From henk at amsterdamned.org Thu Feb 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 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 Thu Feb 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for January 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 62 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 47 ehaa (at) starpower.net 32 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 31 svenpran (at) online.no 27 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 26 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 25 twm (at) cix.co.uk 20 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 18 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 15 john (at) asimere.com 12 schoderb (at) msn.com 8 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 8 hermandw (at) skynet.be 7 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 6 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 6 geller (at) nifty.com 6 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 5 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 4 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 4 sarahamos (at) onetel.net 4 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 4 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 3 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 3 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 3 adam (at) irvine.com 3 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 2 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 2 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 1 rebecca (at) dptech.net 1 mustikka (at) charter.net 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 joanandron (at) worldnet.att.net 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 herman (at) hdw.be 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 1 02:00:11 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:00:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004501c7459c$69f0ec40$bba087d9@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 31, 2007 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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.) > +=+ In my reflective periods I muse upon the fact that, of the ten personalities who met in Lausanne and prepared the CoP, four were ACBL members, three were EBL members, and there was one from each of three other Zones. We reached a consensus on what should be in the document. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 1 02:08:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:08:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45C00B70.5050802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >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, [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, it is only the meaning of calls and plays which are partnership understandings that need to be disclosed. The intended meaning of a call or play which is not a partnership understanding need not be disclosed. If Steve is suggesting that there are some calls and plays which are not part of the agreed partnership understandings, but nevertheless must still be disclosed, then I disagree. Perhaps, however, I have misunderstood what Steve is getting at. It may be that Steve is referring to second half of Law 40E1: ".....including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." The problem with this Law is that it uses undefined terms such as the word "style" (and this word is not used anywhere else in the Lawbook), the word "system" (likewise) and the word "judgement" (and the only duplicate of "judgement" is in Law 69B, where it is used in the different context of the director making a ruling). Are "style" and "system" both partnership understandings? 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 1 11:09:41 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:09:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <006901c745ee$6b37f1f0$fd9a87d9@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: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:08 AM > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, it is only the meaning of calls > and plays which are partnership understandings > that need to be disclosed. The intended meaning > of a call or play which is not a partnership > understanding need not be disclosed. > +=+ But is not the totality of our agreed methods a partnership understanding? - and do we not add to it each time we make a call in a particular situation for the first time and discover its intended meaning? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 1 11:47:04 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:47:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] This week's defender play. Message-ID: <006a01c745ee$6c47db50$fd9a87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Perhaps, gentle reader, you would like to share in the following rarity. A report states: "Spades are trumps. Mid-way through the play declarer led a high-ish heart from his hand. LHO can ruff it if we wishes; this will be the correct thing to do if the heart is a winner, but the wrong thing to do if it is a loser. It is less than clear to LHO whether or not the heart is good. Whilst he's thinking, RHO prematurely plays a higher heart (i.e. a heart winner). So, LHO now knows not to ruff. Law 57A doesn't help declarer one bit - he'd like to force LHO to ruff, but 57A doesn't give him that option." Various suggested rulings surround application of Laws 12B, 72B1, 12A1. I have commented "Any card that is played and then becomes a penalty card is seemingly a withdrawn card? It appears to me that penalty cards of this genre are perhaps subject to Law 16C." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Feb 1 12:51:52 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:51:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] This week's defender play. Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9CFF1@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott Sent: 01 February 2007 10:47 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [blml] This week's defender play. 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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Perhaps, gentle reader, you would like to share in the following rarity. A report states: "Spades are trumps. Mid-way through the play declarer led a high-ish heart from his hand. LHO can ruff it if we wishes; this will be the correct thing to do if the heart is a winner, but the wrong thing to do if it is a loser. It is less than clear to LHO whether or not the heart is good. Whilst he's thinking, RHO prematurely plays a higher heart (i.e. a heart winner). So, LHO now knows not to ruff. Law 57A doesn't help declarer one bit - he'd like to force LHO to ruff, but 57A doesn't give him that option." Various suggested rulings surround application of Laws 12B, 72B1, 12A1. I have commented "Any card that is played and then becomes a penalty card is seemingly a withdrawn card? It appears to me that penalty cards of this genre are perhaps subject to Law 16C." ~ Grattan ~ +== _______________________________________________ There has previously been discussion that Law 47B allows/requires the withdrawal of card played out of turn "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal or simultaneous play". So L57A says the high heart is a penalty card, L47B says it is withdrawn (while the next two players in rotation play), L16C says withdrawn actions are unauthorised to OS, from the thinking ruffing and not ruffing are logical alternatives, and ruffing is the one not suggested by the high heart. 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 twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 1 14:03:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:03 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006901c745ee$6b37f1f0$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ But is not the totality of our agreed methods > a partnership understanding? - and do we not add > to it each time we make a call in a particular situation > for the first time and discover its intended meaning? That's a better description of the "totality of disclosable knowledge". Most partnerships have agreements (which may be explicit or implicit and are subject to regulation if conventional) - these agreements can often be grouped together as "system". Then they have known disagreements (I open 2N about half a point lighter than pard, he opens weak 2s of which I marginally disapprove). These are basically matters of style/judgement and might be described as "understandings" or "disclosable disagreements" we have discussed the issues and failed to come to agreement. On top of that there's partnership experience (e.g. pard occasionally psychs his 1N overcalls when nv in 3rd) this too is disclosable but is not a matter of agreement or understanding (we have no systemic protection to deal with such psychs). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 1 15:05:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:05:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] This week's defender play. In-Reply-To: <006a01c745ee$6c47db50$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <006a01c745ee$6c47db50$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070201085631.02ad9670@pop.starpower.net> At 05:47 AM 2/1/07, Grattan wrote: >"Spades are trumps. Mid-way through the play >declarer led a high-ish heart from his hand. LHO >can ruff it if we wishes; this will be the correct >thing to do if the heart is a winner, but the wrong >thing to do if it is a loser. It is less than clear to >LHO whether or not the heart is good. Whilst >he's thinking, RHO prematurely plays a higher >heart (i.e. a heart winner). So, LHO now knows >not to ruff. Law 57A doesn't help declarer one >bit - he'd like to force LHO to ruff, but 57A >doesn't give him that option." > >Various suggested rulings surround application of >Laws 12B, 72B1, 12A1. I have commented >"Any card that is played and then becomes >a penalty card is seemingly a withdrawn card? >It appears to me that penalty cards of this genre >are perhaps subject to Law 16C." This sounds to me like a textbook example of the sort of irregularity that L72B1 was intended to cover -- indeed, I expect I'll use it in the future when teaching that law. 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 Feb 1 14:27:52 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:27:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] This week's defender play. References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9CFF1@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000401c74609$bd5baba0$98ce87d9@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: "Robin Barker" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: RE: [blml] This week's defender play. ----------------------------------------------- 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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Perhaps, gentle reader, you would like to share in the following rarity. A report states: "Spades are trumps. Mid-way through the play declarer led a high-ish heart from his hand. LHO can ruff it if we wishes; this will be the correct thing to do if the heart is a winner, but the wrong thing to do if it is a loser. It is less than clear to LHO whether or not the heart is good. Whilst he's thinking, RHO prematurely plays a higher heart (i.e. a heart winner). So, LHO now knows not to ruff. Law 57A doesn't help declarer one bit - he'd like to force LHO to ruff, but 57A doesn't give him that option." Various suggested rulings surround application of Laws 12B, 72B1, 12A1. I have commented "Any card that is played and then becomes a penalty card is seemingly a withdrawn card? It appears to me that penalty cards of this genre are perhaps subject to Law 16C." ~ Grattan ~ +== _______________________________________________ There has previously been discussion that Law 47B allows/requires the withdrawal of card played out of turn "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal or simultaneous play". So L57A says the high heart is a penalty card, L47B says it is withdrawn (while the next two players in rotation play), L16C says withdrawn actions are unauthorised to OS, from the thinking ruffing and not ruffing are logical alternatives, and ruffing is the one not suggested by the high heart. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- +=+ Robin, You speak my mind. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 1 15:15:56 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:15:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) In-Reply-To: References: <006901c745ee$6b37f1f0$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070201090817.02ad3010@pop.starpower.net> At 08:03 AM 2/1/07, twm wrote: >That's a better description of the "totality of disclosable knowledge". >Most partnerships have agreements (which may be explicit or implicit and >are subject to regulation if conventional) - these agreements can often >be grouped together as "system". Then they have known disagreements (I >open 2N about half a point lighter than pard, he opens weak 2s of which >I marginally disapprove). These are basically matters of >style/judgement and might be described as "understandings" or >"disclosable disagreements" we have discussed the issues and failed to >come to agreement. On top of that there's partnership experience (e.g. >pard occasionally psychs his 1N overcalls when nv in 3rd) this too is >disclosable but is not a matter of agreement or understanding (we have >no systemic protection to deal with such psychs). "Agree: To come to an understanding or to terms." "Agreement: The state of being agreed." [both AHD] IOW, if you have "agreed to disagree" about something, you have an agreement on the subject. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 1 16:02:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] This week's defender play. In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9CFF1@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: Robin wrote: > > So L57A says the high heart is a penalty card, L47B says it is > withdrawn (while the next two players in rotation play), L16C says > withdrawn actions are unauthorised to OS, from the thinking ruffing > and not ruffing are logical alternatives, and ruffing is the one not > suggested by the high heart. Nevertheless the HK is a penalty card and the knowledge that it must be played to the current trick is AI - rendering ruffing not an LA. I would strongly suggest to declarer that he request a waiver of the PC provisions (the info from the withdrawn HK remains UI and ruffing will *then* be a non-suggested LA). (I'm assuming the option L57a3 that allows declarer to enforce either a ruff or a discard from a specific minor isn't helpful). I also feel a stonking great PP coming on regardless of any adjustment. Tim. From john at asimere.com Thu Feb 1 16:56:24 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:56:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) References: <006901c745ee$6b37f1f0$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20070201090817.02ad3010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005501c74619$86c172e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) > At 08:03 AM 2/1/07, twm wrote: > >>That's a better description of the "totality of disclosable knowledge". >>Most partnerships have agreements (which may be explicit or implicit and >>are subject to regulation if conventional) - these agreements can often >>be grouped together as "system". Then they have known disagreements (I >>open 2N about half a point lighter than pard, he opens weak 2s of which >>I marginally disapprove). These are basically matters of >>style/judgement and might be described as "understandings" or >>"disclosable disagreements" we have discussed the issues and failed to >>come to agreement. On top of that there's partnership experience (e.g. >>pard occasionally psychs his 1N overcalls when nv in 3rd) this too is >>disclosable but is not a matter of agreement or understanding (we have >>no systemic protection to deal with such psychs). > > "Agree: To come to an understanding or to terms." > > "Agreement: The state of being agreed." [both AHD] > > IOW, if you have "agreed to disagree" about something, you have an > agreement on the subject. Sure, but we're cherry picking. Tim knows I have a low frequency of 1NT psychic overcalls. Hediscloses this but it is not an agreement. If it were we would develop methods to handle it, as one does when developing a system. We could even legally play it AND have methods, but we choose not to play "sans atout comique". I overcall the occasional psychic 1NT because it works, and it doesn't matter whether partner's a p/u or a regular pard. The opponents gain more if it's a regular partnership as they get the disclosure. > > > Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Feb 1 18:50:25 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 06:50:25 +1300 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006901c745ee$6b37f1f0$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <006901c745ee$6b37f1f0$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560702010950p5a64c1fbv76509e4375873c6a@mail.gmail.com> On 01/02/07, 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: > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:08 AM > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In my opinion, it is only the meaning of calls > > and plays which are partnership understandings > > that need to be disclosed. The intended meaning > > of a call or play which is not a partnership > > understanding need not be disclosed. > > > +=+ But is not the totality of our agreed methods > a partnership understanding? - and do we not add > to it each time we make a call in a particular situation > for the first time and discover its intended meaning? No. At least that is not how it works in my partnership. We sometimes experiment with new calls or with new hand types in situations where we have an agreement. Sometimes we repeat these experiments. Sometimes this leads to new agreements or understandings sometimes it does not. Sometimes we discuss these situations sometimes we don't. Sometimes one experiment will lead to a new agreement but usually this will be accompanied by a discussion. Sometimes many similar experiments will lead to no agreement. