based on preponderance of evidence, not some stricter standard. Ruling "illegal agreement" (or "misinformation") isn't an indictment of someone's character; it's a simple technical infraction. John Probst wrote: >> As an aside, I have a UK pair who play a 16+ precision and a 12-14 NT. Twice >> I have seen the husband open 1NT on 15 with bad diamonds, and he has been >> unable satisfactorily to explain to me what he opens with 2 diamonds, a flat >> hand and a 15 count. Here, as Herman wrote, it seems 100% clear that the true agreement for 1NT is "12-14 or 15 with bad diamonds." That is no doubt a perfectly legal meaning, but failure to disclose it is MI. This is a perfect example of history being irrelevant; John's last clause suffices. Of course this rather minor MI will seldom cause damage, but when it does, the opponents are entitled to an adjustment. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 08:48:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:48:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001101c73fc3$767489b0$49a987d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701252348n2a0a216egc483f6d46d390456@mail.gmail.com> Richard writes: > The principle the player must follow is to disclose > as much as the player can, and as comprehensibly > as the player can." > Do you really have the 20 minutes per bid that it would require for someone to actually uphold this? No, this wording cannot really work. -Jerry Fusselman From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 25 16:32:10 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:32:10 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Appeal_Lanaken_-_Peut-P?= =?iso-8859-1?q?eut?= References: <45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45B8CD78.00000D.99483@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 25/01/2007 15:26:36 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner bids 6Di. They double. You bid 6Sp. Partner now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need your hand to tell me what you would do? First, we've to consider what 6D would mean over a Namyats 4D. In my style, it is Exclusion KCBW. So we'll need to see whether 6S was the right response Second, we've to consider whether we face a complete moron - for only that kind of player would not understand why you took out his (assumed) natural 6D into 6S. If anybody else does take out to 7D, assume he knows what he's doing - perhaps RHO is lignthner-doubling but partner has a spade void, too. Either bidding 6S was using UI (probably inexistent in Belgium, anyway, since 4D won't be alerted even if artificial), and the question about the ensuing bidding isn't very useful, or it isn't, and I fail to see how bidding over 7D would be. So, "Am I allowed to bid 7S ? " can't be the question. "Was I allowed to bid 6S ?" could be - excepted in the abovementioned case, where 6D over 4D artificial would have been artificial too. Then bidding 7S could be first use of UI. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070125/8c3a60f0/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/20070125/8c3a60f0/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070125/8c3a60f0/attachment-0001.gif From rebecca at dptech.net Wed Jan 24 21:27:53 2007 From: rebecca at dptech.net (Rebecca) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:27:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major Message-ID: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> I'm sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, but after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what others thought. A diamond was lead, followed on table and offender then put the three of clubs on the table. Offender then went "Oh, I need the Director" and called one. Director asked what happened. Offender said "The three of clubs and the King of Diamonds were right next to each other and I inadvertently went to pull the King and the three came out." The Director asked if the card fell out or was placed on the table. Offender repeated their statement pretty much verbatim. Director ruled that the King be played to correct the revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card - which meant it was lead immediately thus solving the problem. The offender was most put out as they felt that it should be a minor penalty card. Re-reading the Laws Law50B is the one that applies - "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card". The question is whether the three of clubs was played inadvertently. In my opinion, it is the difference between carelessness and true inadvertency - was offender just not being careful? In the event of doubt, the Director must rule in favour of the non-offending side. I think the inadvertency provisions are very difficult to put into practice. In this case, if offender had literally played the King and the three dropped out, no hassle, it becomes a minor penalty card. I know this seems trivial but I thought I'd ask this august body their opinion anyway! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070125/982830e9/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 26 09:21:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:21:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut In-Reply-To: <000801c740aa$65fe2180$41b487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be><45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> <45B8D0D6.9000105@NTLworld.com> <000801c740aa$65fe2180$41b487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45B9B9F2.9090100@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ***************************** > "They who sin with caution, > whilst concealed, > Grow impudently careless, > when revealed." > ~ Susannah Centlivre. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:46 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut > > >> [Herman De Wael] >> >>> You open 4Di, pre-empt in spades. Your partner >> < bids 6Di. They double. You bid 6Sp. Partner >>> now bids 7Di. They double. Do you really need >>> your hand to tell me what you would do? >>> >>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >> [nige1] >> Usually Pass would be automatic but if your spades >> are solid against any break, then 7S is possible; but >> it could still be wrong e.g. >> YOU S:AKQJT987 H:xx D:42 C:xx >> OXO S- H- D:AQJT987653 C:Axx >> Where 7D is the only making slam. >> > +=+ I would like to know what our systemic > understanding is in relation to the 6D bid - i.e. > was my 6S bid correct? But the information > would have no effect upon my Pass of 7D - > partner is in control and has not invited me > to do anything more. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > You are playing in the Belgian seventh division (that's two down from myself). You have no agreement whatsoever on 6D - it must be "to play", and you have serious reasons to believe he will have forgotten the system. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 26 10:48:53 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:48:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> Message-ID: <001001c7412f$31d835f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Rebecca I?m sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, but after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what others thought. ? A diamond was lead, followed on table and offender then put the three of clubs on the table. Offender then went ?Oh, I need the Director? and called one. Director asked what happened. Offender said ?The three of clubs and the King of Diamonds were right next to each other and I inadvertently went to pull the King and the three came out.? The Director asked if the card fell out or was placed on the table. Offender repeated their statement pretty much verbatim. Director ruled that the King be played to correct the revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card ? which meant it was lead immediately thus solving the problem. ? The offender was most put out as they felt that it should be a minor penalty card. ? Re-reading the Laws Law50B is the one that applies ? ?A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card?. The question is whether the three of clubs was played inadvertently. ? In my opinion, it is the difference between carelessness and true inadvertency ? was offender just not being careful? In the event of doubt, the Director must rule in favour of the non-offending side. ? I think the inadvertency provisions are very difficult to put into practice. In this case, if offender had literally played the King and the three dropped out, no hassle, it becomes a minor penalty card. ? I know this seems trivial but I thought I?d ask this august body their opinion anyway! --------------------------------------------------------- The rule is trivial, but practicing it can sometimes be difficult:? The Director should establish the facts as to how the 3C found its way from the hand to the table. If it fell directly from the hand without being "grabbed" by the fingers that were used to play the KD or if it stuck with the KD in the process of playing this (intended) card then ruling inadvertency and minor penalty card is correct. But here it seems that the Director believed the player actually had "inadvertently" first grabbed the 3C and played it (instead of the KD), and that makes the 3C a major penalty card. Regards Sven PS.: Please avoid posting to blml in any format other than plain text. Using for instance html as you did will only delay your message. From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 26 11:44:06 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:44:06 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Minor/Major?= References: <001001c7412f$31d835f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45B9DB75.000007.87997@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 26/01/2007 11:23:33 A : blml Cc : 'Rebecca' Sujet : Re: [blml] Minor/Major On Behalf Of Rebecca I?m sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, but after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what others thought. A diamond was lead, followed on table and offender then put the three of clubs on the table. Offender then went ?Oh, I need the Director? and called one. Director asked what happened. Offender said ?The three of clubs and the King of Diamonds were right next to each other and I inadvertently went to pull the King and the three came out.? The Director asked if the card fell out or was placed on the table. Offender repeated their statement pretty much verbatim. Director ruled that the King be played to correct the revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card ? which meant it was lead immediately thus solving the problem. The offender was most put out as they felt that it should be a minor penalty card. AG : Reading a player's mind can be very diffucult at times. We'll all agree that you should make the C3 a mpc if pulling it was inadvertent, and a MPC if it was deliberate (as would be the case if the DK was hidden in the player's hand, the classical revoke case). IMHO, how the C3 made its way to the table isn't relevant. A card might be voluntarily exposed without being played, e.g. a bad-tempered player shows his partner the SA on his forehead to show him his heart lead was wrong. Also, a card might satisfy the conditions for "having been played" ans still be there accidentally. Here, my inclination would be to believe the player, whose immediate reaction seems more consistent with having pulled the wrong card than with having found the DK behind a club. I think the TD read the wrong chapter : he decided to "correct the revoke", but one has first to check whether there was a revoke. Pulling the wrong card doesn't constitute one. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070126/8eeb00af/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/20070126/8eeb00af/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070126/8eeb00af/attachment-0001.gif From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 26 11:53:12 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:53:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> Message-ID: <000601c74139$773d8410$40cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: Rebecca To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:27 PM Subject: [blml] Minor/Major I'm sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, but after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what others thought. A diamond was led, followed on table and offender then put the three of clubs on the table. Offender then went "Oh, I need the Director" and called one. Director asked what happened. Offender said "The three of clubs and the King of Diamonds were right next to each other and I inadvertently went to pull the King and the three came out." The Director asked if the card fell out or was placed on the table. Offender repeated their statement pretty much verbatim. Director ruled that the King be played to correct the revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card - which meant it was led immediately thus solving the problem. The offender was most put out as they felt that it should be a minor penalty card. Re-reading the Laws Law50B is the one that applies - "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card". The question is whether the three of clubs was played inadvertently. In my opinion, it is the difference between carelessness and true inadvertency - was offender just not being careful? In the event of doubt, the Director must rule in favour of the non-offending side. I think the inadvertency provisions are very difficult to put into practice. In this case, if offender had literally played the King and the three dropped out, no hassle, it becomes a minor penalty card. I know this seems trivial but I thought I'd ask this august body their opinion anyway! +=+ Dear Rebecca, A welcome voice, but where from? With respect, you flatter these precincts with the description 'august' - we are fallible journeymen, error prone, argumentative, gentlemen songsters..... But to the facts. Your account of the matter tells us that the card was pulled out unintentionally (i.e. 'inadvertently') by a player who was intending to pull out a different card. She immediately realized that an accident had occurred, drew attention to it and called the Director. The Director took the view that as she had pulled one card out and placed it on the table she had performed the actions that constitute play of the card. He ruled on that basis. The club was illegally played, corrected by the play of a diamond, and as a card illegally played - a revoke corrected - became a major penalty card. If the unintended card had been a small diamond - a legal play - the Director would have ruled the card played and it could not have been retracted. You may feel it harsh, but the account is one of a player who deliberately pulls out a card and puts it in the played position. Careless it was but not inadvertent within the meaning of the laws that apply. The player's brain directed her fingers to take hold of the card and lay it on the table; these were purposeful actions, inattentive but deliberate. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 26 11:57:41 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:57:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations References: <200701221520.l0MFKlt8019734@cfa.harvard.edu> <45B9695F.9060601@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000701c74139$789c02a0$40cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations > > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > >The reliance on habitual violations creating implicit agreements > >sounds great, but it doesn't easily work in rectifying the present > >infraction > <> Steve Willner: > It might help to focus on what question the TD is trying to answer, > namely, _What is the true partnership agreement?_ Suppose a > player opens 1S holding a weak hand and a doubleton spade. If > the true agreement for 1S is something normal -- and this is a psych -- > there's no infraction. If, on the other hand, the true agreement is > "either normal with spades or some weak hand," that will be an > illegal agreement in most jurisdictions (and in virtually all, if not > properly disclosed). > > The real question, then, is _what evidence_ does the TD use to > decide what the true agreement is. Grattan and Wayne both > seem to think the main evidence is partnership history, << +=+ My opinion is that partnership history may corroborate. But the most cogent evidence is the actions of the partner and the partnership after the aberrant action; if the subsequent action is *abnormal* and *caters for the possibility of the psyche* it is prima facie evidence of collusion and requires to be explained convincingly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 26 12:21:10 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:21:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut References: <45B8ACAB.2010501@skynet.be><45B8BE78.5070007@skynet.be> <45B8D0D6.9000105@NTLworld.com><000801c740aa$65fe2180$41b487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <45B9B9F2.9090100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c7413c$713f8560$40cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal Lanaken - Peut-Peut > > +=+ I would like to know what our systemic > > understanding is in relation to the 6D bid - i.e. > > was my 6S bid correct? But the information > > would have no effect upon my Pass of 7D - > > partner is in control and has not invited me > > to do anything more. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > You are playing in the Belgian seventh division (that's > two down from myself). You have no agreement > whatsoever on 6D - it must be "to play", and you have > serious reasons to believe he will have forgotten > the system. > +=+ I might have used it to show interest in 7S, two first round controls therefore minimum and evidently not in clubs (bypassed). Consequently I thought of 7S over 6D. But I see we are truly in the pits.... :-) .... anyway and whatever, the Pass of 7D is still the only option. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 26 14:11:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:11:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Minor/Major?= In-Reply-To: <45B9DB75.000007.87997@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <002301c7414b$81c14c70$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............... AG : Reading a player's mind can be very diffucult at times. SP: There is no need to attempt reading the player's mind in order to determine whether an exposed card is a minor or a major penalty card. ? We'll all agree that you should make the C3 a mpc if pulling it was inadvertent, and a MPC if it was deliberate (as would be the case if the DK was hidden in the player's hand, the classical revoke case). IMHO, how the C3 made its way to the table isn't relevant. SP: How the C3 made its way to the table is the _only_ relevant matter! A?card might be voluntarily exposed without being played, e.g. a bad-tempered player shows his partner the SA on his forehead?to show him his heart lead was wrong. Also, a card might satisfy the conditions for "having been played" ans still be there accidentally. SP: Only if it was played together with another card. ? Here, my inclination would be to believe the player, whose immediate reaction seems more consistent with having pulled the wrong card than with having found the DK behind a club. SP: Once the card was "pulled", exposed and then had to be withdrawn it became a major penalty card. ? I think the TD read the wrong chapter : he decided to "correct the revoke", but one has first to check whether there was a revoke. Pulling the wrong card doesn't constitute one. SP: The only thing he has to check is if the exposed card cannot legally be played to the trick and in that case if it satisfies the criteria in Law 50B for becoming a minor penalty card when withdrawn. ? Best regards? ? ? Alain You had better read Law 50B carefully! "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; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards."? Sven PS. And please cease sending html formatted messages to blml however amusing they might appear. They only cause difficulties! From john at asimere.com Fri Jan 26 14:51:38 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:51:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Minor/Major References: <001001c7412f$31d835f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45B9DB75.000007.87997@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <003601c74151$19ab94a0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" Cc: "'Rebecca'" Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:44 AM Subject: [blml] R?f. : Re: Minor/Major -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 26/01/2007 11:23:33 A : blml Cc : 'Rebecca' Sujet : Re: [blml] Minor/Major On Behalf Of Rebecca I'm sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, but after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what others thought. A diamond was lead, followed on table and offender then put the three of clubs on the table. Offender then went "Oh, I need the Director" and called one. Director asked what happened. Offender said "The three of clubs and the King of Diamonds were right next to each other and I inadvertently went to pull the King and the three came out." The Director asked if the card fell out or was placed on the table. Offender repeated their statement pretty much verbatim. Director ruled that the King be played to correct the revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card - which meant it was lead immediately thus solving the problem. Major penalty card, absolutely no question in my mind. Law 45A. We don't care if it was the wrong card. Minor penalty cards can only be generated through a mechanical accident such as dropping a card. The card put on the table was placed there not dropped. John From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 26 16:20:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <003601c74151$19ab94a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John Probst wrote: > > Major penalty card, absolutely no question in my mind. Law 45A. We > don't care if it was the wrong card. Minor penalty cards can only be > generated through a mechanical accident such as dropping a card. Hmm? When pulling cards from a bidding box the pull of a card adjacent to the one intended is treated as a mechanical accident - meeting all the requirements for inadvertency. How can we be sure that a different measure of inadvertency is used when pulling cards from hand? L50A talks of: any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting). I don't think deliberate is the same as intentionally revoking. It covers a player selecting a particular card to a trick either being unaware of the ability to follow suit or confused as to what suit was led. L45A merely establish that the C3 was played (and were it not a revoke irretrievably so). L45A does not dictate that playing an unintended card is not inadvertent. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 26 17:54:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:54:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004101c7416a$a0a47620$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > John Probst wrote: > > > > Major penalty card, absolutely no question in my mind. Law 45A. We > > don't care if it was the wrong card. Minor penalty cards can only be > > generated through a mechanical accident such as dropping a card. Or specifically by playing two cards simultaneously to a trick. > > Hmm? When pulling cards from a bidding box the pull of a card adjacent > to the one intended is treated as a mechanical accident - meeting all > the requirements for inadvertency. How can we be sure that a different > measure of inadvertency is used when pulling cards from hand? Why on earth must people make up such imaginative interpretations of the laws? What has bid boxes to do with this? Nobody ever "plays" a bid card. > L50A talks of: any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading > out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting). Except that it is Law 50B and not 50A it uses the clause "deliberate play" to distinguish from "exposed inadvertently" i.e. exposed without any indication of intent to play that card. As should be obvious from the context the alternative to "deliberate play" is not "inadvertent play". (The fact that Law 50B further explicitly defines the withdrawn card of two cards played simultaneously as an inadvertent exposure of that card is a separate matter.) > I don't think deliberate is the same as intentionally revoking. It > covers a player selecting a particular card to a trick either being > unaware of the ability to follow suit or confused as to what suit was led. It covers a player "playing" a particular card rather than (accidentally) "dropping" it on the table. Whether that play is "normal", "insane" or "illegal" is completely irrelevant for Law 50B. Any reference to for instance revoke is only confusing the issue. If he "plays" a card that card has been deliberately played. If he drops that card it has been inadvertently exposed. (He may have to play that card under Law 45C, a fact that is completely irrelevant for this discussion.) > > L45A merely establish that the C3 was played (and were it not a revoke > irretrievably so). L45A does not dictate that playing an unintended > card is not inadvertent. If a card has been "played" by a defender according to the description in Law 45A and was subsequently withdrawn it is considered "deliberately played" for the purpose of applying Law 50B. It becomes a major penalty card (unless the withdrawal is explicitly permitted without penalty in the laws). It is as simple as that! Why make a long discussion of this? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 26 23:00:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:00:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701252348n2a0a216egc483f6d46d390456@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ABF Alert regulation (slightly paraphrased): >>The principle the player must follow is to disclose >>as much as the player can, and as comprehensibly >>as the player can. Jerry Fusselman: >Do you really have the 20 minutes per bid that it >would require for someone to actually uphold this? >No, this wording cannot really work. Richard Hills: West's explanation East's explanation Relay, asking me to Shortness in hearts describe further Relay, asking me to 3-1-5-4 shape describe further Relay, asking me to 3 controls (A=2, K=1) describe further Signoff, but showing extra strength, since East could have bid 4S one round earlier If a complicated system such as Symmetric Relay can be succinctly but comprehensibly explained, then no way is 20 minutes per bid needed for simpler systems. 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 23:24:50 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:24:50 -0600 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0701252348n2a0a216egc483f6d46d390456@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701261424t5e0ae4sacda3c76dc2351d1@mail.gmail.com> On 1/26/07, Richard Hills wrote: > ... > If a complicated system such as Symmetric Relay can be > succinctly but comprehensibly explained, then no way is > 20 minutes per bid needed for simpler systems. > When I read this: > >>The principle the player must follow is to disclose > >>as much as the player can, and as comprehensibly > >>as the player can. and I think of my partner's 1NT or 2NT openings, I could easily fill 20 minutes if I literally upheld this principle. I am objecting to the language "disclose as much as the player can and as comprehensibly as the player can" as being nearly impossible to uphold within reasonable time with very experienced partnerships. The regulation can't be right if it makes no reference to time or efficiency of explanation. It is scary if I am too careful about language (or literal-minded) even for BLML contributors! -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 23:25:30 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:25:30 +1300 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0701252348n2a0a216egc483f6d46d390456@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701261425n3c0d6974p19d0956c51fd80a5@mail.gmail.com> On 27/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ABF Alert regulation (slightly paraphrased): > > >>The principle the player must follow is to disclose > >>as much as the player can, and as comprehensibly > >>as the player can. > > Jerry Fusselman: > > >Do you really have the 20 minutes per bid that it > >would require for someone to actually uphold this? > >No, this wording cannot really work. > > Richard Hills: > > West's explanation East's explanation > > Relay, asking me to Shortness in hearts > describe further > > Relay, asking me to 3-1-5-4 shape > describe further > > Relay, asking me to 3 controls (A=2, K=1) > describe further > > Signoff, but showing > extra strength, since > East could have bid 4S > one round earlier > > > If a complicated system such as Symmetric Relay can be > succinctly but comprehensibly explained, then no way is > 20 minutes per bid needed for simpler systems. > In many ways Symmetric Relay is a simple system since especially in relay auctions the bids have very precise meanings. This is not always the case in standard systems where there is much more room for variation and judgement. And when that variation and judgement is known from agreement or experience it needs to be disclosed. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 26 23:29:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:29:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c74139$773d8410$40cb87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Dear Rebecca, > A welcome voice, but where from? > With respect, you flatter these precincts with the description >'august' - we are fallible journeymen, error prone, argumentative, >gentlemen songsters..... Richard Hills: Rebecca Plush is the very model of a modern Canberra bureaucrat At Friday night Canberra pairs she directs with great eclat A silver medal she has just gained in National Non-Life Teams Which has earned her many plaudits and my great esteems For many years as lurker she has been reading blml diktat Rebecca Plush is the very model of a modern Canberra bureaucrat 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jan 27 00:19:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:19:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Close Encounter of the Third Kind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: New Zealand blmler Wayne Burrows regularly plays in the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. The feature event is the National Open Teams, 200-odd teams playing a week-long Swiss of 14 20-board matches, from which only 16 teams qualify for the knockout rounds. Wayne's team and my team luckily had a close encounter, despite playing in different qualifying venues, since we met in the Round of 16. The World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker said: "Lies and hypocrisy do not survive on the chessboard." The same could be said of a knockout match, where the reasoning and analytical skills of Wayne and his team-mates proved superior to those of me and my team-mates, knocking my team out while Wayne is now playing in the Round of 12. Keep up the good work, Wayne. But since our match was played in the best of spirit, there are no incidents worth reporting to blml. Unfortunately the same could not be said of my last round Swiss match against a different sponsored team. In a contract of 2S, this was the three card ending, with the declaring sponsor needing one more trick to make 2S. Me AK K --- --- Dummy Sponsor Q9 J65 K --- --- --- --- --- Pard 72 --- 3 --- The lead was in dummy, and the sponsor claimed. If the claim had been, "ruffing a heart high", then I would have moved on to the next board. Instead the sponsor merely stated, "giving you two spades", so I summoned the director since it seemed to me that the sponsor might carelessly allow pard's spade seven to score an over-ruff. When the director arrived, the facts were determined after some argy-bargy. Because the issue was a judgement ruling of "careless" versus "irrational", the director correctly announced that he would not give an immediate ruling, but would first consult with the rest of the directing staff. After the director left, the sponsor remarked to me, "I make tricks through skill, not stealth". Since I interpreted the word "stealth" as a derogatory remark on my ethics, I immediately summoned the harried director back again. The director stated that the sponsor's remark was "inappropriate", but the sponsor disagreed. Dummy, a decent and fine expert, supported the sponsor on the grounds that the claim was valid (not realising that the issue that I was complaining about was rudeness). There was good news and bad news. The bad news was that the sponsor never apologised, but the good news was that we thrashed his team 103 imps to 56 imps. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jan 27 00:37:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:37:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Close Encounter of the Third Kind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: {Typo corrected in attached three-card ending} New Zealand blmler Wayne Burrows regularly plays in the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. The feature event is the National Open Teams, 200-odd teams playing a week-long Swiss of 14 20-board matches, from which only 16 teams qualify for the knockout rounds. Wayne's team and my team luckily had a close encounter, despite playing in different qualifying venues, since we met in the Round of 16. The World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker said: "Lies and hypocrisy do not survive on the chessboard." The same could be said of a knockout match, where the reasoning and analytical skills of Wayne and his team-mates proved superior to those of me and my team-mates, knocking my team out while Wayne is now playing in the Round of 12. Keep up the good work, Wayne. But since our match was played in the best of spirit, there are no incidents worth reporting to blml. Unfortunately the same could not be said of my last round Swiss match against a different sponsored team. In a contract of 2S, this was the three card ending, with the declaring sponsor needing one more trick to make 2S. Me AK K --- --- Dummy Sponsor Q9 J65 Q --- --- --- --- --- Pard 72 --- 3 --- The lead was in dummy, and the sponsor claimed. If the claim had been, "ruffing a heart high", then I would have moved on to the next board. Instead the sponsor merely stated, "giving you two spades", so I summoned the director since it seemed to me that the sponsor might carelessly allow pard's spade seven to score an over-ruff. When the director arrived, the facts were determined after some argy-bargy. Because the issue was a judgement ruling of "careless" versus "irrational", the director correctly announced that he would not give an immediate ruling, but would first consult with the rest of the directing staff. After the director left, the sponsor remarked to me, "I make tricks through skill, not stealth". Since I interpreted the word "stealth" as a derogatory remark on my ethics, I immediately summoned the harried director back again. The director stated that the sponsor's remark was "inappropriate", but the sponsor disagreed. Dummy, a decent and fine expert, supported the sponsor on the grounds that the claim was valid (not realising that the issue that I was complaining about was rudeness). There was good news and bad news. The bad news was that the sponsor never apologised, but the good news was that we thrashed his team 103 imps to 56 imps. 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 twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jan 27 14:47:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <004101c7416a$a0a47620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Why on earth must people make up such imaginative interpretations of > the laws? What has bid boxes to do with this? Nobody ever "plays" a bid > card. The question was about the meaning of "exposed inadvertently" rather than "exposed through deliberate play". The bidding box example is one where it is accepted that pulling the wrong card (ie not the intended card) is a mechanical error and should be deemed inadvertent. The laws make partial provision for correction (limited by partner being yet to call) precisely because the criteria for inadvertency have been met. During play it is also possible to perform a mechanical error and pull the wrong card from hand while trying to play a different one. Again the laws make partial provision for correction (the play must be corrected if the play is illegal but must stand if the play is legal). If the player then asks "Why are you using a different definition of inadvertency in the two cases?" he is entitled to a proper answer. > Except that it is Law 50B and not 50A it uses the clause "deliberate > play" to distinguish from "exposed inadvertently" i.e. exposed > without any indication of intent to play that card. As should be > obvious from the context the alternative to "deliberate play" is not > "inadvertent play". Sure. We have: Cards exposed accidentally (dropped, etc): Easy Cards played deliberately (the intended card was played): Easy again And cards played by mistake - the intended card was not the card actually played (and the play is not legal so must be corrected). Of course one *can* rule "The card was played deliberately because declarer intended to play a card" but I still don't understand why you suggest a test other than "mechanical error" which is what we all apply as the meaning of "inadvertent" elsewhere in the laws. BTW, when two cards are played to a trick normally only one of them has been played inadvertently (cases are very rare where the player pulls two cards neither of which is his intended card). Tim From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 27 16:42:58 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:42:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Why on earth must people make up such imaginative interpretations of > > the laws? What has bid boxes to do with this? Nobody ever "plays" a bid > > card. > > The question was about the meaning of "exposed inadvertently" rather > than "exposed through deliberate play". > > The bidding box example is one where it is accepted that pulling the > wrong card (ie not the intended card) is a mechanical error and should > be deemed inadvertent. The laws make partial provision for correction > (limited by partner being yet to call) precisely because the criteria > for inadvertency have been met. > > During play it is also possible to perform a mechanical error and pull > the wrong card from hand while trying to play a different one. Again > the laws make partial provision for correction (the play must be > corrected if the play is illegal but must stand if the play is legal). You are mixing up the situations. According to the laws when a single card has been removed from a hand and placed in a played position is has been deliberately played. There is no provision in the laws for what could be designated "inadvertent play". And whether this play is legal or not is irrelevant here. The alternative is a card that has been exposed without playing it, i.e. it has been dropped (without control) in such a way that it became visible to the other players at the table. This is a card that is exposed inadvertently. > If the player then asks "Why are you using a different definition of > inadvertency in the two cases?" he is entitled to a proper answer. And the answer is that there is no such thing in the laws as an "inadvertent play". When you grab a card, pull it from your hand and place it in a played position that is a deliberate play. The laws accept that calls can be made inadvertently (reminiscence from verbal auctions?) and have provisions for handling such cases. > > > Except that it is Law 50B and not 50A it uses the clause "deliberate > > play" to distinguish from "exposed inadvertently" i.e. exposed > > without any indication of intent to play that card. As should be > > obvious from the context the alternative to "deliberate play" is not > > "inadvertent play". > > Sure. We have: > Cards exposed accidentally (dropped, etc): Easy > Cards played deliberately (the intended card was played): Easy again > And cards played by mistake - the intended card was not the card > actually played (and the play is not legal so must be corrected). > > Of course one *can* rule "The card was played deliberately because > declarer intended to play a card" but I still don't understand why you > suggest a test other than "mechanical error" which is what we all apply > as the meaning of "inadvertent" elsewhere in the laws. I do not suggest anything; I tell you that the laws know no such matter as an inadvertent play. > > BTW, when two cards are played to a trick normally only one of them has > been played inadvertently (cases are very rare where the player pulls > two cards neither of which is his intended card). Right you are, and the laws have a special provision for such situations: The offender must designate the card that he decides to play (Notice that this need not be the card he originally intended to play!) and then the other card is considered to be a card that was exposed inadvertently. This is not a matter of interpreting Law 50B; this is a special provision in Law 50B. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 27 18:15:25 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:15:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] GK&E (was: alertability) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 26, 2007, at 5:00 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > If a complicated system such as Symmetric Relay can be > succinctly but comprehensibly explained, then no way is > 20 minutes per bid needed for simpler systems. Heh. Depends on the person making the explanation. People playing Symmetric Relay generally know what they're doing, know the alerting rules, and know how to explain "succinctly but comprehensibly". The folks around here, though, generally don't know what they're doing, don't have a clue what the alert rules are, and stumble over explanations: "Um, I think I was supposed to alert that." Opponent, having already called: "okay, what's it mean?" "Um, I'm not sure. I think it's ." "Okay, but what does it show?" "It's ." "So it shows ?" "Um, yeah." Later it turns out they play a non-standard version of the convention, and while the bid in question does show what the opponent suggested (yeah, I know, don't lead the witness), that's not a complete explanation, and the hand actually held falls into the area the explainer forgot to mention. Okay, not twenty minutes, but a lot longer than it should have taken, and still nothing like full disclosure. And it happens over and over again. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jan 27 19:52:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > You are mixing up the situations. According to the laws when a single > card has been removed from a hand and placed in a played position is > has been deliberately played. Which law(s)? According to law 45a the card is played - of that there is no dispute. Law45a does not address whether the card has been played deliberately or inadvertently. Please read L45a and confirm to yourself that this is true. L50B on the other hand explicitly refers to "deliberate play" (I suggest you actually read that law as well). > There is no provision in the laws for what could be > designated "inadvertent play". Instead there is a requirement that we decide whether the play of an unintended card is best described as "inadvertently exposed" or "deliberately played". The player is, of course, adamant that the card was played accidentally - and you believe him. > And whether this play is legal or not is irrelevant here. The legality of the play is crucial. If legal the play stands regardless of whether it *might* be designated inadvertent. It is only if the play is illegal (ie would constitute a revoke) that we get to L50B at all. > The alternative is a card that has been exposed without playing it, > i.e. it has been dropped (without control) in such a way that it > became visible to the other players at the table. This is a card that is exposed > inadvertently. > > > If the player then asks "Why are you using a different definition of > > inadvertency in the two cases?" he is entitled to a proper answer. > > And the answer is that there is no such thing in the laws as an > "inadvertent play". When you grab a card, pull it from your hand and > place it in a played position that is a deliberate play. No it bl**dy isn't. If I tried to play the DK and grabbed the C3 instead there is NO WAY I can be said to have played the club 3 deliberately. Indeed if a player *knowing* he can follow suit deliberately plays a different suit the law to use is L72b2. A card cannot be played deliberately and unintentionally - the English language won't stretch that far. I don't know if it still happens but when I was at school we used to get tests of the form "Which is the odd one out?" a) Accidentally b) Unintentionally c) Inadvertently d) Deliberately Try sticking those four into the sentence "He drove into me ........!" Note how only one of them changes the meaning of the sentence. Or imagine you are commentating on vu-graph you simply wouldn't describe it as "West played the club 3 deliberately". > The offender must designate the card that he decides to play (Notice > that this need not be the card he originally intended to play!) and > then the other card is considered to be a card that was exposed > inadvertently. Again no. There are two cards on the table. One was deliberately played, the other inadvertently exposed. Declarer's designation of which card he wishes to leave on the trick cannot change the status of the remaining card. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jan 27 23:14:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 09:14:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: And now the real auction: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1D Pass 1H X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) Pass Pass Pass(3) X ? (1) You, South, incorrectly explain upon East's enquiry that the 1NT rebid was 15-17, since your North-South partnership is playing Acol. However, your partnership plays a three- quarter weak 1NT opening bid. In third seat a 1NT opening bid is 15-17, therefore causing a 1NT rebid to be 12-14. (2) Not alerted, because your partnership agreement is that a passed hand could not artificially force to game opposite a 12-14 1NT rebid, so in those circumstances your 2D rebid is natural and non-forcing. (3) Consistent with Law 75D2, North summons the TD before the opening lead and corrects your misexplanation. Consistent with Law 21B1 the TD offers East the option of changing their call. And East chooses to change their call from a pass to a double. What are your legal logical alternatives? Tim West-Meads: >Dig out the old bluey and send it back. Whatever partner >is doing he should be able to handle that. Richard Hills: Indeed. It is unauthorised information that it is you who has forgotten the system. So your remaining three legal assumptions are: (1) Partner has "taken a view" with a grotty 15-count and decided not to accept your passed-hand game force. (2) Partner has psyched with long diamonds. (3) Partner has forgotten the system and also holds an excellent 17-count. In case (1) redouble may help improve the score (perhaps +500 if opponents run, perhaps +630 the hard way if the opponents do not run). In case (2) redouble is cost-free, but may confuse the opponents. And in case (3) redouble is mandatory, as it is the call most likely to remind partner that he has forgotten the system. This hand came up in round two of the Last Train in the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. The editor of the Daily Bulletin thought it would be amusing to poll some princes of the Festival - the directors - to see what their views would be on legal logical alternatives. Needless to say the directors' views, like all views on blml, lacked any consensus. Later, when discussing this problem with Laurie Kelso (one of the Festival's two Chief Directors) at the ABDA annual general meeting, he was strongly of the opinion that redouble is indeed the only legal logical alternative. The complete hand (directions rotated for convenience): Board 20 K87 Dlr: South J6 Vul: All AQ762 J62 T9542 A63 Q82 974 J KT98 AQ43 KT7 QJ AKT53 543 985 On this deal virtue would have to be its own reward, as the actively ethical call of redouble would cause a remarkably unlucky score of -1000. 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 Sun Jan 28 02:31:15 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:31:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major References: Message-ID: <000201c7427c$41658a60$34d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major > > The legality of the play is crucial. If legal the play stands > regardless of whether it *might* be designated inadvertent. > It is only if the play is illegal (ie would constitute a revoke) > that we get to L50B at all. > +=+ The problem here is the phrase "would constitute a revoke". If it is agreed the card is played then Law 61A says it *is* a revoke. Law 62A then says the revoke must be corrected. Law 62B1 says that the card is then a penalty card and takes us to Law 50. Law 47 does not allow for retraction of a played card if it is a legal card; to adjudge a card illegal the Director must go to the law dealing with the particular kind of illegality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 28 02:59:07 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:59:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> Message-ID: <000201c74280$0ee16c90$b78e403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070126102625.02b33370@pop.starpower.net> At 03:27 PM 1/24/07, Rebecca wrote: >I?m sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, >but after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what >others thought. > >A diamond was lead, followed on table and offender then put the three >of clubs on the table. Offender then went ?Oh, I need the Director? >and called one. Director asked what happened. Offender said ?The >three of clubs and the King of Diamonds were right next to each other >and I inadvertently went to pull the King and the three came >out.? The Director asked if the card fell out or was placed on the >table. Offender repeated their statement pretty much >verbatim. Director ruled that the King be played to correct the >revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card ? >which meant it was lead immediately thus solving the problem. > >The offender was most put out as they felt that it should be a minor >penalty card. > >Re-reading the Laws Law50B is the one that applies ? ?A single card >below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing >two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a >minor penalty card?. The question is whether the three of clubs was >played inadvertently. > >In my opinion, it is the difference between carelessness and true >inadvertency ? was offender just not being careful? In the event of >doubt, the Director must rule in favour of the non-offending side. > >I think the inadvertency provisions are very difficult to put into >practice. In this case, if offender had literally played the King and >the three dropped out, no hassle, it becomes a minor penalty card. > >I know this seems trivial but I thought I?d ask this august body their >opinion anyway! It is indeed difficult to resolve such cases in practice, but that's what directors get paid to do! The notion that "the Director must rule in favor of the non-offending side" is a canard perpetrated by directors who are too incompetent, lazy, or afraid of offending their customers to do their jobs properly. In cases like this, the director must ask questions, listen to the players at the table, decide the facts, and rule accordingly. For the C3 to be a minor penalty card, its play must have been genuinely inadvertent, i.e. with no conscious intent whatsoever. Was the player's surprise and dismay at discovering that the card in his hand was the C3, as opposed to discovering that the DK was in his hand? Did the reaction come at exactly the moment he noticed that he had pulled the C3, not sooner or later? What was the player actually thinking? The good news is that 99.99% of the time that you ask such questions, you do get honest answers. And in the 0.01% of cases where a player is willing to give a dishonest, advantageous answer, they usually give themselves away by being ready and eager to cite the (real or imagined) law that makes their answer advantageous. IME, the best directors get these situations right virtually every time. Of course, the best directors have been dealing with situations like these for decades. 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/20070126/a4b81e3a/attachment.htm From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 28 19:58:17 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:58:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> <6.1.1.1.0.20070126102625.02b33370@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006c01c7430e$45cc2b80$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major At 03:27 PM 1/24/07, Rebecca wrote: >I'm sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, >but after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what >others thought. > >A diamond was lead, followed on table and offender then put the three >of clubs on the table. Offender then went "Oh, I need the Director" >and called one. Director asked what happened. Offender said "The >three of clubs and the King of Diamonds were right next to each other >and I inadvertently went to pull the King and the three came >out." The Director asked if the card fell out or was placed on the >table. Offender repeated their statement pretty much >verbatim. Director ruled that the King be played to correct the >revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card - >which meant it was lead immediately thus solving the problem. I'd like to revisit this one. It seems to me that the way to reach a consistent and equitable ruling is not to investigate the mindset of our careless player but to ask oneself "What did one see at the table?". What one saw was the club 3 being played. "drawn from the hand and placed on the table". We didn't see 2 cards being played, just the one. The player has created a major penalty card. That it can't be played to this trick is irrelevant. If it could be legally played it would have to have been. That it's a revoke don't matter. cheers John From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 20:58:56 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:58:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim West-Meads wrote: > Sven wrote: > > > > You are mixing up the situations. According to the laws when a single > > card has been removed from a hand and placed in a played position is > > has been deliberately played. > > Which law(s)? According to law 45a the card is played - of that there > is no dispute. Law45a does not address whether the card has been played > deliberately or inadvertently. Please read L45a and confirm to yourself > that this is true. > > L50B on the other hand explicitly refers to "deliberate play" (I suggest > you actually read that law as well). > > > There is no provision in the laws for what could be > > designated "inadvertent play". > > Instead there is a requirement that we decide whether the play of an > unintended card is best described as "inadvertently exposed" or > "deliberately played". The player is, of course, adamant that the card > was played accidentally - and you believe him. This is where you go wrong Tim. Law 50 B: "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; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards." You misunderstand the concept here. The law speaks of inadvertently exposing a card - you never intended to play a card at all, or a second card is exposed when you play a card. And it speaks of deliberate play - you really intend to play a card, and does so. If the card you actually play here is the one you indtended is immaterial. What's crusial is that you deliberately played. Not what card was played. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > And whether this play is legal or not is irrelevant here. > > The legality of the play is crucial. If legal the play stands > regardless of whether it *might* be designated inadvertent. > It is only if the play is illegal (ie would constitute a revoke) that we > get to L50B at all. > > > The alternative is a card that has been exposed without playing it, > > i.e. it has been dropped (without control) in such a way that it > > became visible to the other players at the table. This is a card that > is exposed > > inadvertently. > > > > > If the player then asks "Why are you using a different definition of > > > inadvertency in the two cases?" he is entitled to a proper answer. > > > > And the answer is that there is no such thing in the laws as an > > "inadvertent play". When you grab a card, pull it from your hand and > > place it in a played position that is a deliberate play. > > No it bl**dy isn't. If I tried to play the DK and grabbed the C3 > instead there is NO WAY I can be said to have played the club 3 > deliberately. Indeed if a player *knowing* he can follow suit > deliberately plays a different suit the law to use is L72b2. > A card cannot be played deliberately and unintentionally - the English > language won't stretch that far. > > I don't know if it still happens but when I was at school we used to get > tests of the form "Which is the odd one out?" > a) Accidentally > b) Unintentionally > c) Inadvertently > d) Deliberately > > Try sticking those four into the sentence "He drove into me ........!" > Note how only one of them changes the meaning of the sentence. > > Or imagine you are commentating on vu-graph you simply wouldn't describe > it as "West played the club 3 deliberately". > > > > The offender must designate the card that he decides to play (Notice > > that this need not be the card he originally intended to play!) and > > then the other card is considered to be a card that was exposed > > inadvertently. > > Again no. There are two cards on the table. One was deliberately > played, the other inadvertently exposed. Declarer's designation of > which card he wishes to leave on the trick cannot change the status of > the remaining card. > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 21:07:28 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:07:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > And now the real auction: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1D Pass 1H > X 1NT(1) Pass 2D(2) > Pass Pass Pass(3) > X ? > > > (1) You, South, incorrectly explain upon East's enquiry that > the 1NT rebid was 15-17, since your North-South partnership > is playing Acol. However, your partnership plays a three- > quarter weak 1NT opening bid. In third seat a 1NT opening > bid is 15-17, therefore causing a 1NT rebid to be 12-14. > > (2) Not alerted, because your partnership agreement is that > a passed hand could not artificially force to game opposite > a 12-14 1NT rebid, so in those circumstances your 2D rebid > is natural and non-forcing. > > (3) Consistent with Law 75D2, North summons the TD before > the opening lead and corrects your misexplanation. > Consistent with Law 21B1 the TD offers East the option of > changing their call. And East chooses to change their call > from a pass to a double. Richard, when presenting a problem you'd better tell us what the problem actually is. When you tell me that the 1NT reply show 15-17 and my 2D response is GF, I expect this to be the information given at the table, in this instance I initially understood that 2D had been alerted and explained as GF. The real problem was completely different. And in this thread about psyches, I'd not expect to get a pure UI problem. If one has to guess the premises, it's not very easy to come up with coherent replies. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > What are your legal logical alternatives? > > Tim West-Meads: > > >Dig out the old bluey and send it back. Whatever partner > >is doing he should be able to handle that. > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed. It is unauthorised information that it is you who > has forgotten the system. So your remaining three legal > assumptions are: > > (1) Partner has "taken a view" with a grotty 15-count and > decided not to accept your passed-hand game force. > (2) Partner has psyched with long diamonds. > (3) Partner has forgotten the system and also holds an > excellent 17-count. > > In case (1) redouble may help improve the score (perhaps > +500 if opponents run, perhaps +630 the hard way if the > opponents do not run). > > In case (2) redouble is cost-free, but may confuse the > opponents. > > And in case (3) redouble is mandatory, as it is the call > most likely to remind partner that he has forgotten the > system. > > This hand came up in round two of the Last Train in the > Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. The editor of the > Daily Bulletin thought it would be amusing to poll some > princes of the Festival - the directors - to see what > their views would be on legal logical alternatives. > > Needless to say the directors' views, like all views on > blml, lacked any consensus. Later, when discussing this > problem with Laurie Kelso (one of the Festival's two > Chief Directors) at the ABDA annual general meeting, he > was strongly of the opinion that redouble is indeed the > only legal logical alternative. > > The complete hand (directions rotated for convenience): > > Board 20 K87 > Dlr: South J6 > Vul: All AQ762 > J62 > T9542 A63 > Q82 974 > J KT98 > AQ43 KT7 > QJ > AKT53 > 543 > 985 > > On this deal virtue would have to be its own reward, as > the actively ethical call of redouble would cause a > remarkably unlucky score of -1000. > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 28 22:57:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:57:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harold Skj?ran: >Richard, when presenting a problem you'd better tell us what the >problem actually is. >When you tell me that the 1NT reply show 15-17 and my 2D response is >GF, I expect this to be the information given at the table, in this >instance I initially understood that 2D had been alerted and >explained as GF. > >The real problem was completely different. >And in this thread about psyches, I'd not expect to get a pure UI >problem. > >If one has to guess the premises, it's not very easy to come up with >coherent replies. Richard Hills: In my opinion Harold is incorrectly accusing me of trickiness. _Because_ the problem was a pure UI problem, I initially presented a double-blind test by giving blml the information that the player concerned was authorised to know. See the archived thread "Groundhog Day" to show how context can easily distort the judgement of directors and appeals committees. This was highly relevant, because the other Chief Director at the Summer Festival - Arie Guersen (who is normally Chief Director of New Zealand) - was quoted in the Daily Bulletin as being of the apparent opinion that AI from the auction meant that the player had no UI constraints, and therefore could freely call whatever that player liked. That is, it seems to me that Arie Guersen was of the apparent opinion that the auction clearly suggested that South, not North, was bidding non-systemically. It is possible that Arie Guersen was affected by "Groundhog Day", since as Chief Director of the Last Train he knew the entire deal before giving his opinion on UI constraints. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 28 23:12:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:12:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Given the title of this thread is "Groundhog Day", it is only appropriate that the posting below (originally appearing on blml on 20th May 2004) is identically repeating for the delectation of any newbies to blml. * * * National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All 542 AQT7 KQJ75 K AKJ986 Q3 --- K863 3 9842 AQ9874 JT5 T7 J9542 AT6 632 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H Double 3H(1) Pass Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) Obstructive (2) Hesitation The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a penalty double, then South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical alternative of a 6H sacrifice. Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then North was misleadingly suggesting that North held a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. How would you rule? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 29 07:48:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:48:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701180745y2549ce4ey6dd40b218a3ef847@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: William Schoder: >>>I beg to differ with Grattan. It is not "habitual" >>>violations that create implicit agreements. One is >>>usually enough. >>> >>>Kojak Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Oh, I agree. I was merely quoting the law book. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Wayne Burrows: >One violation can not ever of itself create an implicit >agreement there must be something else not least of >which is an agreement. > >If my partner violates our agreements then it is quite >likely that I will disagree, >..... >If I disagree then there is no way that this can create >an agreement implicit or otherwise. Jane Austen (slightly modified): "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a Lawbook in possession of ambiguous synonyms must be in want of a rewrite." Richard Hills: Wayne is using the Law 75 term "partnership agreements" to continue the fine blml tradition of using a word in the wrong context. The argument becomes clearly if the Law 40 synonym of "partnership understandings" is used as the context. Take, for example, the De Wael 1H opening bid. Herman De Wael's partner may _disagree_ with Herman's constant habit of automatically opening 1H in third seat whenever Herman holds a near-yarborough in that position. But Herman's partner _understands_ that Herman's third seat 1H openings are two-way, so it is that implicitly created partnership understanding which must be disclosed to the opponents under Laws 40B and 75B. 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 29 08:57:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:57:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6FE11B3C-6604-480C-BB72-BCEAF79F71E6@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:48 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne is using the Law 75 term "partnership agreements" > to continue the fine blml tradition of using a word in > the wrong context. > > The argument becomes clearly if the Law 40 synonym of > "partnership understandings" is used as the context. Partner does X. Hey, that's a pretty good idea, pard. Where did you come up with it? Oh, you read it in The Bridge World? Cool. Let's include it in our agreements. Partner does X. We don't have an agreement to do X. Fair enough. Later, he does it again. I think now we have an understanding, if we haven't discussed whether he should be doing it and whether it should be part of our agreements. Partner's style in 1NT openings is to open only certain kinds of balanced hands with a 5 card major. Mine is to open 1NT with all balanced hands, five card major or not. We've discussed, and neither will agree that the other's method is "right". We leave it at that. We each have an understanding about the other's bidding, but we have no agreement. The class "understandings" includes the class "agreements". The class "agreements" does not encompass all understandings. IOW the two words are not synonyms. I would guess that Edgar Kaplan knew that. So if someone today wants to argue that the architect of the 1997 laws meant them to be synonymous, he'd better have a pretty good argument. Of course, if the WBFLC wants to call them synonymous, whatever Kaplan intended, they have that power, but have they done so? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 09:51:19 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:51:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Given the title of this thread is "Groundhog Day", > it is only appropriate that the posting below > (originally appearing on blml on 20th May 2004) is > identically repeating for the delectation of any > newbies to blml. > > * * * > > National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All > > 542 > AQT7 > KQJ75 > K > AKJ986 Q3 > --- K863 > 3 9842 > AQ9874 JT5 > T7 > J9542 > AT6 > 632 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D Pass 1H > Double 3H(1) Pass Pass > 4H Pass 5C Pass > 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass > > (1) Obstructive > (2) Hesitation > > The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade > queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. > > E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. > > Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > that North was thinking about a penalty double, then > South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. > Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical > alternative of a 6H sacrifice. > > Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then > North was misleadingly suggesting that North held > a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, > North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so > the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the > offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. > > How would you rule? > North's hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest one or the other. South is absolutely in the blue regarding north's intention. So there's IMO no UI restrictions on south. Besides, IF fork 1 was true, the only logical alternative, holding the diamond ace vs a 1st hand VUL opener. Saving is not a LA for south. In fact, I might double to tell partner I (think I) have a defencive trick, unless playing some conventional doubles here (i.e. negative slam doubles). If north was in fact thinking of saving, guessing west to be 66+ in the blacks, there's nothing to prevent him from doing so. East might have the DA and south SQ+HK. Then 6C is laydown. Implementing 73F2 here would be incredible - you can't punish people for thinking in a difficult position. We're clearly in 73D1 territory here, not 73F2, IMHO. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > 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 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 09:52:52 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:52:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Correction: On 29/01/07, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 28/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > Given the title of this thread is "Groundhog Day", > > it is only appropriate that the posting below > > (originally appearing on blml on 20th May 2004) is > > identically repeating for the delectation of any > > newbies to blml. > > > > * * * > > > > National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All > > > > 542 > > AQT7 > > KQJ75 > > K > > AKJ986 Q3 > > --- K863 > > 3 9842 > > AQ9874 JT5 > > T7 > > J9542 > > AT6 > > 632 > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- 1D Pass 1H > > Double 3H(1) Pass Pass > > 4H Pass 5C Pass > > 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass > > > > (1) Obstructive > > (2) Hesitation > > > > The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade > > queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. > > > > E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. > > > > Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > > that North was thinking about a penalty double, then > > South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. > > Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical > > alternative of a 6H sacrifice. > > > > Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested > > that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then > > North was misleadingly suggesting that North held > > a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, > > North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so > > the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the > > offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. > > > > How would you rule? > > > North's hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest one or the other. > South is absolutely in the blue regarding north's intention. So > there's IMO no UI restrictions on south. > > Besides, IF fork 1 was true, the logical alternatives, holding the > diamond ace vs a 1st hand VUL opener is pass or double. Saving is not a LA for south. In > fact, I might double to tell partner I (think I) have a defencive > trick, unless playing some conventional doubles here (i.e. negative > slam doubles). > > If north was in fact thinking of saving, guessing west to be 66+ in > the blacks, there's nothing to prevent him from doing so. East might > have the DA and south SQ+HK. Then 6C is laydown. Implementing 73F2 > here would be incredible - you can't punish people for thinking in a > difficult position. We're clearly in 73D1 territory here, not 73F2, > IMHO. > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 29 12:14:32 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:14:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <6FE11B3C-6604-480C-BB72-BCEAF79F71E6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006401c74396$bc3f7820$daa887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "They who sin with caution, whilst concealed, Grow impudently careless, when revealed." ~ Susannah Centlivre. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:48 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Wayne is using the Law 75 term "partnership agreements" > > to continue the fine blml tradition of using a word in > > > > Ed Reppert: > The class "understandings" includes the class "agreements". The > class "agreements" does not encompass all understandings. > > IOW the two words are not synonyms. I would guess that Edgar > Kaplan knew that. So if someone today wants to argue that the > architect of the 1997 laws meant them to be synonymous, he'd > better have a pretty good argument. Of course, if the WBFLC > wants to call them synonymous, whatever Kaplan intended, they > have that power, but have they done so? > +=+ Not that I recall* - but I hardly think it necessary since they both relate to 'information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience' (Law 75C). It may be that Edgar's realization of the above point caused him to want this linkage of the two. The quoted phrase is sufficiently drawn to include experience on a single prior occasion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* something may perhaps be drawn from item 7 of the minutes of 20th January 2000.] From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 29 13:21:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > (1) You, South, incorrectly explain upon East's enquiry that > the 1NT rebid was 15-17, since your North-South partnership > is playing Acol. However, your partnership plays a three- > quarter weak 1NT opening bid. In third seat a 1NT opening > bid is 15-17, therefore causing a 1NT rebid to be 12-14. Did I forget the system (XX is an non-suggested LA) or did I forget that I had dealt and passed? While the UI from the lack of alert may be what woke me up to partner being in third seat the auction itself is AI and XX is not an LA. Tim From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 29 15:13:43 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:13:43 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Nine_Princes_in_Amber__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?__=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <45BE0116.000004.74073@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Richard wrote: > (1) You, South, incorrectly explain upon East's enquiry that > the 1NT rebid was 15-17, since your North-South partnership > is playing Acol. However, your partnership plays a three- > quarter weak 1NT opening bid. In third seat a 1NT opening > bid is 15-17, therefore causing a 1NT rebid to be 12-14. Did I forget the system (XX is an non-suggested LA) or did I forget that I had dealt and passed? While the UI from the lack of alert may be what woke me up to partner being in third seat the auction itself is AI and XX is not an LA. AG : good point. If YT was the "offender", the latter explanation would be quite reasonable. The standard for disallowing calls under UI has been shifted from "might have been suggested" to "was unmistakably suggested", and this is one case where it matters. However, some past threads have told that, while the auction is AI, anything that focuses partner's attention on some feature of the auction is UI, as could be the case here. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070129/e64e2717/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/20070129/e64e2717/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070129/e64e2717/attachment-0001.gif From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 15:48:46 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:48:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701290647i75148c28td844d62794482ece@mail.gmail.com> References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> <6.1.1.1.0.20070126102625.02b33370@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701290647i75148c28td844d62794482ece@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701290648g49aff48bo27b43173a62db4d2@mail.gmail.com> On 1/26/07, Eric Landau wrote > > The good news is that 99.99% of the time that you ask such questions, you do > get honest answers. And in the 0.01% of cases where a player is willing to > give a dishonest, advantageous answer, they usually give themselves away by > being ready and eager to cite the (real or imagined) law that makes their > answer advantageous. > I find this distressing. Is there any other game besides bridge where knowledge of its laws makes you highly suspect in many or most circles? Eric here says that real knowledge of bridge laws reveals someone to be a dishonest player with high probability. -Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 29 15:54:58 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:54:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> At 10:42 AM 1/27/07, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > > The question was about the meaning of "exposed inadvertently" rather > > than "exposed through deliberate play". > > > > The bidding box example is one where it is accepted that pulling the > > wrong card (ie not the intended card) is a mechanical error and should > > be deemed inadvertent. The laws make partial provision for correction > > (limited by partner being yet to call) precisely because the criteria > > for inadvertency have been met. > > > > During play it is also possible to perform a mechanical error and pull > > the wrong card from hand while trying to play a different one. Again > > the laws make partial provision for correction (the play must be > > corrected if the play is illegal but must stand if the play is legal). > >You are mixing up the situations. According to the laws when a single card >has been removed from a hand and placed in a played position is has been >deliberately played. There is no provision in the laws for what could be >designated "inadvertent play". And whether this play is legal or not is >irrelevant here. > >The alternative is a card that has been exposed without playing it, >i.e. it >has been dropped (without control) in such a way that it became visible to >the other players at the table. This is a card that is exposed >inadvertently. > > > If the player then asks "Why are you using a different definition of > > inadvertency in the two cases?" he is entitled to a proper answer. > >And the answer is that there is no such thing in the laws as an >"inadvertent >play". When you grab a card, pull it from your hand and place it in a >played >position that is a deliberate play. The laws accept that calls can be made >inadvertently (reminiscence from verbal auctions?) and have provisions for >handling such cases. > > > > Except that it is Law 50B and not 50A it uses the clause "deliberate > > > play" to distinguish from "exposed inadvertently" i.e. exposed > > > without any indication of intent to play that card. As should be > > > obvious from the context the alternative to "deliberate play" is not > > > "inadvertent play". > > > > Sure. We have: > > Cards exposed accidentally (dropped, etc): Easy > > Cards played deliberately (the intended card was played): Easy again > > And cards played by mistake - the intended card was not the card > > actually played (and the play is not legal so must be corrected). > > > > Of course one *can* rule "The card was played deliberately because > > declarer intended to play a card" but I still don't understand why you > > suggest a test other than "mechanical error" which is what we all apply > > as the meaning of "inadvertent" elsewhere in the laws. > >I do not suggest anything; I tell you that the laws know no such matter as >an inadvertent play. The law primarily under examination in this thread is L50B, which explicitly recognizes "such a thing" as "deliberate play" ("any card exposed through deliberate play... beomes a major penalty card"). For the concept of "deliberate play" to be meaningful, there must be a complementary concept of "non-deliberate play", AKA "inadvertant play". If "the laws [knew of] no such matter as an inadvertant play", the cited statement from L50B would be nonsense; there must be some distinction between "any card exposed through deliberate play" and "any played card" for it to be meaningful. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 29 17:05:58 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:05:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001f01c743bf$5dd0d490$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ........... > The law primarily under examination in this thread is L50B, which > explicitly recognizes "such a thing" as "deliberate play" ("any card > exposed through deliberate play... beomes a major penalty card"). For > the concept of "deliberate play" to be meaningful, there must be a > complementary concept of "non-deliberate play", AKA "inadvertant > play". If "the laws [knew of] no such matter as an inadvertant play", > the cited statement from L50B would be nonsense; there must be some > distinction between "any card exposed through deliberate play" and "any > played card" for it to be meaningful. I am not quite sure if you try to express that the complementary is indeed "inadvertent exposure", the term used in Law 50B. If not then please show what in your opinion would be "inadvertent play" consistent with the laws of bridge particularly Law 50B. (And please keep this a question of law, not a question about the English language). (Posted reluctantly, somewhat contrary my decision not to add any more to this thread.) Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 29 17:13:09 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:13:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701290648g49aff48bo27b43173a62db4d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002001c743c0$5ed026b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Sent: 29. januar 2007 15:49 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Minor/Major > > On 1/26/07, Eric Landau wrote > > > > The good news is that 99.99% of the time that you ask such questions, > you do > > get honest answers. And in the 0.01% of cases where a player is willing > to > > give a dishonest, advantageous answer, they usually give themselves away > by > > being ready and eager to cite the (real or imagined) law that makes > their > > answer advantageous. > > > > I find this distressing. Is there any other game besides bridge where > knowledge of its laws makes you highly suspect in many or most > circles? Eric here says that real knowledge of bridge laws reveals > someone to be a dishonest player with high probability. I definitely do not find this alleged observation true. But I suppose you could find rotten apples in any basket? Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 29 17:32:24 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:32:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major >> > The law primarily under examination in this thread is L50B, > which explicitly recognizes "such a thing" as "deliberate play" > ("any card exposed through deliberate play... beomes a major > penalty card"). For the concept of "deliberate play" to be > meaningful, there must be a complementary concept of "non- > deliberate play", AKA "inadvertant play". If "the laws [knew > of] no such matter as an inadvertant play", the cited statement > from L50B would be nonsense; there must be some distinction > between "any card exposed through deliberate play" and "any > played card" for it to be meaningful. > +=+ However, you only get to Law 50B in the circumstances of the case which this thread discusses by way of Laws 61A, 62A, and 62B1. It is commonly agreed that the card is 'played' and to determine the play as illegal you must find a law that makes it so. That law in this case is Law 61. So, once you determine the card to be played the route to be followed is inevitable. Only a single card is played, no other card is exposed; it is a play and if legal it stands, if illegal it becomes subject to Law 50 - but the illegality is not determined by Law 50, not for a played card. It is Law 61B1 that makes this card a penalty card before you reach Law 50. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 29 17:48:43 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:48:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701290647i75148c28td844d62794482ece@mail.gmail.co m> References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> <6.1.1.1.0.20070126102625.02b33370@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701290647i75148c28td844d62794482ece@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129113502.02a2d0c0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 AM 1/29/07, Jerry wrote: >On 1/26/07, Eric Landau wrote >> >>The good news is that 99.99% of the time that you ask such questions, >>you do >>get honest answers. And in the 0.01% of cases where a player is >>willing to >>give a dishonest, advantageous answer, they usually give themselves >>away by >>being ready and eager to cite the (real or imagined) law that makes their >>answer advantageous. > >I find this distressing. Is there any other game besides bridge where >knowledge of its laws makes you highly suspect in many or most >circles? Eric here says that real knowledge of bridge laws reveals >someone to be a dishonest player with high probability. I must apologize if my remarks weren't clear; that wasn't what I intended to say at all. Indeed, IME, those with "real knowledge" of the laws (which undoubtedly includes all of us on BLML) know enough (L72A6) to be appropriately deferential to TDs making rulings at our table -- perhaps because we have a special appreciation for the difficulties that can be involved. From time to time we may, after having heard the TD out, make a polite suggestion along the lines of, "Could you please take another look at law...?" The people to watch out for are the ones who don't so much as ask the TD for a ruling as tell him what happened and explain to him how he should rule, citing some principle of law that may or may not be real. Often such folks reveal their ignorance rather than their knowledge of the laws. How many times have you heard, "His partner hesitated so he has to pass."? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 29 18:53:43 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:53:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <001f01c743bf$5dd0d490$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> <001f01c743bf$5dd0d490$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129123528.02e5a210@pop.starpower.net> At 11:05 AM 1/29/07, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > The law primarily under examination in this thread is L50B, which > > explicitly recognizes "such a thing" as "deliberate play" ("any card > > exposed through deliberate play... beomes a major penalty card"). For > > the concept of "deliberate play" to be meaningful, there must be a > > complementary concept of "non-deliberate play", AKA "inadvertant > > play". If "the laws [knew of] no such matter as an inadvertant play", > > the cited statement from L50B would be nonsense; there must be some > > distinction between "any card exposed through deliberate play" and "any > > played card" for it to be meaningful. > >I am not quite sure if you try to express that the complementary is indeed >"inadvertent exposure", the term used in Law 50B. If not then please show >what in your opinion would be "inadvertent play" consistent with the >laws of >bridge particularly Law 50B. (And please keep this a question of law, >not a >question about the English language). I would consider an "inadvertent play" to be an ordinary mechanical mispull, which is characterized by the player's suprise at discovering the played card not to be the one he expected. It is therefore a type of "inadvertent exposure", which occurs when the "exposure" happens to conform to the criteria for a "play" set forth in L45. Admittedly, TFLB does not operationalize the distinction between a "deliberate" play and an "inadvertent" one; it leaves us (or our SOs) to do so according to common sense and usage. But nor does it operationalize the same distinction in the context of placing a bid card on the table, yet we have a perfectly good, consensual, common-sense notion of what constitutes an "inadvertent" placing of a bid card for the purposes of L25A. As Tim has suggested, it seems perfectly natural and sensible to use the same operational criteria for the inadvertent placement of a card taken from one's hand as we already do for an inadvertent placement of a card taken from one's bid box. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 29 19:12:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:12:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred> References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129125734.02e5da10@pop.starpower.net> At 11:32 AM 1/29/07, gesta wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > The law primarily under examination in this thread is L50B, > > which explicitly recognizes "such a thing" as "deliberate play" > > ("any card exposed through deliberate play... beomes a major > > penalty card"). For the concept of "deliberate play" to be > > meaningful, there must be a complementary concept of "non- > > deliberate play", AKA "inadvertant play". If "the laws [knew > > of] no such matter as an inadvertant play", the cited statement > > from L50B would be nonsense; there must be some distinction > > between "any card exposed through deliberate play" and "any > > played card" for it to be meaningful. > >+=+ However, you only get to Law 50B in the circumstances >of the case which this thread discusses by way of Laws 61A, >62A, and 62B1. It is commonly agreed that the card is 'played' >and to determine the play as illegal you must find a law that >makes it so. That law in this case is Law 61. So, once you >determine the card to be played the route to be followed is >inevitable. Only a single card is played, no other card is >exposed; it is a play and if legal it stands, if illegal it becomes >subject to Law 50 - but the illegality is not determined by >Law 50, not for a played card. It is Law 61B1 that makes >this card a penalty card before you reach Law 50. All quite true; no disagreement from me. We "go through" L61A, L62A and L62B1 to "arrive at" L50, at which point it is indisputable that "this card [is] a penalty card" per L62B1. But having reached L50, we find L50B, which requires us to determine whether that indisputable penalty card is to be a major penalty card or a minor penalty card, a question which L61-62 do not address. In the thread case, that depends on our interpretation of "through deliberate play", which is the issue to be resolved here. Everything Grattan says above is correct, but I don't see how it is relevant. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 20:44:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:44:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129113502.02a2d0c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> <6.1.1.1.0.20070126102625.02b33370@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701290647i75148c28td844d62794482ece@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129113502.02a2d0c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0701291144w269aga968eade146c9bcc@mail.gmail.com> On 1/29/07, Eric Landau wrote: > > Indeed, IME, those with "real knowledge" of the laws (which undoubtedly > includes all of us on BLML) know enough (L72A6) to be appropriately > deferential to TDs making rulings at our table -- perhaps because we > have a special appreciation for the difficulties that can be > involved. From time to time we may, after having heard the TD out, > make a polite suggestion along the lines of, "Could you please take > another look at law...?" > > The people to watch out for are the ones who don't so much as ask the > TD for a ruling as tell him what happened and explain to him how he > should rule, citing some principle of law that may or may not be > real. Often such folks reveal their ignorance rather than their > knowledge of the laws. How many times have you heard, "His partner > hesitated so he has to pass."? > Yes, I misunderstood you; sorry about that! I will not argue your point of suspecting a player who cites a false principle of law. But I am interested in the case you included where the cited principle is accurate and beneficial to the citer. Is your point that if a player cites an accurate law or principle to the director that would be beneficial to his side, and if he tells the director how he should rule, then he is probably dishonest? But if he knows the laws just as well and is polite and does not suggest how to rule, then he is probably honest? Is it your point that the suspect action---the one that marks dishonesty---is not the knowledge of the laws per se, but the act of suggesting or telling what the ruling should be? -Jerry Fusselman From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 29 17:36:41 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:36:41 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Rif=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Minor?= =?iso-8859-1?q?/Major?= References: <001f01c743bf$5dd0d490$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45BE2299.00000D.27905@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 29/01/2007 17:06:12 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major I am not quite sure if you try to express that the complementary is indeed "inadvertent exposure", the term used in Law 50B. AG : The question is indeed to determine whether "inadvertent exposure" means : 1. "the card is exposed, but the player didn't intend ANY CARD to be exposed , e.g. it fell from the player's hand. 2. "the card is exposed, but the player didn't intend THAT CARD to be exposed", e.g. he purposely pulled a card, albeit the wrong one. I vote for the latter. It's the equivalent of pulling the wrong bidding card which is considered inadvertent provided it makes sense. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070129/26bb7f7c/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070129/26bb7f7c/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070129/26bb7f7c/attachment-0001.gif From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 29 21:34:05 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:34:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net><000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129125734.02e5da10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c743e4$d750a6e0$70ea403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major >>+=+ However, you only get to Law 50B in the circumstances >>of the case which this thread discusses by way of Laws 61A, >>62A, and 62B1. It is commonly agreed that the card is 'played' >>and to determine the play as illegal you must find a law that >>makes it so. That law in this case is Law 61. So, once you >>determine the card to be played the route to be followed is >>inevitable. Only a single card is played, no other card is >>exposed; it is a play and if legal it stands, if illegal it becomes >>subject to Law 50 - but the illegality is not determined by >>Law 50, not for a played card. It is Law 61B1 that makes >>this card a penalty card before you reach Law 50. > > All quite true; no disagreement from me. We "go through" L61A, L62A > and L62B1 to "arrive at" L50, at which point it is indisputable that > "this card [is] a penalty card" per L62B1. But having reached L50, we > find L50B, which requires us to determine whether that indisputable > penalty card is to be a major penalty card or a minor penalty card, a > question which L61-62 do not address. In the thread case, that depends > on our interpretation of "through deliberate play", which is the issue > to be resolved here. Everything Grattan says above is correct, but I > don't see how it is relevant. > +=+ Because Law 50B itemises a card exposed in revoking and then correcting as a deliberate play. You have played the card. It is a revoke. You have corrected the revoke. To take hold of a card and place it in the played position is a deliberate action, regardless of whether you know what card it is or not. The Director has correctly ruled it a major penalty card. ~ G ~ +=+ From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Mon Jan 29 22:11:37 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:11:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c74330$1e647620$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200701292111.l0TLBaZv002726@smtp40.hccnet.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens richard.hills at immi.gov.au Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2007 0:01 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Given the title of this thread is "Groundhog Day", it is only appropriate that the posting below (originally appearing on blml on 20th May 2004) is identically repeating for the delectation of any newbies to blml. * * * National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All 542 AQT7 KQJ75 K AKJ986 Q3 --- K863 3 9842 AQ9874 JT5 T7 J9542 AT6 632 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H Double 3H(1) Pass Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6C Pass(2) Pass Pass (1) Obstructive (2) Hesitation The play: Diamond lead, declarer uses the spade queen entry to take the club finesse, -100. E/W ask for a Morton's Fork adjustment to the score. Fork 1: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a penalty double, then South's final pass was an infraction of Law 16. Therefore, South should have taken the Lawful logical alternative of a 6H sacrifice. Fork 2: If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested that North was thinking about a sacrifice, then North was misleadingly suggesting that North held a worthless singleton (or void) in clubs. Therefore, North's hesitation was an infraction of Law 73F2, so the score should be adjusted to 6C making, due to the offside singleton king of clubs being dropped. How would you rule? I hope that I understood this post well as an open invitation to the blml lurker-newbies to contribute. If not, I will gladly resume my role as interested observer. There are two separate cases and I don't see a connection between them, be it fork tongued or not. 1. An infraction of Law 16A. South may have, in passing, made use of UI. To establish this we must judge if North's hesitation demonstrably suggested one LA over another. South has as LA's: pass, double 6H 1a. Did the hesitation suggest pass? -If North was thinking about a penalty double it did. 1b. Did the hesitation suggest 6H? -If North was thinking about sacrificing it did. 1c. Did the hesitation suggest double? -Double caters for whatever partner was thinking about, so I would adjust. If 1a and 1b cancel each other out there can be no use of UI in either passing or sacrificing, so there can be no grounds for adjustment. However, I would say that the small threecard in clubs makes it unlikely that North contemplated a penalty double. This makes "pass" the only LA for South that will NOT lead to adjustment (if the NOP are damaged). I find this type of case (high level hesitation where the hesitation may both suggest sacrificing and doubling for penalties) among the most difficult, so I hope to learn from this discussion and will now dive in the archive to find the previous discussion ;-) 2. An infraction of Law 73F2 The only thing we need to establish is whether North had a bridge reason to think. IMveryHO he sure does have it, so no cause for adjustment. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 29 22:24:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:24:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >The law primarily under examination in this thread is L50B, which >explicitly recognizes "such a thing" as "deliberate play" ("any card >exposed through deliberate play... becomes a major penalty card"). > >For the concept of "deliberate play" to be meaningful, there must be >a complementary concept of "non-deliberate play", AKA "inadvertent >play". If "the laws [knew of] no such matter as an inadvertent >play", the cited statement from L50B would be nonsense; there must >be some distinction between "any card exposed through deliberate >play" and "any played card" for it to be meaningful. Richard Hills: In my opinion the cited phrase "deliberate play" in Law 50B is a nonsense, a drafting error in the Lawbook. The word should simply be "play", without the adjective "deliberate". Alternatively, if the adjective "deliberate" is retained in the 2008 Lawbook, then the noun should be "exposed". Then you have the phrase "exposed deliberately" in Law 50B as a proper antonym to the other Law 50B phrase "exposed inadvertently". 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 29 22:32:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:32:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701291144w269aga968eade146c9bcc@mail.gmail.com> References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> <6.1.1.1.0.20070126102625.02b33370@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701290647i75148c28td844d62794482ece@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129113502.02a2d0c0@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701291144w269aga968eade146c9bcc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129160153.02b1d130@pop.starpower.net> At 02:44 PM 1/29/07, Jerry wrote: >Is your point that if a player cites an accurate law or principle to >the director that would be beneficial to his side, and if he tells the >director how he should rule, then he is probably dishonest? But if he >knows the laws just as well and is polite and does not suggest how to >rule, then he is probably honest? Is it your point that the suspect >action---the one that marks dishonesty---is not the knowledge of the >laws per se, but the act of suggesting or telling what the ruling >should be? Jerry has forced me to analyze in some depth my casual observation on human psychology, which was that one should view with suspicion a player who seems eager to explain why his particular answer to a director's question works to his advantage under the law. I suppose the answer is that a player telling the truth is thinking about the truth, while a player giving the answer that best works to his advantage is thinking about what answer will best work to his advantage. When a player volunteers to tell you why his answer works to his advantage, it is reasonable to conclude that that is what he has been thinking about. Of course, a calculating prevaricator who will always give the most advantageously self-serving answer to a question may still be telling the truth, just as a paranoid may still be persecuted, just as O.J. Simpson was framed by the LAPD but "may" still be guilty. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 29 23:04:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:04:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <000801c743e4$d750a6e0$70ea403e@Mildred> References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129125734.02e5da10@pop.starpower.net> <000801c743e4$d750a6e0$70ea403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129164930.02b1e0d0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:34 PM 1/29/07, gesta wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > >>+=+ However, you only get to Law 50B in the circumstances > >>of the case which this thread discusses by way of Laws 61A, > >>62A, and 62B1. It is commonly agreed that the card is 'played' > >>and to determine the play as illegal you must find a law that > >>makes it so. That law in this case is Law 61. So, once you > >>determine the card to be played the route to be followed is > >>inevitable. Only a single card is played, no other card is > >>exposed; it is a play and if legal it stands, if illegal it becomes > >>subject to Law 50 - but the illegality is not determined by > >>Law 50, not for a played card. It is Law 61B1 that makes > >>this card a penalty card before you reach Law 50. > > > > All quite true; no disagreement from me. We "go through" L61A, L62A > > and L62B1 to "arrive at" L50, at which point it is indisputable that > > "this card [is] a penalty card" per L62B1. But having reached L50, we > > find L50B, which requires us to determine whether that indisputable > > penalty card is to be a major penalty card or a minor penalty card, a > > question which L61-62 do not address. In the thread case, that depends > > on our interpretation of "through deliberate play", which is the issue > > to be resolved here. Everything Grattan says above is correct, but I > > don't see how it is relevant. > >+=+ Because Law 50B itemises a card exposed in revoking and then >correcting as a deliberate play. You have played the card. It is a >revoke. You have corrected the revoke. To take hold of a card and >place it in the played position is a deliberate action, regardless of >whether >you know what card it is or not. The Director has correctly ruled it a >major penalty card. OK. I had read the parentheticals in L50B as examples, similar to, for example, the examples of UI in L16A. With that reading, that a player can "expose[ a card] through deliberate play (as in... revoking and then correcting)" but can also "revok[e] and then correct[]" without "expos[ing a card] through deliberate play", just as one can "make [UI] available to his partner... as by means of a remark, a question, a reply..." but can also make remarks, questions, or replies that do not make UI available. I am happy to accept Grattan's interpretation as the intended one, but would suggest rewriting L50B so as to avoid leading a literal-minded reader to the wrong conclusion. This is the easiest rewrite I've ever suggested: just remove the ")" after "correcting" and insert it after "turn". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 29 23:11:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:11:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day In-Reply-To: <200701292111.l0TLBaZv002726@smtp40.hccnet.nl> References: <000001c74330$1e647620$0210a8c0@FK27.local> <200701292111.l0TLBaZv002726@smtp40.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129170607.02b1f310@pop.starpower.net> At 04:11 PM 1/29/07, Andre wrote: >I hope that I understood this post well as an open invitation to the blml >lurker-newbies to contribute. If not, I will gladly resume my role as >interested observer. WRT this post or any other, be assured that lurkers and/or newbies are not only invited to contribute to any and all BLML discussions, but are actively encouraged to do so. I am totally confident that I speak for all of the regular contributors on this. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 30 00:29:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:29:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200701292111.l0TLBaZv002726@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Andre Steffens: > > >I hope that I understood this post well as an open invitation to the >blml lurker-newbies to contribute. If not, I will gladly resume my >role as interested observer. [snip] Richard Hills: I second Eric Landau's comment that this list actively encourages lurkers / newbies to contribute. Indeed, when I was a blml newbie half-a-dozen years ago, I was encouraged by a friendly personal email from David Stevenson, who was then occupying my current role of most active poster to blml. Andre Steffens: >However, I would say that the small threecard in clubs makes it >unlikely that North contemplated a penalty double. > >This makes "pass" the only LA for South that will NOT lead to >adjustment (if the NOP are damaged). [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, Andre has followed the correct decision-making process for deciding what was demonstrably suggested to South; examining only the South cards and the auction to date, rather than being distracted by the entire deal and/or the final result. Back in 2004 it is possible that other blmlers were distracted by one context or another when determining logical alternatives. 11th May 2004 posting attached below. * * * Unusually, the four blmlers responding to this problem were unanimous in their rulings. Some extracts from their postings -> Herman De Wael: >no alternative can be said to be _demonstrably_ >suggested by the hesitation. Thus, no UI infraction. Harald Skjaran: >North's hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest any >action to South. With the South hand you can't tell >whether North was contemplating doubling or >sacrificing. Jaap van der Neut: >Complete nonsense IMO. If you want to impose that just >change the law that 'hesitating' becomes an infraction. >Because this logic amounts to after a 'pause' South has >to sacrifice when it is wrong and South cannot >sacrifice when it is right. Eric Landau: >North may have been thinking about either a penalty >double or a sacrifice, therefore neither possibility is >"demonstrably suggested", so neither fork applies. > >That reduces the substance of E-W's case to, "He broke >tempo, so we should get an adjustment." Richard James Hills: In the classic film, Groundhog Day, the protagonist has to live the same day over and over, but with slight variations each time. The problem I posed was merely the second day of Groundhog Day. On the first day of Groundhog Day, there were slight variations to the problem. There was a slight variation to the layout of the cards, with the king and ten of clubs interchanged, plus there was a slight variation to the auction: National Teams, Dlr: N, Vul: All 542 AQT7 KQJ75 T AKJ986 Q3 --- K863 3 9842 AQ9874 KJ5 T7 J9542 AT6 632 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H Double 3H(1) Pass Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6C Pass(2) Pass 6H Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Obstructive (2) Hesitation Result: N/S -500 This first Groundhog Day problem was posed to a panel in the most recent edition of the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. Panellist Richard Hills wrote: >>At least one call must be legal for South. If >>South had successfully passed, when 6H was a >>phantom, East-West could pose this hypothetical >>alternative argument: "North's hesitation suggested >>that North was thinking about a penalty Double. >>Therefore, South acted unethically by not taking the >>phantom save." >> >>After UI, it is not the case that *every* winning >>action must be ruled out. Law 16 does not rule >>illegal all *possibly* suggested actions, Law 16 >>merely rules illegal any *demonstrably* suggested >>action. [snip] Panellist David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >>Did the UI suggest the chosen action over an LA? >> >>There is always some difficulty with this type of >>sequence. North's pause shows some thought over >>taking action, but the action could be to double >>because the opponents have got too high, and could >>be to sacrifice. >> >>However, experience shows that players get this sort >>of position right, so the UI must suggest something >>to this pair. South's action, holding an ace, is >>pretty incredible anyway. Furthermore, because of >>the ace, he knows that partner is not wondering >>whether to double with two red aces, for example. [snip] Blmler Eric Landau: >I would rule that E-W's protest was frivolous. Panellist David Stevenson: >>So how do I rule? >> >>6C making. If N/S are experienced I consider a PP >>as well: this was blatant. If North had passed in >>tempo I feel sure so would South. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 30 02:45:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:45:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c73dc6$23604880$ba9487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>Well now, as the Church Lady said, isn't that special? Grattan, >>you're absolutely right, by a literal reading of the law. So >>poor Mrs. Guggenheim, in fact all the poor Mrs. Guggenheims, >>have been seeing their scores adjusted for violation of Law >>16A2 for years, in spite of the fact they have no clue what UI >>was made available. I wonder if they've figured out yet why >>that's happening. :-/ [snip] >>Perhaps the lawmakers, in making these laws, *assumed* that >>"receives" and "has available to him" are the same thing. Just >>a thought. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I do not think the lawmakers believed that. I do think they >decided to avoid the question whether the information was >received. The attitude was, is, very much if it quacks like a >duck etc it probably is a duck and it is up to the player to >show that it is a swan. [snip] Richard Hills: Whether it is the strict test of "available" information or it is the weaker test of "received" information that is the criterion for a ruling is, I believe, already decided and not avoided in the current Lawbook. For example, "received" information is definitely not the test in Law 49, rather the test is "partner could possibly see its face". This Law 49 test applies equally to clueless Mrs Guggenheim and also to the over-cluey unethical Mr Charlie the Chimp. The problem with weakening the test to "received" is that it would give the Chimp a license to cheat, as a reasonably objective test would be changed to a much harder to prove subjective test. Indeed, Edgar Kaplan noted that in many years in which he sat on committees listening to appeals against Law 49 rulings, not once did a defender actually receive information by actually seeing their partner's card; they were always thinking of something else at the time. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 30 04:31:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:31:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Asking for wrong answers (was GK&E) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >The folks around here, though, generally don't know what they're >doing, don't have a clue what the alert rules are, and stumble over >explanations: > > >"Um, I think I was supposed to alert that." > >Opponent, having already called: "okay, what's it mean?" > >"Um, I'm not sure. I think it's ." > >"Okay, but what does it show?" > >"It's ." > >"So it shows ?" > >"Um, yeah." > >Later it turns out they play a non-standard version of the >convention, and while the bid in question does show what the >opponent suggested (yeah, I know, don't lead the witness), that's >not a complete explanation, and the hand actually held falls into >the area the explainer forgot to mention. > >Okay, not twenty minutes, but a lot longer than it should have >taken, and still nothing like full disclosure. And it happens over >and over again. Richard Hills: Both the ACBL and the ABF Alert regs state that it is not sufficient to merely answer in response to a question. So I would argue that it is not the fault of clueless folks, but rather the fault of the ACBL in failing to publicise and enforce its regs. Anyway, poor explanations by bunnies rarely cause damage to expert opponents. If +1100 is a top, but a correct bunny explanation would give the expert +1400 for the same top, then what's the problem? And if an expert frequently plays against the same bunnies (as I do at the Canberra and South Canberra bridge clubs), the expert will often remember the bunnies' system better than they do themselves, so the expert will not need to ask questions. Which raises an interesting point. If a Charlie the Chimp expert is confident that he can guess the opponents' methods, but the Chimp does not actually _know_ the opponents' methods, is it legal for the Chimp to ask a question of an apparently confused opponent? The Chimp's object is to cause an opponent to create UI constraining their partner and/or create MI confusing the Chimp's partner, thus giving the Chimp a double shot at either a good table score or a good adjusted score. The WBF has ruled that questions may not be asked for partner's _benefit_, but one of the Chimp's objects in asking the question is to cause his partner's _detriment_ by arranging for his partner to get some MI from an opponent. :-( 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 30 06:42:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:42:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006401c74396$bc3f7820$daa887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>The class "understandings" includes the class "agreements". The >>class "agreements" does not encompass all understandings. >>..... >>Of course, if the WBFLC wants to call them synonymous, whatever >>Kaplan intended, they have that power, but have they done so? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Not that I recall* - but I hardly think it necessary since >they both relate to 'information conveyed to him through >partnership agreement or partnership experience' (Law 75C). It >may be that Edgar's realization of the above point caused him to >want this linkage of the two. The quoted phrase is sufficiently >drawn to include experience on a single prior occasion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >[* something may perhaps be drawn from item 7 of the minutes of > 20th January 2000.] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, items 7, 8 & 9: 7. The committee considered situations where an obscure call is made and the partner informs opponent that his side has no agreement concerning it. It was noted that neither the WBF in its code of practice, nor the ACBL, recognizes 'convention disruption' as an infraction in itself. The Chief Director referred to the requirement for the responder to give full information, including agreements relating to relevant alternative calls. The committee observed that the Director in forming an opinion as to the existence of a partnership understanding should take into account subsequent action in the auction. In relation to Laws 75C and 75D the Director is required to determine what agreements the partnership has. 8. Mr. Martel would like the committee to look at possibilities of removing the partner from the table and inviting the player who made the call to explain his intention. 9. The Secretary was invited to refer a statement by Mr. Kooijman on the position in paragraph 7 above to the Code of Practice Committee for consideration. Richard Hills: In item 8 the word "intention" might be Chip Martel's slip of the tongue for "belief about their partnership agreement". In that case item 8 is already a common directorial practice in Australia when the bidder's partner has forgotten the agreed meaning of a bid. Or item 8 might be Chip Martel suggesting that the Laws should be radically changed to require a player to disclose when they have psyched or misbid. Item 9 is mysterious; the WBF Code of Practice was revised after these minutes, but since the content of Ton Kooijman's statement was not mentioned in these minutes it is not obvious whether the statement was incorporated. In the context that item 7 was discussing a player's assertion of "no agreement", perhaps Ton's statement was incorporated into these attached CoP paragraphs. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is contrary to Law 75A and where this is the case it is a violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) when the call is made. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 30 07:11:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:11:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>(1) You, South, incorrectly explain upon East's enquiry that >>>the 1NT rebid was 15-17, since your North-South partnership >>>is playing Acol. However, your partnership plays a three- >>>quarter weak 1NT opening bid. In third seat a 1NT opening >>>bid is 15-17, therefore causing a 1NT rebid to be 12-14. Tim West-Meads: >>Did I forget the system (XX is an non-suggested LA) or did I >>forget that I had dealt and passed? While the UI from the >>lack of alert may be what woke me up to partner being in >>third seat the auction itself is AI and XX is not an LA. Alain Gottcheiner: >However, some past threads have told that, while the auction >is AI, anything that focuses partner's attention on some >feature of the auction is UI, as could be the case here. Richard Hills: At the table this was a simple UI problem, since South had indeed forgotten that they were playing the three-quarter 1NT opening bid. But Tim's hypothetical alternative is fascinating. There are three possibilities: (1) The Gottcheiner ruling - when AI and UI give identical information, but the UI is also an aid to the memory (see the footnote to Law 40E2), then the AI metamorphs into UI. In this case it is UI to South that South passed as dealer, and also UI to South that South has misbid. (2) The West-Meads ruling - AI reigns supreme over UI, so if the UI is equal to or lesser than the AI, then the UI metamorphs into AI. In this case everything is AI. (3) The Hills ruling - when the balance of probabilities of the objective evidence suggests that South has forgotten the system, then South is deemed not to have made the alternative forget of South passing as dealer. In this case it remains UI to South that South has misbid, but it is now AI to South that South passed as dealer. While rulings (1) and (3) constrain South's options, they place slightly different constraints and so could lead to different adjusted scores. 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 30 12:24:38 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:24:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking for wrong answers (was GK&E) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Both the ACBL and the ABF Alert regs state that it is not sufficient > to merely answer in response to a question. So > I would argue that it is not the fault of clueless folks, but rather > the fault of the ACBL in failing to publicise and enforce its regs. I know. I don't put all the blame on the NBO, though. A lot of it, at least here, goes to club owner/TDs who are unwilling to enforce the rules for fear of driving away customers. :-( > Anyway, poor explanations by bunnies rarely cause damage to expert > opponents. If +1100 is a top, but a correct bunny explanation would > give the expert +1400 for the same top, then what's the problem? There isn't one, in this case. > And if an expert frequently plays against the same bunnies (as I do > at the Canberra and South Canberra bridge clubs), the expert will > often remember the bunnies' system better than they do themselves, > so the expert will not need to ask questions. > > Which raises an interesting point. If a Charlie the Chimp expert is > confident that he can guess the opponents' methods, but the Chimp > does not actually _know_ the opponents' methods, is it legal for the > Chimp to ask a question of an apparently confused opponent? > > The Chimp's object is to cause an opponent to create UI constraining > their partner and/or create MI confusing the Chimp's partner, thus > giving the Chimp a double shot at either a good table score or a > good adjusted score. > > The WBF has ruled that questions may not be asked for partner's > _benefit_, but one of the Chimp's objects in asking the question is > to cause his partner's _detriment_ by arranging for his partner to > get some MI from an opponent. I would consider the Chimp as trying to gain through other means than playing bridge, so I don't like his ideas here. OTOH, I'm not sure there's a law we can slap him with. BTW, I'm no expert. No longer a bunny, I hope, but closer to that than to expert. Among the folks here who don't know how to explain their agreements are several life masters, some of whom have been playing bridge for nigh on forty years. I dunno if I'd call 'em "bunnies" - well, some of 'em, I s'pose - but they sure as hell aren't experts. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jan 30 14:02:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:02:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129164930.02b1e0d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129125734.02e5da10@pop.starpower.net> <000801c743e4$d750a6e0$70ea403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129164930.02b1e0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45BF41EA.2020502@NTLworld.com> It's a pity to introduce a discordant note into the symphony of ecstasy orchestrated by BLMLers on issues like this. It is natural for law-makers to glory in the sophisticated edifice of laws based on whether an action is a slip of the hand or of the mind; and directors are happy to rise to the challenge of interpreting complex laws and honing their judgement better to assess a player's thoughts and intentions. IMO, BLMLers should pause to spare a moment of pity for the poor player who has to put up with the consequences: rulings that over-rely on subjective judgement -- that depend more on which director rules than on agreed facts -- sometimes further confused by equally incomprehensible differences in legal interpretation. Many players would prefer simpler (even if more draconian) rules -- but rules that they could understand -- and would result in more consistent rulings. In particular, judging whether an error is mechanical is particularly hard and error-prone. It also seems to entail unnecessary legal complication. After all, in many cases of mechanical error, players will ask the director to waive the penalty. With increasing computerisation, mechanical errors will become less of an issue but law-makers should consider the players' current plight. Just a thought. I hope I'm not regarded as a party-pooper. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 30 14:57:03 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:57:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <45BF41EA.2020502@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000201c74476$85d55990$6400a8c0@WINXP> I ask: "Did he DROP the card or did he PLAY the card?" It doesn't take much to understand and distinguish between these alternatives so the four players at the table always come up with a clear and unanimous answer, at least when I am the Director and explain the laws. And I am quite confident that I would have been told if the players had previously met other directors ruling differently in similar situations. So what is the real problem? Sven > On Behalf Of Nigel > Sent: 30. januar 2007 14:03 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major > > It's a pity to introduce a discordant note into the symphony of ecstasy > orchestrated by BLMLers on issues like this. > > It is natural for law-makers to glory in the sophisticated edifice of > laws based on whether an action is a slip of the hand or of the mind; > and directors are happy to rise to the challenge of interpreting complex > laws and honing their judgement better to assess a player's thoughts and > intentions. > > IMO, BLMLers should pause to spare a moment of pity for the poor player > who has to put up with the consequences: rulings that over-rely on > subjective judgement -- that depend more on which director rules than on > agreed facts -- sometimes further confused by equally incomprehensible > differences in legal interpretation. > > Many players would prefer simpler (even if more draconian) rules -- > but rules that they could understand -- and would result in more > consistent rulings. > > In particular, judging whether an error is mechanical is particularly > hard and error-prone. It also seems to entail unnecessary legal > complication. After all, in many cases of mechanical error, players will > ask the director to waive the penalty. With increasing computerisation, > mechanical errors will become less of an issue but law-makers should > consider the players' current plight. > > Just a thought. I hope I'm not regarded as a party-pooper. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 30 15:52:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:52:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <45BF41EA.2020502@NTLworld.com> References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129125734.02e5da10@pop.starpower.net> <000801c743e4$d750a6e0$70ea403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129164930.02b1e0d0@pop.starpower.net> <45BF41EA.2020502@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45BF5B96.8010103@skynet.be> Nigel wrote: > It's a pity to introduce a discordant note into the symphony of ecstasy > orchestrated by BLMLers on issues like this. > > It is natural for law-makers to glory in the sophisticated edifice of > laws based on whether an action is a slip of the hand or of the mind; > and directors are happy to rise to the challenge of interpreting complex > laws and honing their judgement better to assess a player's thoughts and > intentions. > > IMO, BLMLers should pause to spare a moment of pity for the poor player > who has to put up with the consequences: rulings that over-rely on > subjective judgement -- that depend more on which director rules than on > agreed facts -- sometimes further confused by equally incomprehensible > differences in legal interpretation. > > Many players would prefer simpler (even if more draconian) rules -- > but rules that they could understand -- and would result in more > consistent rulings. > No they would not. Many players would not like rules that say - if you take something out of your bidding box - then that is what you have bid, and if you say oops that is UI to your partner. There is a hug difference between playing and bidding cards. Playing cards are designed to be unrecognisable, so detaching one from your hand does not show which one it is. And showing it is information, because your partner now knows you have the S2. OTOH, bidding cards are recognisable from the back, but everyone knows there is a 7C card in your bidding box. So the rules about bidding boxes are by necessity different from those about cards, and they include a set of "intentions". And FWIW, I do believe rulings are consistent. Of course no ruling is ever the same, but what is the consistency about "yesterday I received an extra trick because my opponent revoked and today I don't - that's not fair - I want 1050 for 6N+2". > In particular, judging whether an error is mechanical is particularly > hard and error-prone. This just shows you have not made many of those judgments. I have, and I have not often had discussions about them. > It also seems to entail unnecessary legal > complication. After all, in many cases of mechanical error, players will > ask the director to waive the penalty. With increasing computerisation, > mechanical errors will become less of an issue but law-makers should > consider the players' current plight. > > Just a thought. I hope I'm not regarded as a party-pooper. > Everyone is entitled to their opinions. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 30 16:13:33 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:13:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Asking for wrong answers (was GK&E) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000c01c74486$7aa5c860$240de150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Asking for wrong answers (was GK&E) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > The Chimp's object is to cause an opponent to create UI constraining > their partner and/or create MI confusing the Chimp's partner, thus > giving the Chimp a double shot at either a good table score or a > good adjusted score. > > The WBF has ruled that questions may not be asked for partner's > _benefit_, but one of the Chimp's objects in asking the question is > to cause his partner's _detriment_ by arranging for his partner to > get some MI from an opponent. > > :-( > +=+ Ah, but he intends the said detriment to be a benefit to partner. ;-( +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 30 16:48:22 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:48:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major References: <000301c74229$d1fb7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20070129094334.031aa260@pop.starpower.net><000201c743c3$5ab93780$9501e150@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20070129125734.02e5da10@pop.starpower.net><000801c743e4$d750a6e0$70ea403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129164930.02b1e0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01c74486$7b883920$240de150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major < > I am happy to accept Grattan's interpretation as the intended > one, but would suggest rewriting L50B so as to avoid leading > a literal-minded reader to the wrong conclusion. This is the > easiest rewrite I've ever suggested: just remove the ")" after > "correcting" and insert it after "turn". > +=+ It will surprise no-one if I admit that when the question was put here I turned immediately to the drafts of the next laws to see their present condition. I think I reveal no crucial secrets if I say that in 50B the statement "as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting" has become "for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 31 00:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > (2) The West-Meads ruling - AI reigns supreme over UI, so if > the UI is equal to or lesser than the AI, then the UI > metamorphs into AI. You didn't ask me for a ruling, you asked me for my choices as a player. If I know the system but merely forgot who dealer was then XX simply isn't a logical alternative. That's as a player (the UI doesn't metamorph into AI, it's merely that given the AI alone *everybody* passes). As TD I might rule XX an LA because I lack evidence that the player had forgotten dealership rather than system. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 31 00:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <001f01c743bf$5dd0d490$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > If not then please show what in your opinion would be "inadvertent > play" consistent with the laws of bridge particularly Law 50B. (And > please keep this a question of law, not a question about the English > language). As if the two were somehow divisible. English is the official language of the laws and unless the "Definitions" contain some specific guidance we are required to use an English meaning. I'm guessing that the alternative meaning of "deliberate" (slowly and carefully) doesn't apply here so using the sense of "intentionally" is the only real option. If it helps to think in "legal" terms "deliberate" is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Richard believes that the word is "a nonsense", I think in the sense that the law would be simpler and easier had it been left out (I agree if that is his point). The thing is it *wasn't* left out. It's there and thus requires a TD judgement on when it applies. Grattan bangs on about how it's penalty card because it was a played card - but nobody disputes that the card was "played" (or that it is thus a penalty card) - it's just that as originally described everybody (I think) is convinced that it was played accidentally/unintentionally/inadvertently or any number of words that are antonyms of "deliberately". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 31 00:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129164930.02b1e0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > OK. I had read the parentheticals in L50B as examples, similar to, > for example, the examples of UI in L16A. In which, of course, you are correct - that is how they are written. It is perfectly possible to play the Club 3 intentionally (not realising one has a diamond) and then discover and correct the revoke. But it's only an example - it doesn't mean that every corrected revoke results from the deliberate play of the revoke card. Grattan may wish the word "deliberate" was not in the law, he may induce the WBF to remove it next time, he may induce the WBF to write a minute saying "deliberate means accidental" but none of those things has happened and he has no right to attempt butchery of the language by personal fiat. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 01:28:26 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:28:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] Close Encounter of the Third Kind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560701301628v33e7dfcar259ee0ae704df122@mail.gmail.com> On 27/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > New Zealand blmler Wayne Burrows regularly plays in > the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. The feature > event is the National Open Teams, 200-odd teams > playing a week-long Swiss of 14 20-board matches, > from which only 16 teams qualify for the knockout > rounds. Wayne's team and my team luckily had a > close encounter, despite playing in different > qualifying venues, since we met in the Round of 16. > > The World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker said: > "Lies and hypocrisy do not survive on the > chessboard." The same could be said of a knockout > match, where the reasoning and analytical skills of > Wayne and his team-mates proved superior to those > of me and my team-mates, knocking my team out while > Wayne is now playing in the Round of 12. Keep up > the good work, Wayne. > > But since our match was played in the best of spirit, > there are no incidents worth reporting to blml. > > Unfortunately the same could not be said of my last > round Swiss match against a different sponsored team. > In a contract of 2S, this was the three card ending, > with the declaring sponsor needing one more trick to > make 2S. > > Me > AK > K > --- > --- > Dummy Sponsor > Q9 J65 > K --- > --- --- > --- --- > Pard > 72 > --- > 3 > --- > > The lead was in dummy, and the sponsor claimed. If > the claim had been, "ruffing a heart high", then I > would have moved on to the next board. Instead the > sponsor merely stated, "giving you two spades", so I > summoned the director since it seemed to me that the > sponsor might carelessly allow pard's spade seven to > score an over-ruff. > > When the director arrived, the facts were determined > after some argy-bargy. Because the issue was a > judgement ruling of "careless" versus "irrational", > the director correctly announced that he would not > give an immediate ruling, but would first consult > with the rest of the directing staff. > > After the director left, the sponsor remarked to me, > "I make tricks through skill, not stealth". Since I > interpreted the word "stealth" as a derogatory remark > on my ethics, I immediately summoned the harried > director back again. > > The director stated that the sponsor's remark was > "inappropriate", but the sponsor disagreed. Dummy, a > decent and fine expert, supported the sponsor on the > grounds that the claim was valid (not realising that > the issue that I was complaining about was rudeness). > > There was good news and bad news. The bad news was > that the sponsor never apologised, but the good news > was that we thrashed his team 103 imps to 56 imps. > Thanks Richard. It was an enjoyable experience. I suppose it is easier for me to say that when I was on the winning team. Alas we lost in the next round. The match against Richard's team was close indeed. We were tied 44-44 after the first half when Richard was my opponent and screenmate at one table and edge ahead 38-24 in the second half when Richard was sitting out since he was part of a team of six whilst my teammates did not have the luxury of being able to put me on the bench. In the second half I brought in a dubious slam in a 5-2 fit with trumps breaking 5-1 that had the curious feature of being cold if the diamond side-suit were 7-0, 6-1 or 5-2 but had no play on a normal 4-3 break. On the result of that slam swung the match. So Richard flatters me with the reference to skill when there were significant amounts of luck involved. Coincidentally playing against the same sponsors team in the Mixed Teams I was involved in an incident with my opponent. This time it was a professional at the other table from the sponsor who caused the problem. 