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 1 18:53:24 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:53:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] This week's defender play. In-Reply-To: <006a01c745ee$6c47db50$fd9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c74629$e0360ab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............... > "Spades are trumps. Mid-way through the play > declarer led a high-ish heart from his hand. LHO > can ruff it if we wishes; this will be the correct > thing to do if the heart is a winner, but the wrong > thing to do if it is a loser. It is less than clear to > LHO whether or not the heart is good. Whilst > he's thinking, RHO prematurely plays a higher > heart (i.e. a heart winner). So, LHO now knows > not to ruff. Law 57A doesn't help declarer one > bit - he'd like to force LHO to ruff, but 57A > doesn't give him that option." > > Various suggested rulings surround application of > Laws 12B, 72B1, 12A1. I have commented > "Any card that is played and then becomes > a penalty card is seemingly a withdrawn card? > It appears to me that penalty cards of this genre > are perhaps subject to Law 16C." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." The premature play by RHO is not a legal play, thus information from this play is extraneous to LHO, and according to Law 16A LHO "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". This extraneous information strongly suggests that LHO does not choose to ruff, consequently the only way he can abide by Law 16A is to ruff. If he doesn't ruff then the Director should afterwards judge whether this infraction of Law 16A has damaged declarer, and if he finds that it probably did he should award an adjusted score. There is no need to invoke Law 16C! (A similarity to this case has since long been a standard item in the Norwegian TD qualifying courses.) Regards Sven. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 1 22:54:15 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:54:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006901c745ee$6b37f1f0$fd9a87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In my opinion, it is only the meaning of calls >>and plays which are partnership understandings >>that need to be disclosed. The intended meaning >>of a call or play which is not a partnership >>understanding need not be disclosed. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ But is not the totality of our agreed methods >a partnership understanding? - and do we not add >to it each time we make a call in a particular >situation for the first time and discover its >intended meaning? > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Of course. The totality of one's partnership understandings very often create an implicit partnership understanding about a call which has not yet been explicitly discussed by one's partnership. And even if the whole truth and nothing but the truth is "undiscussed" the first time partner perpetrates a particular call, the second time that such a particular perpetration occurs it is likely to now be a partnership understanding. So the longer one plays with a particular partner (or even with various partners amongst a particular like-minded group) the greater becomes the number of one's partnership understandings. The point that I am trying to make is that there is not any requirement to disclose anything that is not a partnership understanding. This is where I differ from Tim West-Meads and John (MadDog) Probst. Tim West-Meads: >>>>pard occasionally psychs his 1N overcalls >>>>when nv in 3rd) this too is disclosable but >>>>is not a matter of agreement or understanding >>>>(we have no systemic protection to deal with >>>>such psychs). John MadDog Probst: >>>Tim knows I have a low frequency of 1NT psychic >>>overcalls. He discloses this but it is not an >>>agreement. If it were we would develop methods >>>to handle it, as one does when developing a >>>system. Richard Hills: I disagree with Tim and John. In my opinion, if something is frequent enough to be disclosed, then it is frequent enough to be an implicit partnership agreement. It is irrelevant whether or not methods have been developed to handle 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." Richard Hills: Ergo, I would argue that what MadDog describes as his "psychic" 1NT overcall I would describe as his "revealed partnership understanding" 1NT overcall. The definition of a psyche says that it is a "gross misstatement"; it cannot be that if partner expects it to the extent of disclosing it. 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 twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 2 12:01:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070201090817.02ad3010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > "Agree: To come to an understanding or to terms." > > "Agreement: The state of being agreed." [both AHD] > > IOW, if you have "agreed to disagree" about something, you have an > agreement on the subject. Eric, there exists - in the light of L40E "including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." - a presumed non-empty set of understandings which do not constitute regulable agreements. My examples were intended to be members of that set - I am open to other suggestions for possible membership. Richard wrote: > I disagree with Tim and John. In my opinion, if > something is frequent enough to be disclosed, > then it is frequent enough to be an implicit > partnership agreement. The laws disagree with you. 73C "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". Again there is a presumed non-empty set of information conveyed through partnership experience rather than any sort of agreement. The WBF also disagrees - their CC requires explicit disclosure of experience of partner's psychic habits but does not allow one to base one's own bidding on such knowledge prior to exposure of the psych. A TD *might* rule that the frequency of such actions means the bid should be considered systemic (that's a judgement issue) but he may not so rule on the basis that *all* partnership experience is a matter of agreement. My own judgement (and John's) is that the experiential frequency is high enough to merit disclosure but not high enough to bother incorporating into our system/agreements. Tim From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 2 18:23:29 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:23:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) References: Message-ID: <002101c746ee$db428900$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) > Eric wrote: > >> "Agree: To come to an understanding or to terms." >> >> "Agreement: The state of being agreed." [both AHD] >> >> IOW, if you have "agreed to disagree" about something, you have an >> agreement on the subject. > > Eric, there exists - in the light of L40E "including a requirement that > both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation > must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." - > a presumed non-empty set of understandings which do not constitute > regulable agreements. My examples were intended to be members of that > set - I am open to other suggestions for possible membership. > > Richard wrote: >> I disagree with Tim and John. In my opinion, if >> something is frequent enough to be disclosed, >> then it is frequent enough to be an implicit >> partnership agreement. > > The laws disagree with you. 73C "a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership > experience". Again there is a presumed non-empty set of information > conveyed through partnership experience rather than any sort of > agreement. The WBF also disagrees - their CC requires explicit > disclosure of experience of partner's psychic habits but does not allow > one to base one's own bidding on such knowledge prior to exposure of the > psych. A TD *might* rule that the frequency of such actions means the > bid should be considered systemic (that's a judgement issue) but he may > not so rule on the basis that *all* partnership experience is a matter of > agreement. My own judgement (and John's) is that the experiential > frequency is high enough to merit disclosure but not high enough to > bother incorporating into our system/agreements. ... and very signicantly, it's a call that I could make much more often, but frequently don't bother, as I like to keep the frequency low. This means that opponents counter measures would be non-productive. If it were systemic, we would have to discuss when it was appropriate, and what the run outs are. Bear in mind that "sans atout comique" would be legal anyway, so we're on very firm ground here. I find it very frustrating that my propensities are not disclosable on an EBU CC. John > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rebecca at dptech.net Sat Feb 3 00:29:17 2007 From: rebecca at dptech.net (Rebecca) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:29:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c74721$f8138470$0101a8c0@rebecca> Who knew my little question would cause such a discussion! This even occurred in the recent Summer Festival of Bridge in Australia. The Director asked the offender several times about how the card ended up from her hand on to the table and the answer was always "I meant to grab the Kind of diamonds but instead grabbed the three of clubs". The Director ruled it a MPC since based on this description, it was careless not inadvertent. If she had said "I went to play the king and the three dropped out", no hassle, mpc, moving on. I really hope the new Laws fix issues like this. I know that, as Directors, we are paid to interpret and apply the Laws, however when the Laws lead themselves to multiple interpretations because of the language used in them, the result is a wide variety of rulings. By simplifying the laws in "plain English" the room for multiple interpretations is reduced (it is never zero however). FYI - the trick was corrected with the King of diamonds played. As offender was now on lead, the C3 was lead. End of situation. Poor declarer - she didn't want a club lead back through her hand, although the lead offender was going to make, that of a Spade, was just as bad. The end result was the same as if the situation had not occurred. Not a matter of law, but thought I'd add this tidbit anyway. Rebecca -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2007 5:42 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Feb 3 11:15:23 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:15:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000501c74721$f8138470$0101a8c0@rebecca> Message-ID: <003c01c74785$b378f660$91bc87d9@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: Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Who knew my little question would cause such a discussion! > +=+ Perhaps blml should have above the gate the inscription: "Abandon all hope (of a simple answer) ye who enter here" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 4 00:49:40 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:49:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone References: Message-ID: <000201c747ee$2cb5d0d0$40dd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] This week's defender play. >> Robin Barker wrote: >> >> So L57A says the high heart is a penalty card, L47B >> says it is withdrawn (while the next two players in rotation >> play), L16C says withdrawn actions are unauthorised to >> OS, from the thinking ruffing and not ruffing are logical > > alternatives, and ruffing is the one not suggested by the > > high heart. > > Tim commented: > Nevertheless the HK is a penalty card and the knowledge > that it must be played to the current trick is AI - rendering > ruffing not an LA. > +=+ A fine point. However, one may think that the relevant information here does not come from partner's "possession of a penalty card"*. The information that partner has a card capable of winning the trick derives from the action of the offending side that has been withdrawn - "its own withdrawn action" - Law 16C2 - as distinct from partner's possession of a penalty card (*WBFLC minute 3 of 24th August 1998). The WBFLC minute states that information based on sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorized, so that the information that RHO can take the trick is unauthorized to LHO). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 01:56:31 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:56:31 -0600 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone In-Reply-To: <000201c747ee$2cb5d0d0$40dd403e@Mildred> References: <000201c747ee$2cb5d0d0$40dd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702031656y2e1b9af3w702556efbead1a8a@mail.gmail.com> On 2/3/07, Grattan wrote: ...> (*WBFLC minute 3 of 24th August 1998). > The WBFLC minute states that information based on sight of > partner's penalty card is unauthorized, so that the information > that RHO can take the trick is unauthorized to LHO). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Unauthorized? Has anyone ever heard mention of this over here in ACBL land? Grattan, does this apply in ACBL land? Also, has there ever been an appeal or ruling that LHO made a disallowed play in the presence of this kind of UI? I would like to read the case. -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 4 06:50:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:50:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>second half of Law 40E1: >> >>".....including a requirement that both members of a partnership >>employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style >>and judgement, only method)." >> >>The problem with this Law is that it uses undefined terms such as >>the word "style" (and this word is not used anywhere else in the >>Lawbook), Eric Landau: >>>IOW, if you have "agreed to disagree" about something, you have >>>an agreement on the subject. Tim West-Meads: >Eric, there exists - in the light of L40E [see above - RJH] >..... >a presumed non-empty set of understandings which do not constitute >regulable agreements. Richard Hills: >>I disagree with Tim and John. In my opinion, if something is >>frequent enough to be disclosed, then it is frequent enough to be >>an implicit partnership agreement. Tim West-Meads: >The laws disagree with you. 75C "a player shall disclose all >special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement >or partnership experience". Again there is a presumed non-empty >set of information conveyed through partnership experience rather >than any sort of agreement. Richard Hills: I still disagree with Tim on his three main points. **Imprimis** To say that a particular type of agreement - "style" - may not be restricted by regulation is _not_ the same as saying that "style" is not an agreement. Ergo, I back Eric's point that agreeing to disagree creates an agreement, which therefore must be disclosed. **Secundus** Tim says that 15-17 hcp balanced is the normal meaning of MadDog's 1NT overcall, but as a matter of "style" the meaning of the 1NT overcall may be varied to 5-9 hcp with an unspecified 6-card suit. It seems to me that this stretched-like-a-rubber-band quibbling interpretation of "style" is contrary to the intentions of the drafters of the Laws. Rather, it seems to me that the intent was to legally permit a player to adopt the "style" of using "judgement" in hand evaluation. For example, if a player held a balanced 18 hcp mostly consisting of scattered honours with poor pips they could stylishly judge to downgrade to a 15-17 1NT overcall. Likewise any superb balanced 14 hcp with concentrated quick tricks and plenty of tens and nines could be stylishly judged to be upgraded to a 15-17 1NT overcall. But "gross" is not "style". So therefore, since a true psyche is defined as "a gross misstatement", Law 40E1 does not apply to any decision to psyche (Law 40A is the relevant Law instead). However, as implied in my initial posting above, I believe that it would be useful if the phrase "style and judgement" was defined in the 2008 Definitions so as to prevent any sea-lawyer quibbling. **Tertius** It seems to me that Tim has yet again sea-lawyered a quibbling misinterpretation of the intent of Law 75C. My interpretation of "the non-empty set of information" left open by Law 75C is that it is merely the special information that a player gets by seeing the cards in their own hand. Corroboration for my interpretation is in the Law 75 footnote, "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands". 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 Sun Feb 4 07:19:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:19:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101c746ee$db428900$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >... and very significantly, it's a call that I could >make much more often, but frequently don't bother, as I >like to keep the frequency low. [snip] >I find it very frustrating that my propensities are not >disclosable on an EBU CC. John Richard Hills: In my opinion, the demilitarised zone marking the border between a true psyche and a partnership understanding has its landmines labelled "frequency" and its barbed wire fences labelled "variability". When I psyche, I try to keep the frequency very very low, and the nature of the psyche very very variable (each psyche I make in the same partnership is different from the previous psyches I have made in that partnership). For example, a few days ago I psyched for the first time in a partnership where my partner and I had an explicit agreement that I would never psyche. I opened a Multi 2D with a "weak" two in spades which contained a very nice 12 hcp (shades of Al Roth, except that he may well have used his "style" and "judgement" to revalue the 12 hcp to 14 hcp, and then he might have decided to reluctantly open at the one-level anyway). I had picked my victim well. Since my 2D opening was perpetrated after two passes, LHO (who held a grotty hand with merely 9 hcp) suspected that my Multi was based on its strong option, 21-22 hcp balanced. So, as a lead- directing manoeuvre he overcalled 3D on ace-king to five. But, after another pass by my pard, RHO with maximum passed-hand values tried a forward-going 3S, angling for 3NT. I passed content, and LHO passed before any doubling started. So I picked up +400 defending 3S by RHO, who found the 6-2 bad break distressing. Meanwhile, the rest of the field played a spade partscore the other way, but some of them failed due to a mere 4-1 bad break. :-) 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 emu at fwi.net.au Sun Feb 4 13:27:04 2007 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 23:27:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003c01c74785$b378f660$91bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c74857$c8c7f250$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> > +=+ Perhaps blml should have above the gate the inscription: "Abandon all hope (of a simple answer) ye who enter here" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Some might say, "any" answer... ;-) But I watch, wait and continue to hope. Regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Feb 4 13:46:31 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:46:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone References: <000201c747ee$2cb5d0d0$40dd403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0702031656y2e1b9af3w702556efbead1a8a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003501c7485a$d5849180$12ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Turn but a stone > On 2/3/07, Grattan wrote: > ...> (*WBFLC minute 3 of 24th August 1998). > > The WBFLC minute states that information > > based on sight of partner's penalty card is > > unauthorized, so that the information that RHO > > can take the trick is unauthorized to LHO). > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Unauthorized? Has anyone ever heard mention > of this over here in ACBL land? Grattan, does > this apply in ACBL land? Also, has there ever > been an appeal or ruling that LHO made a > disallowed play in the presence of this kind of UI? > I would like to read the case. > > -Jerry Fusselman > +=+ I think it might be injudicious were I to start telling the ACBL what its practices are. I prefer to learn such things from colleagues who are of the ACBL. I do belong to a school that acknowledges the differences in practice and application of bridge law in various parts of the world - and primarily as between Zones 1 and 2. I see nothing strange or undesirable in this, and when working for the WBF I look for the means to accommodate divergence and not to confront it. The minute reads: "The committee considered the question of information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from KQJx when partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorized so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative". Of the seven committee members present, four were ACBL members - Virgil Anderson, Joan Gerard, the late Robert Howes, and William Schoder. As a guest Richard Colker was there, and for part of the meeting Chip Martel and Barbara Nudelman. I do not know if note was taken of the subject in Zone 2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Feb 4 18:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone In-Reply-To: <000201c747ee$2cb5d0d0$40dd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > Tim commented: > > Nevertheless the HK is a penalty card and the knowledge > > that it must be played to the current trick is AI - rendering > > ruffing not an LA. > > > +=+ A fine point. It may indeed by a fine point but it is neither delicate nor ambiguous. If the HK remains as a PC it is AI that the HK must be played on the current trick - that's inherent in the PC ruling itself rather than information arising from the withdrawn action. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Feb 4 18:41:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > **Imprimis** > To say that a particular type of agreement - "style" - may not be > restricted by regulation is _not_ the same as saying that "style" > is not an agreement. Ergo, I back Eric's point that agreeing to > disagree creates an agreement, which therefore must be disclosed. When have I have ever implied that such things need not be disclosed? There are three categories of disclosable material (and I am not that concerned how we label them but given the current usage in law I go with: 1. "Agreements": Tend to be systemic in nature, regulable 2. "Understandings": Tend to be stylistic in nature and not regulable 3. "Experience": Knowledge additional to 1&2 above. > Tim says that 15-17 hcp balanced is the normal meaning of MadDog's > 1NT overcall, but as a matter of "style" the meaning of the 1NT > overcall may be varied to 5-9 hcp with an unspecified 6-card suit. I said nothing of the sort. John's occasional aberrations are not matters of style or judgement - they are gross violations of system in a manner I have become aware of through experience. In terms of "what is disclosable?" everything listed above is disclosable. The only issue (and that is one for SOs) is how should such information be disclosed. The "default" is that it should all be disclosed in answer to questions (as per L75c). The specific is that most SOs require particular subsets of disclosable information to be explicit disclosed in various ways (CCs, alerts, announcements, pre-announcements, post-alerts) or whatever. The totality of what I must disclose varies not one iota regardless of SO regulations - only the detail of how/when changes. > It seems to me that Tim has yet again sea-lawyered a quibbling > misinterpretation of the intent of Law 75C. It is you who quibble. I maintain the reason L75C says "..agreement and experience.." is because if the words "..and experience.." were left out then there would be less information required to be disclosed. > Corroboration for my interpretation is > in the Law 75 footnote, "they have no claim to an accurate > description of the North-South hands". So what? They are still entitled to disclosure of information about the hands based on relevant partnership experience. If you ask John "Does Tim's 1N tend to deny a five card major?" It shouldn't matter at all whether we have discussed the issue or come to any agreement about it - you should get the answer "No, he'll usually open 1N on 5332 shape even with a good 5cM (unless he has xxx,xx in two side suits)" because he *knows* that is the case. Tim > > **Secundus** > Tim says that 15-17 hcp balanced is the normal meaning of MadDog's > 1NT overcall, but as a matter of "style" the meaning of the 1NT > overcall may be varied to 5-9 hcp with an unspecified 6-card suit. > > It seems to me that this stretched-like-a-rubber-band quibbling > interpretation of "style" is contrary to the intentions of the > drafters of the Laws. Rather, it seems to me that the intent was > to legally permit a player to adopt the "style" of using > "judgement" in hand evaluation. > > For example, if a player held a balanced 18 hcp mostly consisting > of scattered honours with poor pips they could stylishly judge to > downgrade to a 15-17 1NT overcall. Likewise any superb balanced > 14 hcp with concentrated quick tricks and plenty of tens and nines > could be stylishly judged to be upgraded to a 15-17 1NT overcall. > > But "gross" is not "style". So therefore, since a true psyche is > defined as "a gross misstatement", Law 40E1 does not apply to any > decision to psyche (Law 40A is the relevant Law instead). > > However, as implied in my initial posting above, I believe that it > would be useful if the phrase "style and judgement" was defined in > the 2008 Definitions so as to prevent any sea-lawyer quibbling. > > **Tertius** > It seems to me that Tim has yet again sea-lawyered a quibbling > misinterpretation of the intent of Law 75C. My interpretation of > "the non-empty set of information" left open by Law 75C is that it > is merely the special information that a player gets by seeing the > cards in their own hand. Corroboration for my interpretation is > in the Law 75 footnote, "they have no claim to an accurate > description of the North-South hands". > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 4 22:46:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:46:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >There are three categories of disclosable material (and I am not that >concerned how we label them but given the current usage in law I go >with: > >1. "Agreements": Tend to be systemic in nature, regulable >2. "Understandings": Tend to be stylistic in nature and not regulable >3. "Experience": Knowledge additional to 1&2 above. Richard Hills: >>Tim says that 15-17 hcp balanced is the normal meaning of MadDog's >>1NT overcall, but as a matter of "style" the meaning of the 1NT >>overcall may be varied to 5-9 hcp with an unspecified 6-card suit. Tim West-Meads: >I said nothing of the sort. John's occasional aberrations are not >matters of style or judgement - they are gross violations of system >in a manner I have become aware of through experience. Richard Hills: My apologies; I misconstrued the nature of Tim's argument, so our differences of philosophy are fewer than I originally thought. In my opinion there is only one category of disclosable material; "partnership understandings". In my opinion subsets of "partnership understandings" include "partnership agreements" and "partnership experience". So therefore, in my opinion, it is a contradiction in terms to state: "gross violations of system in a manner I have become aware of through experience." For what it is worth, I believe it is more useful to have a reputation as a psycher than to actually psyche. I recently completed a marathon at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, with my deals played being: 128 in the Last Train 68 in the Men's Pairs 64 in the Swiss Pairs 180 (out of a possible 280 - I showed a modicum of sense by electing to play in a team-of-six) in the Southwest Pacific Teams 16 (out of a possible 32) in the National Open Teams Round-of-16 6 (as a substitute) in the Speedball Teams Not until the Speedball Teams did I get around to psyching. And even then it was immediately obvious to my three opponents that I had probably psyched, since I opened 6NT as dealer. Full details at: http://www.abf.com.au/events/not/2007/bulletins/12sun28.pdf 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 Sun Feb 4 23:22:24 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:22:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) In-Reply-To: <200702011506.l11F61do013537@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200702011506.l11F61do013537@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45C65CA0.9010703@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au [L40E1 in part] > ".....including a requirement that both members of a partnership > employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and > judgement, only method)." > > The problem with this Law is that it uses undefined terms such as the > word "style" (and this word is not used anywhere else in the Lawbook), That's exactly the problem. No one contests that "everything" must be disclosed; the question is what may be regulated. > Are "style" and "system" both partnership understandings? People seem to lose all rationality when psychs are discussed, so let's discuss a simpler question. The ACBL has a requirement that both partners must play the same system. Suppose my partner and I have different habits when 4=5 in the minors. One of us always opens 1D, and the other always opens 1C. We've discussed it and simply can't agree. There's no doubt at all that this situation -- whether you call it "understanding," "agreement," or something else -- must be disclosed. But are we violating the rules about playing the same system? (I'm not aware of any official ACBL interpretation on the matter. As a practical answer, nobody objects to this practice. And further, it's an illustration only, not applicable to present regular partnership, which plays strong club.) > In my opinion, the demilitarised zone marking the border > between a true psyche and a partnership understanding has > its landmines labelled "frequency" and its barbed wire > fences labelled "variability". I have a very different opinion, but let's concentrate on the issue above. Here the frequency is 100%. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Feb 4 23:31:19 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:31:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone Message-ID: <45C65EB7.3060704@cfa.harvard.edu> [defender drops a card before his partner has played] As I recall, I asked this very question many years ago -- in particular, before 1997. In those days, there was no satisfactory answer. Now there is: L72B1 seems exactly on point. Of course we all want to rule against the villain who solves partner's problem via an infraction, but let's use the correct law to do it, not torture the UI rules out of all recognition. > The minute reads: > "The committee considered the question of > information arising from possession of a penalty > card. Information that the player must play the > penalty card as the law requires is authorised and > partner may choose the card to lead from the suit > on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small > from KQJx when partner's penalty card is the Ace). This seems perfectly clear. It is AI to the player in second seat that if he discards, partner's card will win the trick. So use a different law. > Information based on sight of partner's penalty card > is unauthorized so that, for example, the player may > not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by > the penalty card and play of a different suit is a > logical alternative". Many of us wrote at the time that this part of the minute was very hard to understand. Of course the real problem -- and you've heard this before -- is the attempt to mix mechanical and UI penalties. Either one would be OK, but the mixture is very hard to apply. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Feb 4 23:37:04 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:37:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <200701311522.l0VFMpFS027155@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200701311522.l0VFMpFS027155@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45C66010.4020907@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> why not make the bidding box rules similar to SW> those of declarer playing a card? > From: Herman De Wael > 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? Oh, come on, Herman. You direct a lot. How often do you face a dispute over whether declaer's card is played? And how often is it a difficult ruling? The point is to eliminate intent from the ruling. Yes, accidents and fumbles happen with bidding cards, but they don't typically result in an unintended bidding card "held touching or nearly touching the table." And even that frequency would go to nearly zero if players knew they couldn't have any "take-backs." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 5 01:44:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:44:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45C65CA0.9010703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>second half of Law 40E1: >> >>".....including a requirement that both members of a partnership >>employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style >>and judgement, only method)." >> >>The problem with this Law is that it uses undefined terms such as >>the word "style" (and this word is not used anywhere else in the >>Lawbook), [snip] >>Are "style" and "system" both partnership understandings? Steve Willner: >People seem to lose all rationality when psychs are discussed, so >let's discuss a simpler question. The ACBL has a requirement that >both partners must play the same system. Suppose my partner and I >have different habits when 4=5 in the minors. One of us always >opens 1D, and the other always opens 1C. We've discussed it and >simply can't agree. > >There's no doubt at all that this situation -- whether you call it >"understanding," "agreement," or something else -- must be >disclosed. > >But are we violating the rules about playing the same system? (I'm >not aware of any official ACBL interpretation on the matter. As a >practical answer, nobody objects to this practice. And further, >it's an illustration only, not applicable to present regular >partnership, which plays strong club.) Pocket Oxford Dictionary, inter alia: "style, n. manner of writing or speaking especially as opposed to the matter, distinctive manner of an artist" Richard Hills: I would argue that _always_ opening 1D with 4-5 is definitely an issue of "matter", while using artistry to open 1D with S xx H xx D AKQJ C Kxxxx is an issue of "manner". Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 5 02:26:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:26:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c74857$c8c7f250$0201a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>+=+ Perhaps blml should have above the gate the inscription: >> "Abandon all hope (of a simple answer) ye who enter here" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >Some might say, "any" answer... > >;-) > >But I watch, wait and continue to hope. > >Regards, >Noel Edmund Burke (1729-1797): Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour. Best wishes Richard James Hills, insect 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 Mon Feb 5 05:46:07 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 04:46:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004601c748e0$8d0a38c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > So what? They are still entitled to disclosure of information about the > hands based on relevant partnership experience. If you ask John "Does > Tim's 1N tend to deny a five card major?" It shouldn't matter at all > whether we have discussed the issue or come to any agreement about it - > you should get the answer "No, he'll usually open 1N on 5332 shape even > with a good 5cM (unless he has xxx,xx in two side suits)" because he > *knows* that is the case. > > Tim > He also opens 5431's with 1NT when he thinks that one of the suits is unbiddable, and occasionally 6322's where his honours are outside the long suit. He'll open a lot of 4441's 1NT too. Where's the problem with disclosing this? John > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 5 06:03:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:03:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45C65EB7.3060704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minute 3 of 24th August 1998: >> "The committee considered the question of >>information arising from possession of a penalty >>card. Information that the player must play the >>penalty card as the law requires is authorised and >>partner may choose the card to lead from the suit >>on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small >>from KQJx when partner's penalty card is the Ace). [snip] Steve Willner: >This seems perfectly clear. It is AI to the player >in second seat that if he discards, partner's card >will win the trick. So use a different law. Richard Hills: No, I would argue "so write a different minute". It seems to me that the quoted section of the minute is directly contrary to Law 16C2, therefore ultra vires. Law 16C2: "A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non-offending side after an opponent's infraction or by an offending side to rectify an infraction. For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information." Richard Hills: All penalty cards are initially created by the withdrawal of a card, either because the card is withdrawn due to being a non-established revoke, or because the card is withdrawn due to a play out of turn not being accepted by declarer. (Yes, I know that Law 24 is the exception which tests the rule, since cards exposed during the auction cannot be withdrawn as such, given that tricks are not played during the auction.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 5 06:45:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:45:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601c748e0$8d0a38c0$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >He also opens 5431's with 1NT when he thinks that one of the suits is >unbiddable, and occasionally 6322's where his honours are outside the >long suit. He'll open a lot of 4441's 1NT too. Where's the problem with >disclosing this? John Richard Hills: None whatsoever. We seem to be talking at cross-purposes; I fully agree with the highly ethical disclosure policy of Tim and MadDog. Where we disagree is that I am arguing that they are inconsistently choosing a "having your cake and eat it" philosophy on true psyches. It seems to me that Tim and MadDog believe that true psyches can be disclosed whenever past relevant partnership experience has occurred. But I believe that if there is sufficient past relevant partnership experience to trigger disclosure, then a true psyche transmogrifies into a pseudo-psychic partnership understanding. That is, in my opinion, a true psyche comes as a complete surprise to all three opponents, not merely two of them. And, of course, if local regulations prohibit a systemic 4441 1NT opening and permit a psychic 4441 1NT opening, then Tim and MadDog are out of luck. By ethically disclosing their 4441 tendencies, they would then automatically receive an "illegal convention" ruling if I was their local director. Sometimes virtue has to be its own reward. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (02) 6225 6285 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 Mon Feb 5 09:46:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:46:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <45C66010.4020907@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200701311522.l0VFMpFS027155@cfa.harvard.edu> <45C66010.4020907@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45C6EEEA.4010901@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > SW> why not make the bidding box rules similar to > SW> those of declarer playing a card? > >> From: Herman De Wael >> 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? > > Oh, come on, Herman. You direct a lot. How often do you face a dispute > over whether declaer's card is played? And how often is it a difficult > ruling? > I don't see the point you are coming from. Yes, those rulings happen, and no, they do not pose a large problem. > The point is to eliminate intent from the ruling. Yes, accidents and > fumbles happen with bidding cards, but they don't typically result in an > unintended bidding card "held touching or nearly touching the table." > And even that frequency would go to nearly zero if players knew they > couldn't have any "take-backs." > But the point remains that it is a clumsy thing. And to strengthen the rules to the point of making some clumsy actions into "made bids" (with added UI that they were not intended) makes for bad regulation. And then I don't mind having to decide upon intention once or twice. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 5 10:12:28 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:12:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003c01c74905$d505a6d0$74be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > All penalty cards are initially created by the > withdrawal of a card, . > +=+ True if the card has been played. Cards exposed accidentally? ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 5 12:25:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone In-Reply-To: <45C65EB7.3060704@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > This seems perfectly clear. It is AI to the player in second seat > that if he discards, partner's card will win the trick. So use a > different law. I'll happily use "could have known" to adjust the score afterwards should it prove necessary, but I'd rather just explain the benefits (to NOS) of waiving the PC along with the UI obligations on OS and get a fair result at the table. Regardless of which of those options I choose NOS are not entitled to the windfall result of ruff AND HK must be played. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 5 12:25:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Psyches & deviations) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > It seems to me that Tim and MadDog believe that true psyches can be > disclosed whenever past relevant partnership experience has occurred. I can seldom disclose *when* MadDog has psyched based on a single bid (he doesn't have any "tells"). I can only disclose that in certain sequences he is, insofar as I am aware, slightly more likely to psych than would a stranger of similar experience. I consider "Systemically 15-18 balanced but very occasionally he does it on a weak hand with a 6 card suit" to be a more accurate description than "Systemically 15-18 balanced or weak with a 6-card suit". Opponents would, IMO, be misled by the latter description into thinking our system was in some way designed to handle the weak variant. Even if we label this a "partnership understanding" (and I still don't think we should) it doesn't actually make any difference. When John chooses to bid with the weak type his choice isn't *based* on an expectation that I will realise he has done so. Indeed his expectation is that I will bid according to our systemic agreements. > By ethically disclosing their 4441 tendencies, they would then > automatically receive an "illegal convention" ruling if I was their > local director. And I'd have to sack you as a director until you learnt what a convention was ;) Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 5 14:27:32 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:27:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003c01c74905$d505a6d0$74be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ***************************** > "The angels keep their ancient places; > - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! > 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces > That miss the many-splendoured thing." > [Francis Thompson] > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> Richard Hills: >> >> All penalty cards are initially created by the >> withdrawal of a card, . >> > +=+ True if the card has been played. Cards exposed > accidentally? ~ G ~ +=+ Consider also the defender that plays a club on a spade at T3. Then during T4 when it is not in time to correct he announced, 'I have a spade'. It not being as clear if he instead announced, 'I revoked last trick.' regards, roger pewick From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 5 18:02:40 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:02:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45C76330.3070206@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Perhaps blml should have above the gate the inscription: "Abandon all hope (of a simple answer) ye who enter here" [nige1] It is true that BLML contributors (including Law-makers and National directors) often disagree about the correct ruling on simple cases with agreed facts. Often this results from different interpretations of basic *rules* i.e. laws, regulations, etc... Arguably this is not a reflection on the quality of contributions but is an indictment of present rules. IMO they are incomplete, too sophisticated and over-subjective. Hence, Grattan's quotation fits the current set of rules. Let us hope it will be less apt for the next set. If you dip into the current rules you sometimes feel that they are *deliberately* ambiguous. The impression is that law-makers disagreed and neither side would budge. So the protagonists agreed on a woolly compromise that could be interpreted to accord with their conflicting positions. This would be a disservice to directors and completely unfair to players. I reckon that players would prefer that law-makers tossed a coin rather than descend to such a dishonourable fudge. Please let there be no hint of this kind of compromise in the new edition of the laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 5 22:47:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:47:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003c01c74905$d505a6d0$74be87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>All penalty cards are initially created by the >>withdrawal of a card, Grattan Endicott: >+=+ True if the card has been played. Cards exposed >accidentally? ~ G ~ +=+ Law 45C1: "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be **played** to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E)." Law 45E1: "A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies." Law 50: "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise....." Richard Hills: It seems to me that accidental exposure is only relevant to the issue of whether a penalty card is major or minor. It seems to me that accidental exposure is not relevant to the debate about whether all penalty cards are initially created by the withdrawal of a card. The problem, of course, is that when the current Law 16C2 (Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays - Offending Side) was inserted into the 1997 Lawbook the internet was still in its infancy. Therefore, there was insufficient workshopping of the rest of the Lawbook to make sure that all other Laws were amended to be fully consistent with the new Law 16C2. Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 6 01:09:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:09:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads asserted: >I'll happily use "could have known" to adjust the score afterwards >should it prove necessary, but I'd rather just explain the benefits >(to NOS) of waiving the PC along with the UI obligations on OS and >get a fair result at the table. Richard Hills quibbles: Law 10C1 requires the Director to explain all the options. Law 72A4 permits the non-offending side to select an advantageous option. But for the Director to explain to the non-offending side the benefit of them selecting a particular option is extraneous to Law. It seems to me that such an extraneous action by the Director is contrary to the nature of the game. Tim West-Meads asserted: >Regardless of which of those options I choose NOS are not entitled >to the windfall result of ruff AND HK must be played. Richard Hills quibbles: I am uncomfortable with the word "windfall". In my opinion, that word has often been used to deny the non-offending side what they are entitled by Law. For example, in the ACBL the concept of "windfall" has been used by some senior personalities to suggest that a Yankee Reveley ruling is appropriate. In the basic English Reveley ruling (now specifically outlawed by a decision of the EBU Law & Ethics Committee) a Law 12C3 adjustment can include in its weighted results an assumption that some of the time a demonstrably suggested logical alternative is legal. In the suggested Yankee version of a Reveley ruling, the concept of legality may be split when a Law 12C2 adjustment is split. For the offending side, their demonstrably suggested logical alternative is correctly deemed to be OS-illegal. But to prevent a "windfall" for the non-offending side, the offending side's demonstrably suggested logical alternative is deemed to be NOS-legal. For example, the non- offending side is awarded +300 defending 4Sx, a score which is an average due to having occurred at all other tables, rather than the "windfall" of +620 in 4H for a top when UI demonstrably suggests the save and a pass is just barely a logical alternative. (Meanwhile the offending side is correctly awarded -620.) The problem with the Yankee Reveley ruling is that a non-offending side gets a "windfall" of +620 when their opponents obey Law 16 and Law 73C, but gets a "downfall" of +300 opposite careless opponents who accidentally infract Law 16 and Law 73C. Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 6 01:47:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:47:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Elephant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45C76330.3070206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Perhaps blml should have above the gate the inscription: >> "Abandon all hope (of a simple answer) ye who enter here" Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Arguably this is not a reflection on the quality of [blml] >contributions but is an indictment of present rules. [snip] >If you dip into the current rules you sometimes feel that they >are *deliberately* ambiguous. [snip] >Please let there be no hint of this kind of compromise in the >new edition of the laws. Richard Hills: Firstly, it is way too easy to inadvertently write an ambiguous set of rules (see the discussions on the strategy boardgame equivalent of rec.games.bridge, BoardGameGeek). Therefore, the facts do not justify an assumption that the Duplicate Laws were _deliberately_ drafted with ambiguity. Secondly, it is irrelevant whether or not a few of the many ambiguities in the 1997 Lawbook were deliberately introduced. What is important is that all ambiguities are eradicated from the forthcoming 2008 Lawbook. Thirdly, I think Nigel's "arguably" can indeed be argued against. In my opinion, no matter how carefully the Drafting Committee concludes its elephantine task, there will be blind blmlers who will choose to interpret the 2008 Lawbook not as the intended elephant, but instead as a wall, spear, snake, tree, fan or rope. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division (02) 6225 6285 John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887): >It was six men of Indostan >To learning much inclined, >Who went to see the Elephant >(Though all of them were blind), >That each by observation >Might satisfy his mind. > >The First approached the Elephant, >And happening to fall >Against his broad and sturdy side, >At once began to bawl: >"God bless me! but the Elephant >Is very like a wall!" > >The Second, feeling of the tusk >Cried, "Ho! what have we here, >So very round and smooth and sharp? >To me 'tis mighty clear >This wonder of an Elephant >Is very like a spear!" > >The Third approached the animal, >And happening to take >The squirming trunk within his hands, >Thus boldly up he spake: >"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant >Is very like a snake!" > >The Fourth reached out an eager hand, >And felt about the knee: >"What most this wondrous beast is like >Is mighty plain," quoth he; >"'Tis clear enough the Elephant >Is very like a tree!" > >The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, >Said: "E'en the blindest man >Can tell what this resembles most; >Deny the fact who can, >This marvel of an Elephant >Is very like a fan!" > >The Sixth no sooner had begun >About the beast to grope, >Than, seizing on the swinging tail >That fell within his scope. >"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant >Is very like a rope!" > >And so these men of Indostan >Disputed loud and long, >Each in his own opinion >Exceeding stiff and strong, >Though each was partly in the right, >And all were in the wrong! > >Moral: > >So oft in theologic wars, >The disputants, I ween, >Rail on in utter ignorance >Of what each other mean, >And prate about an Elephant >Not one of them has seen! 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 Feb 7 02:59:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:59:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills blml posting 14th May 2004: Context plays a part in subconsciously biasing a player's selection of logical alternatives. But context might also play a part in subconsciously biasing a TD away from the requirement of an impartial judgement of the facts. When the first Groundhog Day problem was proposed to the Australian Bridge Directors' panel, South had chosen a successful 6H alternative, which some panellists thought was not a logical alternative. Did this context subconsciously bias some panellists into ruling that North's hesitation was a demonstrable suggestion? E.g. -> David Stevenson: [snip] >>>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. [snip] When the second Groundhog Day problem was proposed to the blml panel, South had chosen a successful Pass, and the East-West pair were seemingly trying to sea-lawyer their way out of a bad result. Did this context subconsciously bias some panellists into ruling that North's hesitation did *not* suggest anything? E.g. -> Herman De Wael: >>By asking for two adjustments at once, EW >>tell us they cannot tell which of the >>alternatives is suggested by the >>hesitation. Therefore, no alternative >>can be said to be _demonstrably_ >>suggested by the hesitation. Thus, no UI >>infraction. [snip] Two identical South hands, two identical auctions to South's crucial decision, with two identical hesitations by North. In one context, a very respected TD had no difficulty in ruling that North's hesitation was a demonstrable suggestion. In another context, a very respected TD had no difficulty in ruling that North's hesitation was *not* a demonstrable suggestion. Did these two very respected TDs rule in accordance with an objective assessment of what the hesitation demonstrably suggested? Or did these two very respected TDs rule in accordance with their little lists, due to a subconscious bias caused by context? W.S. Gilbert: >As some day it must happen > that a victim must be found, >I've got a little list - > I've got a little list >Of society offenders > who might well be under ground >And who never would be missed - > who never would be missed! Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division Department of Immigration and Citizenship (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 7 03:27:26 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:27:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Groundhog Day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills blml posting 14th May 2004: >Context plays a part in subconsciously >biasing a player's selection of logical >alternatives. But context might also play a >part in subconsciously biasing a TD away >from the requirement of an impartial >judgement of the facts. [big snip] Richard Hills blml posting 7th February 2007: Screens are used in some bridge events to filter out extraneous information. And screens are used by some orchestras, for the same reason, when recruiting new employees. Malcolm Gladwell, Blink, pages 245-248: >>There were thirty-three candidates, and >>each played behind a screen, making them >>invisible to the selection committee. [snip] >>so for the sake of fairness, the >>Philharmonic decided to make the first >>round of auditions blind. Conant was >>number sixteen. She played Ferdinand >>David's Konzertino for Trombone, which is >>the warhorse audition piece in Germany [snip] >>After she left the audition room, the >>Philharmonic's music director, Sergiu >>Celibidache, cried out, "That's who we >>want!" [snip] >>when she stepped out from behind the >>screen she heard the Bavarian equivalent of >>whoa. "Was ist'n des? Sacra di! Meine >>Goetter! Um Gottes willen!" They were >>expecting Herr Conant. This was Frau >>Conant. [snip] >>The Munich Philharmonic had one or two >>women on the violin and oboe. But those >>were "feminine" instruments. The trombone >>is masculine. [snip] >>Conant had no choice but to take the case to >>court. [snip] >>But then another round of battles began - >>that would last another five years - >>because the orchestra refused to pay her on >>a par with her male colleagues. She won, >>again. She prevailed on every charge, and >>she prevailed because she could mount an >>argument that the Munich Philharmonic could >>not rebut. Sergiu Celibidache, the man >>complaining about her ability, had listened >>to her play Ferdinand David's Konzertino for >>Trombone under conditions of perfect >>objectivity, and in that unbiased moment he >>had said, "That's who we want!" and sent the >>remaining trombonists packing. Abbie Conant >>was saved by the screen. Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division Department of Immigration and Citizenship (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 7 10:35:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards Message-ID: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> Hi all, I guess most of you are familiar with Patton-style scoring. It's a combination of board-a-match and teams play. In France, where the system is played the most, the teams play is rated on a scale that requires lots of adding, subtracting and even a division. The dutch have opted for a more logical method of using IMPs to create the teams part of the score. Does anyone have optimum IMP-scales for 2/3/4 board "matches"? The VP should balance to 4/6/8 points - so as to equal the 4/6/8 MP available on the board-a-match part of the calculation. Preferably statistically-influenced methods please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 7 10:26:56 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:26:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45C76330.3070206@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c74aa1$5f1e7490$52a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > If you dip into the current rules you sometimes feel that they are > *deliberately* ambiguous. The impression is that law-makers disagreed > and neither side would budge. So the protagonists agreed on a woolly > compromise that could be interpreted to accord with their conflicting > positions. This would be a disservice to directors and completely unfair > to players. I reckon that players would prefer that law-makers tossed a > coin rather than descend to such a dishonourable fudge. Please let there > be no hint of this kind of compromise in the new edition of the laws. > +=+ It is certainly the aim now that any compromise should not be "woolly". At times Edgar foresaw the danger that a law which the committee was intent on installing would not go down well on his home patch. In consequence he sometimes looked for wording that would allow of latitude in application. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Feb 7 13:40:59 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:40:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9CFFB@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Herman Negative response: the EBU does not recommend VP scales for 2/3/4 board matches and does not publish any. Sorry Robin -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 07 February 2007 09:35 To: blml Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards Hi all, I guess most of you are familiar with Patton-style scoring. It's a combination of board-a-match and teams play. In France, where the system is played the most, the teams play is rated on a scale that requires lots of adding, subtracting and even a division. The dutch have opted for a more logical method of using IMPs to create the teams part of the score. Does anyone have optimum IMP-scales for 2/3/4 board "matches"? The VP should balance to 4/6/8 points - so as to equal the 4/6/8 MP available on the board-a-match part of the calculation. Preferably statistically-influenced methods please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Feb 7 14:54:42 2007 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:54:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9CFFB@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000601c74abf$85a68440$805b0d52@AnnesComputer> White Book 2004 161.1 and 161.8 (While the use is not recommended - the scale is published.) Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards > > Herman > > Negative response: the EBU does not recommend VP scales for 2/3/4 board > matches and does not publish any. > > Sorry > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 07 February 2007 09:35 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards > > > Hi all, > > I guess most of you are familiar with Patton-style scoring. > It's a combination of board-a-match and teams play. > > In France, where the system is played the most, the teams play is > rated on a scale that requires lots of adding, subtracting and even a > division. > > The dutch have opted for a more logical method of using IMPs to create > the teams part of the score. > > Does anyone have optimum IMP-scales for 2/3/4 board "matches"? The VP > should balance to 4/6/8 points - so as to equal the 4/6/8 MP available > on the board-a-match part of the calculation. > > Preferably statistically-influenced methods please. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, > Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 7 22:15:03 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:15:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45C99D44.70108@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I guess most of you are familiar with Patton-style scoring. >It's a combination of board-a-match and teams play. Richard Hills (off-topic comment): According to general expert American opinion, board-a-match teams involves more skill and less luck than imp teams. Part of the reason is that each board in BAM is of equal weight, while a single wildly distributional board at imps can decide an entire match. Another part of the reason is that sloppy declarer play and sloppy defence are not appropriately penalised at imps if it is merely a matter of overtricks in a cold contract. This is why imped Swiss teams events have mostly replaced BAM teams events in the USA over the past forty years. A weaker team can get lucky in a short imp match, and often beat a stronger team. But the stronger team almost invariably beats the weaker team in a short BAM match. So at first glance it seems that Patton-style scoring is an ideal compromise. But the editor of The Bridge World, Jeff Rubens, argues that Patton-style scoring creates huge amounts of luck, because there is no sensible strategy that contestants can use. Declarer play at imps is easy; guarantee your contract, so perhaps sacrifice a likely overtrick with a safety play. Declarer play at matchpoints is easy; try for the maximum number of likely tricks, so perhaps striving for a overtrick at the cost of a small risk to your contract. But with half of your score being imps, and the other half of your score being matchpoints, these two strategies are incompatible, so on many Patton-scored boards your eventual result is due to a random guess. I suggest that bridge administrators should think twice before introducing Patton-style scoring into a serious event. But, of course, it is ideal for a social novelty event to provide variety from the bog-standard matchpoint pairs or imp teams. Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division Department of Immigration and Citizenship (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 7 22:39:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:39:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c74aa1$5f1e7490$52a487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>At times Edgar foresaw the danger that a law which the committee >>was intent on installing would not go down well on his home patch. >>In consequence he sometimes looked for wording that would allow of >>latitude in application. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE): >Laws are like spider's webs: if some poor weak creature come up >against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and >get away. Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division Department of Immigration and Citizenship (02) 6225 6285 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 Feb 7 23:01:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:01:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c74abf$85a68440$805b0d52@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Anne Jones: >White Book 2004 161.1 and 161.8 (While the use is not >recommended - the scale is published.) Richard Hills: Also EBU White Book 2006 161.2: 3 board scale VPs Imp difference 5 - 5 0 6 - 4 1 - 2 7 - 3 3 - 4 8 - 2 5 - 6 9 - 1 7 - 9 10 - 0 10+ 4 board scale VPs Imp difference 5 - 5 0 6 - 4 1 - 2 7 - 3 3 - 4 8 - 2 5 - 7 9 - 1 8 - 11 10 - 0 12+ Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division Department of Immigration and Citizenship (02) 6225 6285 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 anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Thu Feb 8 01:43:25 2007 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:43:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001a01c74b1a$27bc8e50$805b0d52@AnnesComputer> I saw that but left it out because its for triangular swiss matches and I didn't think it was relevant. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Anne Jones: > >>White Book 2004 161.1 and 161.8 (While the use is not >>recommended - the scale is published.) > > Richard Hills: > > Also EBU White Book 2006 161.2: > > 3 board scale > > VPs Imp difference > > 5 - 5 0 > 6 - 4 1 - 2 > 7 - 3 3 - 4 > 8 - 2 5 - 6 > 9 - 1 7 - 9 > 10 - 0 10+ > > 4 board scale > > VPs Imp difference > > 5 - 5 0 > 6 - 4 1 - 2 > 7 - 3 3 - 4 > 8 - 2 5 - 7 > 9 - 1 8 - 11 > 10 - 0 12+ > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Divisional Executive Officer unit > People Services, Values & Training Division > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > (02) 6225 6285 > > 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 Thu Feb 8 03:33:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:33:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 2C 2D 2S Pass Pass 3D Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: A 9 K T 7 Q 6 5 A J T 8 6 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division Department of Immigration and Citizenship (02) 6225 6285 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 geller at nifty.com Thu Feb 8 03:40:48 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:40:48 +0900 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200702080240.AA07234@geller204.nifty.com> DBL (in tenpo, so pard can pull without an appeal). Pard freely bid 2S. It must be "our hand". I can't see any place the opponents have for getting nine tricks. We can't afford to sell to 3D undoubled at matchpoints. This seems 100% clear. (presumably North hesitated over 3D, and this is why the poll is being pursued here.) No LAs (IMO) at match-points. Unless you are the kind of person who walks around carrying a sign saying "kick me, then steal from me." -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au ????????: > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: East >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1D 2C >2D 2S Pass Pass >3D Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >A 9 >K T 7 >Q 6 5 >A J T 8 6 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Divisional Executive Officer unit >People Services, Values & Training Division >Department of Immigration and Citizenship >(02) 6225 6285 > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 8 03:52:01 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:52:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:33:55 +1100." Message-ID: <200702080224.SAA22489@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 2C > 2D 2S Pass Pass > 3D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > A 9 > K T 7 > Q 6 5 > A J T 8 6 > > What call do you make? Hard to say without knowing our agreements about what 2S shows. With my regular partner, I believe 2S would be forcing, so I wouldn't be in this position. Unless this is a question about broken agreements or UI from misexplanations or the like, I think we need more info. How good is 2S expected to be? > What other calls do you consider making? 