1NT Pass 2NT* 3S Pass Pass 5C All Pass 2NT was systemically Both minors weak or strong but at the end of a long week and an evening off I had forgotten our system and on auto-pilot reverted to a system I play with several other partners where it showed a single-suited minor weak or strong. In my regular partnership I would have doubled 3S to try for 3NT but I was playing in an unfamilar partnership - we had played once before and that was six or seven years ago - and I was not sure how a double would be interpreted. Over 5C I feared a diamond preference but was 1=3=3=6 so hoped that I would survive since if I had both minors I figured that a jump to 5C would show 4-6 in the minors at least and it was inconsistent that a limited hand could pass over 3S and then make a slam try with 5D so I could probably pass 5D. 5C made and at the end of the hand I said to my partner that I had misbid and my RHO questioned why I had not told them I had misbid. I said "I have no obligation to tell you I have misbid". At which point he questioned my morals. Like Richard I was not happy with the remark so summoned the director. After some discussion the chief TD asked my opponent to apologize and when he would not fined him 1 VP. Thereafter my path diverged from Richards outcome as we were comprehensively beaten by these opponents. To me this is a move in the right direction as my experience has been that rudeness which is often a form of gamesmanship is often left in the "too hard basket" by the directors with either no action or a request to report the incident to a recorder - at least down-under - when in fact courtesy is a matter of law and therefore the responsibility of the director to uphold. I had another incident that involved a claim that I am reminded of from Richard's incident that resolved in a much more civil manner. At trick twelve my LHO tabled his hand claiming the remainder of the tricks. These were the remaining cards in his hand and my hand with the other cards being largely irrelevant: s J h - d A c - s 10 h 10 d - c - My opponent had not realized that I had one good heart left to cash and so was in the position of having to find a discard. I say the other cards were largely irrelevant because while I had discarded my dK the position of the dJ was unknown - I could easily have had h10 and dJ remaining. The director IMO correctly determined that I was entitled to both tricks after the false claim. A few years ago in a similar position the director ruled against me as did the appeal committee with the added comment that I was just trying to win a trick by stealth - my paraphrase not the actual words. Luckily I did not accept their opinion and was willing to ask for a ruling when this situation occurred. My opponents who were obviously not happy to conceed a trick nevertheless accepted the ruling with grace - afterall it is based on their own mistake. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 31 01:46:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:46:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nine Princes in Amber [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>(2) The West-Meads ruling - AI reigns supreme over UI, so if >>the UI is equal to or lesser than the AI, then the UI >>metamorphs into AI. Tim West-Meads: >You didn't ask me for a ruling, you asked me for my choices >as a player. Richard Hills: This raises another fascinating issue. Jeff Rubens, in a slightly different context, has argued that Law 73C requires a player to select the logical alternative that they originally intended, even though the director might rule that that logical alternative was an illegal demonstrably suggested one. I, on the other hand, believe that Law 73C and Law 16 both require a player to eschew any illegal logical alternatives. Therefore, if a player correctly evaluates the legality of their logical alternatives and acts accordingly, the director and the appeals committee do not need to waste any time with rulings and appeals. Of course Jeff Rubens is not a fool. The problem is that the official WBF interpretation of Law 73C has evolved rather rapidly in recent years, but the actual words of Law 73C have been fossilised for many decades. Tim West-Meads >If I know the system but merely forgot who dealer was then XX >simply isn't a logical alternative. That's as a player (the >UI doesn't metamorph into AI, it's merely that given the AI >alone *everybody* passes). Richard Hills: As Alain Gottcheiner has noted, while it is AI that South was dealer, he was reminded of that fact by partner. This creates a conflict between two Laws. Law 16: "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls....." Law 40E2 footnote: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory....." Tim West-Meads: >As TD I might rule XX an LA because I lack evidence that the >player had forgotten dealership rather than system. Richard Hills: And this is yet another fascinating issue. The only time as a player that I deliberately choose an action that I know the TD would rule illegal is when I am in possession of unlikely but true facts. In that case the TD rules under Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) that the balance of probabilities suggests the alternative interpretation. This is a key point where I differ from the De Wael School. A principle of the DwS is that Herman suggests that one should lie about one's partnership agreements, pretending that partner's actual misbid is rather your misexplanation, because that is the ruling that the TD will eventually give anyway. Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 31 02:29:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:29:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] Close Encounter of the Third Kind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701301628v33e7dfcar259ee0ae704df122@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [snip] >>5C made and at the end of the hand I said to my partner that I had >>misbid and my RHO questioned why I had not told them I had misbid. >>I said "I have no obligation to tell you I have misbid". At which >>point he questioned my morals. >> >>Like Richard I was not happy with the remark so summoned the >>director. After some discussion the chief TD asked my opponent to >>apologize and when he would not fined him 1 VP. >> >>Thereafter my path diverged from Richards outcome as we were >>comprehensively beaten by these opponents. >> >>To me this is a move in the right direction as my experience has >>been that rudeness which is often a form of gamesmanship is often >>left in the "too hard basket" by the directors with either no >>action or a request to report the incident to a recorder - at >>least down-under - when in fact courtesy is a matter of law and >>therefore the responsibility of the director to uphold. [snip] ABF Newsletter January 2007, front page Letter to the Editor: (full details at http://www.abf.com.au/newsletter/Jan07.pdf) [snip] >Imagine you are relatively new to the game and have been persuaded >to attend your first congress. In the first round you are drawn >against one of the top seeds and proceed to get pulverized. > >Not only is this not a good feeling, but along the way the top >seeds (let's face it, some of them are not exactly friendly) have >pointed out that your system card is imperfect and they have talked >down to you about your hesitations and generally made you >miserable. > >The outcome is that, having filled their bucket of self-importance, >the seeds move on, leaving behind at least two players vowing never >to play teams again. > >To change the attitudes of some top players is impossible. [snip] Richard Hills: Like Wayne I agree that changing the attitudes of some top players is definitely possible, provided that directors in general follow the example set by Wayne's chief TD in sanctioning all infractions of Law 74A2. (For the benefit of newbies to blml, I reiterate my belief that the courtesy requirement of Law 74A2, "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game," is the single most important rule of bridge.) In my opinion experts have a greater-than-normal obligation to be courteous, due to the principle of "noblesse oblige". So when my partner Hashmat Ali and I attend the annual Cootamundra Congress as a top-seeded team of Canberra Raiders, we pulverise with politeness. We put our opponents at ease with pleasant remarks before and during the match. (I specialise in bad puns, and off-the- wall comments such as, "No imagination pard; the winning call was an insufficient bid.") During the auction we clearly and carefully explain the positive and negative inferences of our Symmetric Relay auctions. As a result, if we reach slam after a 15-bid auction our opponents are intrigued rather than upset. Indeed, on several occasions our opponents have souvenired the bidding slip of the auction (Australia still mostly uses written bidding) in order to show it off to their friends. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jan 31 04:08:27 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:08:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <200701301633.l0UGXYUw027268@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200701301633.l0UGXYUw027268@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45C0082B.3030905@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Many players would not like rules that say - if you > take something out of your bidding box - then that is what you have > bid, and if you say oops that is UI to your partner. Mere "taking out" wouldn't be popular -- it's too easy to make mechanical mistakes -- but why not make the bidding box rules similar to those of declarer playing a card? Fool around all you want, but once the bid card is laid on the table or nearly so, the call is made and may not be changed unless some specific, objective reason applies (e.g., the call is insufficient or inadmissible). David Stevenson, for one, has suggested rules along these lines, and (much as I like to disagree with David), I don't see why the idea is a bad one. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jan 31 04:22:24 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:22:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200701301549.l0UFnxOv018268@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200701301549.l0UFnxOv018268@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45C00B70.5050802@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, items 7, 8 & 9: > > 7. The committee considered situations where an obscure call is > made and the partner informs opponent that his side has no > agreement concerning it. It was noted that neither the WBF in its > code of practice, nor the ACBL, recognizes 'convention disruption' > as an infraction in itself. The Chief Director referred to the > requirement for the responder to give full information, including > agreements relating to relevant alternative calls. The committee > observed that the Director in forming an opinion as to the > existence of a partnership understanding should take into account > subsequent action in the auction. In relation to Laws 75C and 75D > the Director is required to determine what agreements the > partnership has. I don't think there's much argument about _disclosure_. Everyone agrees that the ideal situation is that everything relevant is disclosed. There may be disagreement about the exact manner of disclosure -- CC, alert, answer to question -- but I don't see any doubt about the principle. The problem is what constitutes an "understanding" or "agreement" for purposes of regulation. Ed gives the example of 1NT with a 5cM. Can a requirement to use indentical "system" or "methods" under L40E mandate that partners adopt the same criteria? What about 1NT with a singleton? What about 1C versus 1D when 4=5 in the minors? No doubt all these have to be disclosed, but can they be regulated? > WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his > partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such > method is subject to any regulations governing partnership > agreements and to the requisite disclosure. This says that regulation is possible. > Habit is to be > identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be > anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's habits and > practices is contrary to Law 75A and where this is the case it is > a violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) when the call is made. Now we're back to disclosure, where there's little if any problem. > WBF Code of Practice, page 8: > > A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that > its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming > that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of > a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent > to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are > entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, > explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action > and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed. This seems to be saying past experience is the most important factor for judging whether an agreement exists. I think it would have been better to worry about what must be disclosed and how and when. This brings us back to "What is the true agreement?" and how the TD should decide. I, for one, am glad the ACBL has not adopted the CoP. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 31 07:11:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:11:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0701290648g49aff48bo27b43173a62db4d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >Is there any other game besides bridge where >knowledge of its laws makes you highly suspect >in many or most circles? Richard Hills replies: Of course. One of my other hobbies is playing multi-player strategy boardgames. In my over- competitive youth I adopted a Secretary Bird technique of thoroughly reading the rule book of the currently popular game, then revealing an obscure rule at the moment it would do my cause the most good. Nowadays I follow the more social strategy of thoroughly explaining the rules to newbies in advance of the game, and also providing those newbies with disinterested strategy tips during the game. I "win" less often, but all of us win by having a more enjoyable experience. Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 31 07:42:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:42:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129164930.02b1e0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>(And please keep this a question of law, not a question about >>>the English language). Tim West-Meads: >>As if the two were somehow divisible. English is the official >>language of the laws and unless the "Definitions" contain some >>specific guidance we are required to use an English meaning. >> >>I'm guessing that the alternative meaning of "deliberate" >>(slowly and carefully) doesn't apply here so using the sense >>of "intentionally" is the only real option. If it helps to >>think in "legal" terms "deliberate" is the difference between >>murder and manslaughter. >> >>Richard believes that the word is "a nonsense", I think in the >>sense that the law would be simpler and easier had it been >>left out (I agree if that is his point). The thing is it >>*wasn't* left out. Eric Landau: >I am happy to accept Grattan's interpretation as the intended >one, but would suggest rewriting L50B so as to avoid leading a >literal-minded reader to the wrong conclusion. Richard Hills: But Eric's happiness begs the question, petitio principii. Tim's point is that a literal-minded interpretation of Law _cannot_ be the wrong interpretation. Of course my interpretation, as Tim guessed, is that we currently have the wrong law. Where Tim and I differ is that I am willing to follow a decades- old tradition of misinterpreting the wrong law in the wrong (less than literal) way in order to get the right result. Where Kojak and I differ is that Kojak believes the current Lawbook is easy to interpret, with only obtuse literal-minded pedants (who see merely the trees and ignore the forest) failing to do so. I agree that I am a trees-not-forest obtuse pedant. But my pedantic sense of neatness would be satisfied if the 2008 Lawbook would always lead a literal-minded reader to the right conclusion. Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (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 hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 31 09:48:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:48:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <45C0082B.3030905@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200701301633.l0UGXYUw027268@cfa.harvard.edu> <45C0082B.3030905@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45C057DB.6020703@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Many players would not like rules that say - if you >> take something out of your bidding box - then that is what you have >> bid, and if you say oops that is UI to your partner. > > Mere "taking out" wouldn't be popular -- it's too easy to make > mechanical mistakes -- but why not make the bidding box rules similar to > those of declarer playing a card? Fool around all you want, but once > the bid card is laid on the table or nearly so, the call is made and may > not be changed unless some specific, objective reason applies (e.g., the > call is insufficient or inadmissible). David Stevenson, for one, has > suggested rules along these lines, and (much as I like to disagree with > David), I don't see why the idea is a bad one. > Because it is very hard to detach a sticking extra card from the pack you are holding when you have cards in your left hand, and a beer in your right one. These things were not designed to be easy to handle, and they are not. Putting the cards on the table and detaching the top one is the more easy way of dealing with them, and in your regulation that would be forbidden. Or do you want to adapt your rule and add "deliberate" and "intent" in there again? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 31 23:43:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:43:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45C00B70.5050802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >What about 1C versus 1D when 4=5 in the minors? No doubt >all these have to be disclosed, but can they be regulated? Richard Hills: In my opinion, every partnership agreement about the nature of their calls can be directly or indirectly regulated via the powers granted to sponsoring organisations under Law 40D. For example, the ACBL has placed practical limits on a possible partnership agreement to open 1NT with 8 hcp by prohibiting the use of any conventions in the subsequent auction. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: >>A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation >>that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by >>claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of >>the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the >>partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been >>entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal >>and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or >>implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and >>for this reason the understanding must be disclosed. Steve Willner: >This seems to be saying past experience is the most >important factor for judging whether an agreement exists. Richard Hills: No, that is a straw man argument. An excerpt from the Code of Practice is not the entirety of the Code of Practice. Other paragraphs on pages 7 and 8 of the CoP give more detailed guidance on determining whether a partnership agreement exists. This particular excerpt is merely stating that choosing to deliberately ignore a partnership agreement does not _cancel_ that partnership agreement. So the partnership agreement must still be disclosed. Steve Willner: >I think it would have been better to worry about what must >be disclosed and how and when. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens." Steve Willner: >This brings us back to "What is the true agreement?" and >how the TD should decide. > >I, for one, am glad the ACBL has not adopted the CoP. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances." Richard Hills: And the CoP then lists four specific circumstances. Is it rational to be glad that the ACBL has not adopted the CoP if one has not bothered to read all of the CoP? :-) And of course, it is open to the ACBL to do what the EBU and the ABF have done; cherry-pick the bits of the CoP that they like, but refuse to adopt those sections of the CoP which do not suit their local circumstances. (The EBU has not fully adopted the CoP section on "irrational, wild or gambling", while the ABF has not adopted the CoP section on an expanded Law 12C3 power for all TDs.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (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