1NT a couple rounds ago. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 8 06:49:02 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:49:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200702080224.SAA22489@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >Hard to say without knowing our agreements about what 2S shows. With >my regular partner, I believe 2S would be forcing, so I wouldn't be >in this position. > >Unless this is a question about broken agreements or UI from >misexplanations or the like, I think we need more info. How good is >2S expected to be? Richard Hills: With my regular partner 2S would also be forcing for one round. This I believe is a more effective agreement than the more common one to play a change of suit by advancer as "constructive" (not a game-invite - unless overcaller has a good fit - but neither a drop-dead potential yarborough). But since I did not footnote 2S, blmlers can assume that North-South are playing the common but ineffective agreement. Of course, the theoretically best agreement is to adopt the Rubensohl convention, transfer responses by advancer. In my youth I was a Rubensohler, but abandoned this "best" agreement after a few too many "worst" results caused by pard or myself forgetting the convention. Best wishes Richard James Hills Divisional Executive Officer unit People Services, Values & Training Division Department of Immigration and Citizenship (02) 6225 6285 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 Thu Feb 8 09:24:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:24:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > > A rough and ready is fo to the WB, divide the imps for 8, 16 and 24 board > matches by 2; then adjust the VPS to an 8 point scale by inspection. And to a 4/6/8 VP-scale? In 2-board matches, there are 4 points at stake for MP, so also 4 VP on the IMPs. > Definitely you need a different scale for each of the three options. If you > want a rigorous solution it'll cost you a bed for the night and I'll come > over for a long weekend and test your TD's. John > The bed is not a problem - but why should we want to test TD's? > This'll do (I've just done it on the fly from the white book for you.) > > VPs 2Bds 3Bds 4Bds > 4-4 0-1 0-2 0-2 > 5-3 2-4 3-7 3-7 > 6-2 5-7 8-11 8-12 > 7-1 8-11 12-16 13-19 > 8-0 12+ 17+ 20+ > Would you recommend this 12,17,20 as the basis for the 4-0,6-0,8-0? Then we have something like : 2bds: -11 to +11 is 23 scores for 3 different VPs : 7/8 each gives: 0-3 = 2-2, 4-11 = 3-1, 12+ = 4-0 3bds: -16 to +16 is 31 for 5 different VPs : 7/6 each gives 0-3 = 3-3, 4-10 = 4-2, 11-16 = 5-1, 17+ = 6-0 4bds: -19 to +19 is 39 for 7 different VPs : 7/5 each gives 0-3 = 4-4, 4-9 = 5-3, 10-14 = 6-2, 15-19 = 7-1, 20+ = 8-0 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 8 14:06:43 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:06:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005801c74b82$12eb4a30$5bce87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:33 AM Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 2C > 2D 2S Pass Pass > 3D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > A 9 > K T 7 > Q 6 5 > A J T 8 6 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > +=+ North's pass of 3D does not encourage me to think this is our hand. He is (apparently) short of diamonds so why does he not double? At matchpoint pairs I can see an ugly -200 coming or worse. Pass (I did wonder about Spades but very briefly.) Timorously, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 8 15:40:01 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:40:01 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Brooklyn_Bridge_for_sal?= =?iso-8859-1?q?e____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <005801c74b82$12eb4a30$5bce87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45CB3640.000004.55341@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D 2C > 2D 2S Pass Pass > 3D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > A 9 > K T 7 > Q 6 5 > A J T 8 6 > > What call do you make? I do NOT overcall 2C (I might consider 1NT), but that's another story. I pass, and I might consider double. I'd definitely double at amber, but I don't expect 3D to go two off very often, so doubling NV opponents doesn't appeal to me. And partner shouldn't be 55 in the majors (no double from him before). If I played double as "action", I'd need longer clubs to try it. If it's a case of hesitation, do not, repeat not, accept any action. Of course, RHO might well hold 4-4-3-2, in which case 3DX in the 3-5 fit could be expensive. But that's too clever for an tempo-indicated action. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070208/1c4db5a4/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/20070208/1c4db5a4/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/20070208/1c4db5a4/attachment-0001.gif From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 8 22:25:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:25:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005801c74b82$12eb4a30$5bce87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: "even if North had passed, the committee decided that South would clearly have bid 3S." On a clear day you can buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Of the blmlers polled, the only one who thought that South clearly had to take action chose a penalty double (which would have led to a lesser adjusted score of +100 instead of +130). Since an accurate Law 12C2 ruling depended upon determining logical alternatives for both North and South, it seems to me that the committee erred by not conducting "Groundhog Day" double-blind polls of peers of North and South. Of course, if this ruling had occurred in a Zone in which Law 12C3 was enabled, then the adjustment would have to be a weighted average of +50, +100 and +130. As TD in a Law 12C3 Zone, my weightings would be: +50 = 60% +100 = 30% +130 = 10% Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 * * * APPEAL NABC+ ONE Subject Unauthorized Information (UI) -Tempo DIC Mike Flader Event Life Master Women's Pairs Session Second Final Date November 18, 2006 BD# 2 Esta VanZandt VUL N/S 8 7 6 5 4 2 DLR East A Q J J 7 3 2 Migry Zur-Campanile Miriam Varinne T 3 K Q J 9 6 5 3 8 4 2 K T 7 3 2 A 9 8 4 K 5 Q 9 4 Pat Levy A 9 K T 7 Q 6 5 A J T 8 6 West North East South --- --- 1D 2C 2D 2S Pass Pass(1) 3D 4C Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo (BIT) Final Contract 4C by South Opening Lead D3 Table Result 4C making 4, N/S +130 Director Ruling 3D by East down 1, E/W -50 Committee Ruling 4C making 4, N/S +130 The Facts: N/S admitted that there was a noticeable hesitation (BIT) before South passed. E/W were not present at the hearing and the director provided no estimate of the duration of the hesitation. N/S said that the hesitation was not extensive but was noticeable. The Ruling: The director ruled that South's hesitation made the 4C bid more attractive and was demonstrably suggested by the BIT and that passing 3D was a less successful logical alternative (LA). Accordingly, in accordance with laws 16 and 12 C2, the director adjusted the table result to 3D by East, down one, E/W minus 50. The Appeal: N/S, the only players to appear before the Committee, said that in their methods a change of suit by advancer shows a hand with either a good suit or a suit with support for the overcaller. North said that when she bid 2S, she was committed to bidding again in a normal non-game forcing sequence. South added that if the auction had been passed back to her, she would have bid 3S, which could not be beaten. The Decision: The committee, working from the premise that there had been a BIT, started their reasoning with consideration of whether the BIT suggested a line of action to North. Suggestions that South might have been considering bidding 2NT seemed remote. It was clear that if South had a minimum 2C overcall without some spade support or tolerance, South would probably not have broken tempo at all. Therefore, it appears that the hesitation suggested further action - since South probably had extra shape or a little extra in HCP. The committee then considered whether there was a LA to North's bidding 4C. Clearly, bidding 3S was a logical alternative, but since that bid would have achieved a superior result (+140), that alternative was discounted. The committee was split on whether pass was a logical alternative. However, this issue was rendered moot because it was determined that even if North had passed, the committee decided that South would clearly have bid 3S. Thus the N/S pair would have arrived at an unbeatable and higher scoring contract. Therefore, if a pass had been forced on North, South's further action would have resulted in a superior result for the offenders. Accordingly, the committee restored the table result. The Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Darwin Afdahl, Ed Lazarus, Lou Reich, Jim Thurtell. 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 Feb 9 02:19:32 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:19:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone In-Reply-To: <200702051504.l15F4ibk006439@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200702051504.l15F4ibk006439@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45CBCC24.70309@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > It > seems to me that the quoted section of the minute is > directly contrary to Law 16C2, therefore ultra vires. There seems to be some confusion here. Whether a penalty card is AI or UI is controlled by L50D1 (major) or L50C (minor). L16C2 is irrelevant. The WBFLC minute in question was supposed to explain how to interpret the rather confusing language of L50D1, but I don't think it makes things crystal clear. As I may have mentioned before :-), the real problem is the attempt to mix mechanical and information penalties. Tim's idea of having the NOS waive the penalty is creative, but what then would make the sight of the exposed card UI? "Pick up the card, and it's UI" would be a reasonable thing for the Laws to say or allow, but I don't see that anywhere in them. From geller at nifty.com Fri Feb 9 03:09:25 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:09:25 +0900 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200702090209.AA07240@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au ????????: >On a clear day you can buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Of >the blmlers polled, the only one who thought that >South clearly had to take action chose a penalty >double (which would have led to a lesser adjusted >score of +100 instead of +130). Just for the record, what I said about the double was that I would have doubled in tempo, so partner could pull to 3S without an appeal. Judging from what you said above the result of my prompt double would indeed have been pard's bidding 3S. Which would have been +140, not +130.... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 9 05:16:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:16:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] EBU White Book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45B0DE37.7090307@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >What is OB? I don't find it on my abbreviation list. >How do I get one? > Ciao, JE Richard Hills: The EBU Orange Book is of limited value to non-EBU directors, since it is merely a compilation of EBU system regulations. On the other hand the EBU White Book is a highly valuable guide for all directors. The EBU-specific advice in the White Book is far outweighed by generally applicable directorial information. See: http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/2004whitebook.htm Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Sat Feb 10 00:20:58 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:20:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> I fail to understand why VPs are necessarily integers. MPs seem to be infinitely divisible. Herman's Bastille system which my scoring programs have adopted for cross imps calculations allow imps to be a continuous variable. With computers doing all the marking these days, WTP Tony (Sydney) At 12:24 AM 8/02/2007, you wrote: >John Probst wrote: > > > > A rough and ready is fo to the WB, divide the imps for 8, 16 and 24 board > > matches by 2; then adjust the VPS to an 8 point scale by inspection. > >And to a 4/6/8 VP-scale? In 2-board matches, there are 4 points at >stake for MP, so also 4 VP on the IMPs. > > > Definitely you need a different scale for each of the three options. If > you > > want a rigorous solution it'll cost you a bed for the night and I'll come > > over for a long weekend and test your TD's. John > > > >The bed is not a problem - but why should we want to test TD's? > > > This'll do (I've just done it on the fly from the white book for you.) > > > > VPs 2Bds 3Bds 4Bds > > 4-4 0-1 0-2 0-2 > > 5-3 2-4 3-7 3-7 > > 6-2 5-7 8-11 8-12 > > 7-1 8-11 12-16 13-19 > > 8-0 12+ 17+ 20+ > > > >Would you recommend this 12,17,20 as the basis for the 4-0,6-0,8-0? >Then we have something like : > >2bds: -11 to +11 is 23 scores for 3 different VPs : 7/8 each gives: >0-3 = 2-2, 4-11 = 3-1, 12+ = 4-0 > >3bds: -16 to +16 is 31 for 5 different VPs : 7/6 each gives >0-3 = 3-3, 4-10 = 4-2, 11-16 = 5-1, 17+ = 6-0 > >4bds: -19 to +19 is 39 for 7 different VPs : 7/5 each gives >0-3 = 4-4, 4-9 = 5-3, 10-14 = 6-2, 15-19 = 7-1, 20+ = 8-0 > > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > >_______________________________________________ >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: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date: 7/02/2007 >3:33 PM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 9 06:48:15 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:48:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45CBCC24.70309@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >There seems to be some confusion here. Whether a penalty card is AI >or UI is controlled by L50D1 (major) or L50C (minor). L16C2 is >irrelevant. Law 50C (Disposition of Minor Penalty Card): ".....Offender's partner is not subject to lead penalty, but information gained through seeing the penalty card is extraneous, unauthorised (see Law 16A)." Law 50D1 (Disposition of Major Penalty Card - Offender to Play): ".....(the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner)....." Richard Hills: Oops. I overlooked Law 50D1. However, it seems to me that there is a major problem here. Firstly this bracketed phrase is grossly inconsistent with Law 16C2, secondly there is a gross inconsistency between the AI / UI status of minor and major penalty cards. Steve Willner: >The WBFLC minute in question was supposed to explain how to >interpret the rather confusing language of L50D1, but I don't think >it makes things crystal clear. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes and no. The WBFLC minute purportedly clarified the status of all penalty cards, not merely major penalty cards. To me the above sentence in Law 50C is crystal clear. But it seems to me that the WBFLC minute's redefinition of the phrase "information gained" for minor penalty cards is a muddy and unclear torturing of the English language. How is it possible to state that it is not "information gained" to lead the deuce from AKQJT2 to partner's known penalty card nine? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Fri Feb 9 07:17:34 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:17:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] VPs for Patton scoring Message-ID: <000701c74c11$fd1a4220$0701a8c0@john> Herman, Try section 13 of this URL http://www.asimere.com/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm or if that's too hard use these: 4-0 scale for 2 board matches Imps VPs 0-2 2-2 3-7 3-1 8+ 4-0 6-0 scale for 3 board matches Imps VPs 0-1 3-3 2-6 4-2 7-12 5-1 13+ 6-0 8-0 scale for 4 board matches Imps VPs 0-1 4-4 2-5 5-3 6-9 6-2 10-15 7-1 16+ 8-0 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 9 08:19:43 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:19:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Marvin French: >UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION > >This is a discussion of the current Laws of Duplicate >Contract Bridge regarding unauthorized information (UI), >which (for the purpose of this discussion) is >information received by a player from his partner other >than what is communicated by legal bids and plays. >Another term for it is "extraneous information" (EI), >which seems to be synonymous with UI, the more common >term. > >The discussion draws heavily from Edgar Kaplan's series >of articles entitled "Appeals Committee" in The Bridge >World (BW) magazine, 1982-1984. All 18 articles are >obtainable from BW in the form of two small booklets. >Kaplan was editor of that magazine, served on the World >Bridge Federation (WBF) drafting committees for new >versions of the laws, and was a member of the WBF Laws >Commission, serving as chairman of that body and co- >chairman of the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) >Laws Commission. Richard Hills: It is true that Edgar Kaplan was the Greatest Of All Time drafter of the Lawbook. But since he wrote those "Appeals Committee" articles the Lawbook was revised twice, in 1987 and 1997. Furthermore, since 1997 the WBF Laws Committee has (re)interpreted the Laws, with some of those ideas possibly causing Edgar to roll over in his grave. And, of course, Marv's article may need redrafting when the forthcoming decennial update of the fabulous Lawbook is unveiled. Marvin French: >The Applicable Laws and Official Interpretations > >Law 9B1(a) >...the Director must be summoned immediately when >attention is called to an irregularity. > >Discussion: This doesn't say one must call attention to >an irregularity. It is entirely proper to ignore a minor >irregularity by an inexperienced player, Richard Hills: It is entirely proper to fail to draw attention to a very major irregularity by a very experienced player. The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws specifically states: "When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something ('any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction'), the failure to do it is not wrong." Marvin French: >but if attention is drawn to it the tournament Director >(TD) must be called. One reason is that a player who >commits an irregularity is entitled to an explanation of >the applicable law(s) at the time of the irregularity. >That knowledge may enable him to ameliorate any self- >damage (by judicious choice of later actions) incurred >by the irregularity. > >Law 12C2 Assigned Score > >When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in >place of a result actually obtained after an >irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, >the most favorable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the >most unfavorable result that was at all probable. > >Discussion: The belief that "had the irregularity not >occurred" is to be understood for the offenders is >incorrect. If anything is to be understood it is "in any >event". > >WBF Laws Commission Interpretation at Lille, 1998: > >3. Procedures for awarding adjusted scores [per Law 12C2] >Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage >gained by an offender, provided it is related to the >infraction...shall be construed as an advantage in the >table score whether consequent or subsequent [my >emphasis] to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending >side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. The Committee >remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending >side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgment in >the subsequent action but only by an action that is >evidently irrational, wild, or gambling. > >Law 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION > >Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on >information from legal calls and plays, and from >mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other >extraneous information may be an infraction of law. > >Law 16A Extraneous Information from Partner > >After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >information that may suggest a call or play, as by means >of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by >unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, >tone, gesture, movement, mannerism, or the like, the >partner may not choose from among logical alternative >actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested >over another by the extraneous information. > >Discussion: The writer now changes nomenclature from >"unauthorized information" (UI) to "extraneous >information" (EI), which are apparently synonymous.. Richard Hills: The art of periphrasis, elegantly using synonyms rather than inelegantly repeating identical words, is highly recommended in novels and Bridge World articles. But such artistry is a huge disadvantage when writing an instruction manual, as unnecessary ambiguity is created when confusion is caused by synonyms being misinterpreted as conveying slightly different concepts. (Another example of ambiguity is caused by Law 40 using the word "understanding" and Law 75 using the almost synonym or actual synonym "agreement".) Marvin French: >The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) Laws Commission >(LC) has defined "logical alternative" (LA) as an action >that a significant number of the player's peers would >seriously consider, and some would actually take, in the >absence of the UI. While there is no mention of "peers" in >L16A, the LC claims that the "level of player" term used >in other Laws applies to this law. The definition of "LA" >has changed over the years. Before 1992 it was an action >that at least 25% of a player's peers would take in the >absence of the UI. > >Two examples from Kaplan's writings show how the ACBLLC >attitude has changed. In both examples first seat, not >vulnerable, opens 4H, next hand markedly hesitates before >passing, and after two passes fourth seat, vulnerable, >bids 4S with: >(1) S Q108743 H 3 D 6 C AK1075. In "Appeals Committee" >(early 1980s) Kaplan wrote that a 4S bid should be allowed >because certainly at least three out of four players would >bid it, meaning that passing is not an LA. >(2) S KQ10763 H 4 D K7 C QJ82. In a BW editorial >(November, 1995) Kaplan wrote that a 4S bid should not be >allowed, because "it would not be obviously foolish to >pass, an egregious error, absurd". Evidently he believed >that "logical" means objectively logical. > >The current LC criterion would seem to allow (2). It is >doubtful that any Appeals Committee would disallow it, but >(1) might be disallowed. Richard Hills: No, I think Marv has misinterpreted current ACBL policy (and previous ACBL policy). It has never been a Law 16 requirement to decide whether or not a suggested action is logical. Rather, the question has been whether an action which is _not_ demonstrably suggested - in the above two examples the action of Pass - is a logical alternative. Therefore, if I was an ACBL TD, I would rule that 4S was an infraction of the current ACBL interpretation of Law 16 on both example (1) and also example (2). Marvin French: >An ACBL TD is supposed to poll some of the player's peers >to determine whether an action is an LA. It would be >better for a TD to judge that for himself, perhaps after >consulting other TDs. Polls with small sample sizes are >nearly meaningless, and no player has an identical peer. Richard Hills: If this document is meant to be a helpful guide for ACBL novice directors, it is not useful to include personal opinions directly contrary to current ACBL policy. Plus it is ridiculous to suggest that a small sample size can be improved by using an even smaller sample of merely a single director. Indeed, careful perusing of ACBL and EBU casebooks has shown that single directors - even highly capable ones such as David Stevenson - occasionally make egregious errors when they single-handedly assess logical alternatives. Marvin French: >If a pair's system makes some action mandatory, then it is >logical even if no peer would take it (but proof had >better be on hand). Richard Hills: Yes, the obvious "mandatory by system" reduction of logical alternatives to just one possibility is included in the WBF Code of Practice version of logical alternative: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question **and using the methods of the partnership**, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." Marvin French: >We can assume a virtual peer, however: a fictitious >typical player in the event. If rulings treat everyone the >same, the result is identical rulings for identical >irregularities (absent some system effect). Call it equal >treatment under the law, a precious democratic principle. >If I were a TD I would treat every reference in the Laws to >"the class of player involved" to mean this virtual peer. >Otherwise the known expert will get much benefit of doubt, >the known novice little benefit of doubt, and the unknown >is left in limbo. What benefit of doubt will he get? Better >to treat all three the same. Richard Hills: In his short story "Harrison Bergeron", Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains...." Furthermore, it is not the case that current ACBL policy on "peers" means that experts always gain the benefit of Law 16 rulings vis-a-vis novices. It is just as likely that a novice may gain, as for that novice a demonstrably suggested action of showing your 23-count a second time may be the only logical alternative, while for an expert an additional logical alternative of a second-round pessimistic pass may exist. Marvin French: >As it stands, TDs must be allowed flexibility in using >their best judgment for each situation rather than being >restricted by some constantly-changing arbitrary rule. [big snip - to be continued in part two] Richard Hills: So because Marv deems that ACBL rules are "ever-changing" and "arbitrary" he is launching the revolution and telling novice ACBL directors to listen to him and not Memphis? But this Marvish idea of liberty, equality and fraternity in writing ACBL rules is self-defeating, since merely by creating his own personalised variant on ACBL rules he is making the ACBL rules even more ever-changing and arbitrary. Plus if Marv, the new "French" Danton, does storm the Memphis Bastille, then the precedent is set for Robespierre Hills to also write his own variants of incredibly ever-changing and arbitrary ACBL rules. Indeed that would be a Reign of Terror (although I like to think of it as a War on Error). :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 9 08:28:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:28:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200702090209.AA07240@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Bob Geller: >Just for the record, what I said about the double was >that I would have doubled in tempo, so partner could >pull to 3S without an appeal. Judging from what you >said above the result of my prompt double would indeed >have been pard's bidding 3S. Which would have been >+140, not +130.... Richard Hills: I prefer my pard to eschew pulling my penalty doubles. It seems to me inconsistent that a North who is willing to defend 3D undoubled is not willing to defend 3D doubled, especially when North's high cards are well placed for defence in the unbid suit (except for the jack of diamonds, which in turn might create a trump trick for South). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Fri Feb 9 09:46:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:46:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > I fail to understand why VPs are necessarily integers. MPs > seem to be infinitely divisible. Herman's Bastille system > which my scoring programs have adopted for cross imps > calculations allow imps to be a continuous variable. With > computers doing all the marking these days, WTP > > Tony (Sydney) > I used to be of the same opinion as you, Tony, but there are three reasons why integers are to be preferred: a) the players can calculate these scores for themselves, which is a huge attraction point for such tournaments (as long as the computer can also score them for those for who the method is too complex) b) bridge is not a precise sport, and even precise sports such as javelin throwing have a "unit" (and no, that is not 1cm, it is actually 2cm) c) when issueing weighted scores, and some other adjusted scores, it is interesting to know that awarding 25% or 33% (or even 3S+1 or 3S+2) actually yields the same outcome. And yes, I do mean that these integer scores are the final ones. If in the end there is a tie, then the contestants should be ranked equal. Do you know the story of the swimming gold medal (I should look up the exact dates) where a gold was awarded on a thousandthst of a second. Later measurements revealed that the winner's lane was a millimeter shorter than his opponent and the silver winner had actually swam faster? Since then, all swimming times have been rounded to a one hundredth, and if they are equal, the places and medals are shared. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 10 07:55:43 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:55:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070209225257.01d212e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> With due respect, garbage, I know that in large matchpointed pairs events in Sydney, the placings are decided by fiat to 0.1 matchpoints in 1700 (or more) Tony (Sydney) At 12:46 AM 9/02/2007, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > I fail to understand why VPs are necessarily integers. MPs > > seem to be infinitely divisible. Herman's Bastille system > > which my scoring programs have adopted for cross imps > > calculations allow imps to be a continuous variable. With > > computers doing all the marking these days, WTP > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > >I used to be of the same opinion as you, Tony, but there are three >reasons why integers are to be preferred: > >a) the players can calculate these scores for themselves, which is a >huge attraction point for such tournaments (as long as the computer >can also score them for those for who the method is too complex) > >b) bridge is not a precise sport, and even precise sports such as >javelin throwing have a "unit" (and no, that is not 1cm, it is >actually 2cm) > >c) when issueing weighted scores, and some other adjusted scores, it >is interesting to know that awarding 25% or 33% (or even 3S+1 or 3S+2) >actually yields the same outcome. > >And yes, I do mean that these integer scores are the final ones. If in >the end there is a tie, then the contestants should be ranked equal. > >Do you know the story of the swimming gold medal (I should look up the >exact dates) where a gold was awarded on a thousandthst of a second. >Later measurements revealed that the winner's lane was a millimeter >shorter than his opponent and the silver winner had actually swam >faster? Since then, all swimming times have been rounded to a one >hundredth, and if they are equal, the places and medals are shared. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > >_______________________________________________ >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: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 8/02/2007 >3:04 PM From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 9 12:59:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:59:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45CC6219.8040403@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > Do you know the story of the swimming gold medal (I should look up the > exact dates) where a gold was awarded on a thousandthst of a second. > Later measurements revealed that the winner's lane was a millimeter > shorter than his opponent and the silver winner had actually swam > faster? Since then, all swimming times have been rounded to a one > hundredth, and if they are equal, the places and medals are shared. > It was the 400m individual medley in 1972 in Munchen, where Swede Gunnar Larsson was declared the winner over Tim McKeee (US) by 4:31.981 to 4:31.983. Incidentally, this was the first Olympics where electronic timing to 0.01 was used, but then to also use it for a difference of 0.002 - that has been reviewed since. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 9 13:22:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone In-Reply-To: <45CBCC24.70309@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Tim's idea of having the NOS waive the penalty is creative, but what > then would make the sight of the exposed card UI? "Pick up the card, > and it's UI" would be a reasonable thing for the Laws to say or > allow, but I don't see that anywhere in them. The HK was played (OOT, so an infraction) and then withdrawn. That remains true even if the PC provisions are waived. L16C2 handles the rest. Had the HK been, ahem, "accidentally dropped" I'd probably rule under L72B1 instead (I might choose L72b2 if offender was on my ethical blacklist - note to possible litigants, if you have made it onto my ethical blacklist you really *don't* want your bridge history analysed in open court). Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 9 14:20:12 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:20:12 -0600 Subject: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Bob Geller: > >>Just for the record, what I said about the double was >>that I would have doubled in tempo, so partner could >>pull to 3S without an appeal. Judging from what you >>said above the result of my prompt double would indeed >>have been pard's bidding 3S. Which would have been >>+140, not +130.... > > Richard Hills: > > I prefer my pard to eschew pulling my penalty doubles. > > It seems to me inconsistent Whether or not the assertion is valid, the assertion seems to have little value. and I don't think that the assertion is valid. Namely, The Pass of 3D is not a declarlation of willingness to defend the contract, but a declaration of unwillingness to do something else [definition of Pass]. The stakes of defending 3D are immensely less than 3DX and a player unwilling to play for those stakes often will seek to lower them via pulling. Something that is incosistent and relevant was the assertion in appeal: The Appeal: N/S, the only players to appear before the Committee, said that in their methods a change of suit by advancer shows a hand with either a good suit or a suit with support for the overcaller. North said that when she bid 2S, she was committed to bidding again in a normal non-game forcing sequence. South added that if the auction had been passed back to her, she would have bid 3S, which could not be beaten. ...The assertion said nothing about expected minimum strength, only about shape. The assertion about being committed to bidding again- does it really mean bidding at the 4 level? I would contend that it if there is any commitment at all it ends at 3C. Which leads one to wonder why, since S did have a fair hand why 3C, or much superior- 2N would not have been systemic rebids. It follows that in the absence of S's rebid she had the opinion she held poor cards for the auction, that 3C may be too high. Which systemically suggests to N that the 3 Level is too high on these cards.[moth eaten black suits]. And in light of S's failure to rebid systemically, her assertion she would now save in 3S has an inconsistent ring to it. >that a North who is willing > to defend 3D undoubled is not willing to defend 3D > doubled, especially when North's high cards are well > placed for defence in the unbid suit (except for the > jack of diamonds, which in turn might create a trump > trick for South). When the S hand originally appeared, no system was attached to the auction. In my methods I would double about 70% and pass 30%. But given the system in play, if partner had the good S suit, in a D contract I would expect to take 2S, 1 to 1.5C,.5D(overruffed), ,and a H for 4.5-5 tricks [+]. If the moth eaten suit I would expect 1S, 2H,1C for 4[+] tricks. If partner can't act over 3D then it is likely that the capacity of the cards has been exceeded. I then would rate a X to be in the 20% likelihood of success and probably not X very often, and Pass often. regards roger pewick > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Fri Feb 9 14:34:29 2007 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:34:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards Message-ID: <003f01c74c4f$08495720$3ea1ec51@admin> I think javelin units have been changed to 1cm. As in discus. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 9 15:24:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:24:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone In-Reply-To: References: <45CBCC24.70309@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070209091329.02f41340@pop.starpower.net> At 12:48 AM 2/9/07, richard.hills wrote: >Steve Willner: > > >There seems to be some confusion here. Whether a penalty card is AI > >or UI is controlled by L50D1 (major) or L50C (minor). L16C2 is > >irrelevant. > >Law 50C (Disposition of Minor Penalty Card): > >".....Offender's partner is not subject to lead penalty, but >information gained through seeing the penalty card is extraneous, >unauthorised (see Law 16A)." > >Law 50D1 (Disposition of Major Penalty Card - Offender to Play): > >".....(the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised >information for his partner; however, other information arising from >facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner)....." > >Richard Hills: > >Oops. I overlooked Law 50D1. However, it seems to me that there is >a major problem here. Firstly this bracketed phrase is grossly >inconsistent with Law 16C2, secondly there is a gross inconsistency >between the AI / UI status of minor and major penalty cards. > >Steve Willner: > > >The WBFLC minute in question was supposed to explain how to > >interpret the rather confusing language of L50D1, but I don't think > >it makes things crystal clear. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Yes and no. The WBFLC minute purportedly clarified the status of all >penalty cards, not merely major penalty cards. > >To me the above sentence in Law 50C is crystal clear. But it seems >to me that the WBFLC minute's redefinition of the phrase "information >gained" for minor penalty cards is a muddy and unclear torturing of >the English language. > >How is it possible to state that it is not "information gained" to >lead the deuce from AKQJT2 to partner's known penalty card nine? My reading is that the identity of the PC and the fact that it must be played at first opportunity are AI, whereas any information gained from the circumstances of its exposure is UI. For example, partner leads a king out of turn, and you hold the ace and can figure out that partner must have the queen (UI). Or pard makes an obvious fourth-best opening lead OOT against 3NT, and you can deduce that he is leading his longest suit (UI). I'm not certain that's exactly what TPTB intended, but it seems sensible, consistent, and a relatively straightforward criterion for handling PC AI/UI situations. I have feelings of deja vu here. Didn't we discuss this at some length a while back? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 9 16:29:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:29:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2007, at 2:19 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > It has never been a Law 16 requirement to decide whether or not a > suggested action is logical. Um. I accept that is current (and possibly past, though I have no experience there) practice. But... The law says "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." That "from among logical alternative actions" says to me that the suggested action must be logical. In fact, it says to me that if a player chooses an action that is not a member of the set "logical alternative actions", he has done nothing illegal. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 9 17:50:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Um. I accept that is current (and possibly past, though I have no > experience there) practice. But... The law says "the partner may not > choose from among logical alternative actions one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information." That "from among logical alternative actions" says to > me that the suggested action must be logical. In fact, it says to me > that if a player chooses an action that is not a member of the set > "logical alternative actions", he has done nothing illegal. As has been argued here before "Among the white sheep were a goat and a black ram - when asked to choose his favourite animal the farmer selected the goat." For Goat read "Illogical Alternative", for black ram read "Suggested LA" for sheep read "Non-suggested LAs". Thus it is linguistically possible to select an IA from among LAs. This interpretation is consistent with the words of L16a2 "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative..". It is the existence of LAs which matters - not the logicality of the selected action. Only white sheep are legal! Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 9 17:57:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:57:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c74c6b$6754a280$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ......... > > It has never been a Law 16 requirement to decide whether or not a > > suggested action is logical. > > Um. I accept that is current (and possibly past, though I have no > experience there) practice. But... The law says "the partner may not > choose from among logical alternative actions one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information." That "from among logical alternative actions" says to > me that the suggested action must be logical. In fact, it says to me > that if a player chooses an action that is not a member of the set > "logical alternative actions", he has done nothing illegal. Unless of course when the UI (strongly?) suggests an action that otherwise would be illogical but because of the UI in fact becomes a logical action. An example that comes to my mind: I have absolutely no reason to even imagine that my partner is void in a particular suit and wants a ruff until he gives me UI which suggests just this situation. Leading the involved suit was definitely not a logical alternative before the occurrence of the UI but sure is now. Regards Sven From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 10 18:35:24 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:35:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <45CC85BA.90100@skynet.be> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209225257.01d212e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC85BA.90100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070210092936.01d25610@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 06:31 AM 9/02/2007, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: >>With due respect, garbage, > >why? > >>I know that in large matchpointed pairs events >>in Sydney, the placings are decided by fiat to >>0.1 matchpoints in 1700 (or more) > >But Matchpoints are given by the Neuberg formula, which does not use any >cut-off. So even less than 0.1 would still be a difference. > >IMPs otoh are rounded to integers. Normal scores 20-40 give the same IMP. >Then, it is not needed to use more precise formulas when awarding So my question is..why not expand the VP scale (say 0-100 should do) so that every integral IMP converts to an integral VP. Different number of boards can quickly be accomodated via erf(x), sqrt(2), n/n-1 or whatever. I must get out more. Vowed 10 years ago never to enter a blml argument with Herman, but last night had to watch England beat Aust at pyjama cricket. The pain killers were just kicking in. I am going out, I may be a little while, Tony(Sydney) >adjusted scores to award 1.73652... >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 8/02/2007 >3:04 PM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Feb 10 00:48:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:48:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >We can assume a virtual peer, however: a fictitious >typical player in the event. If rulings treat everyone the >same, the result is identical rulings for identical >irregularities (absent some system effect). Call it equal >treatment under the law, a precious democratic principle. >If I were a TD I would treat every reference in the Laws to >"the class of player involved" to mean this virtual peer. >Otherwise the known expert will get much benefit of doubt, >the known novice little benefit of doubt, and the unknown >is left in limbo. What benefit of doubt will he get? Better >to treat all three the same. Richard Hills: In his short story "Harrison Bergeron", Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains...." Furthermore, it is not the case that current ACBL policy on "peers" means that experts always gain the benefit of Law 16 rulings vis-a-vis novices. It is just as likely that a novice may gain, as for that novice a demonstrably suggested action of showing your 23-count a second time may be the only logical alternative, while for an expert an additional logical alternative of a second-round pessimistic pass may exist. * * * Such an example of experts losing the benefit of the doubt, when novices would gain that benefit, occurred on this deal: 2007 Southwest Pacific Teams - Session 10 Brd: 6 Hills Dlr: East JT8765 Vul: East-West J9 542 KQ Edgtton Edgtton KQ9 A42 Q865 AK74 T87 AKJ3 T97 43 Ali 3 T32 Q96 AJ8652 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D 3C Pass Pass Dble Pass 3D(1) Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo East-West +420 The first mate of the Black Pearl, Mister Gibbs: "Captain, I think the crew, meaning me as well, were expecting something a bit more... shiny." For a novice East, their cards are very shiny, therefore bidding them for a third time with 3H is the only logical alternative for that novice. And indeed East-West were merely teenage brothers. But unluckily for them they were not novices. Rather, they were precocious experts who had just qualified for the Australian Youth Team, won the Hills-Hurley Trophy for best youth pair of the year, and who were soon to reach the quarter-finals of the National Open Teams. So, for an expert East, do their cards need to be a "bit more... shiny" for East to call again? The director consulted six expert peers of East. While three optimists chose to call again over 3D, three pessimists noted that North could be lurking with all the outstanding high cards and (in the worst case) any further action might see North double for -500 or more. So those three pessimistic expert peers chose a pass, which made pass an expert logical alternative. Thus the director adjusted the score to 3D East-West +130. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Sat Feb 10 10:28:51 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:28:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CD9052.9050700@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > As has been argued here before "Among the white sheep were a goat and a > black ram - when asked to choose his favourite animal the farmer > selected the goat." > > For Goat read "Illogical Alternative", for black ram read "Suggested LA" > for sheep read "Non-suggested LAs". Thus it is linguistically possible > to select an IA from among LAs. This interpretation is consistent with > the words of L16a2 "When a player has substantial reason to believe that > an opponent who had a logical alternative..". It is the existence of > LAs which matters - not the logicality of the selected action. Only > white sheep are legal! > No Tim, the goat is legal! only the black ram is the suggested alternative and cannot be chosen. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Feb 10 10:33:31 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:33:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070210092936.01d25610@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209225257.01d212e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC85BA.90100@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070210092936.01d25610@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <45CD916B.2000708@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >> IMPs otoh are rounded to integers. Normal scores 20-40 give the same IMP. >> Then, it is not needed to use more precise formulas when awarding > > So my question is..why not expand the VP scale (say 0-100 should do) so > that every integral IMP converts to an integral VP. Different number of > boards can quickly be accomodated via > erf(x), sqrt(2), n/n-1 or whatever. > Yes Tony, that would be a sensible solution. But it means changing the whole way we deal with the calculation. My argument was within the current system. If we use a 30-step VP scale, then all subsequent regulations must also deal with integer (30-scale) VP's. > I must get out more. Vowed 10 years ago never to enter a blml argument > with Herman, but > last night had to watch England beat Aust at pyjama cricket. The pain > killers were just > kicking in. I am going out, I may be a little while, > Which just goes to prove that ODI is mere (well, you said it: pyjama-) cricket. Saw the highlights of that match yesterday evening. How one man can beat a whole team! > Tony(Sydney) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Feb 11 05:52:41 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <45CD916B.2000708@skynet.be> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209225257.01d212e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC85BA.90100@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070210092936.01d25610@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CD916B.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070210204937.01d9bec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Herman wrote >If we use a 30-step VP scale, then all subsequent >regulations must also deal with integer (30-scale) VP's. This is not true. Who was the first person who allowed non-integer match points? What a visionary! And now we are beaten by Belgium in tennis. Wot next? The Holland cricket team? Tony (Sydney) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Feb 10 15:19:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:19:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIA In-Reply-To: <45CD9052.9050700@skynet.be> References: <45CD9052.9050700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45CDD484.6010903@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] As has been argued here before "Among the white sheep were a goat and a black ram - when asked to choose his favourite animal the farmer selected the goat." For Goat read "Illogical Alternative", for black ram read "Suggested LA" for sheep read "Non-suggested LAs". Thus it is linguistically possible to select an IA from among LAs. This interpretation is consistent with the words of L16a2 "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative..". It is the existence of LAs which matters - not the logicality of the selected action. Only white sheep are legal! [Herman De Wael] No Tim, the goat is legal! only the black ram is the suggested alternative and cannot be chosen. [Sven Pran] An example that comes to my mind: I have absolutely no reason to even imagine that my partner is void in a particular suit and wants a ruff until he gives me UI which suggests just this situation. Leading the involved suit was definitely not a logical alternative before the occurrence of the UI but sure is now. [Nige1] IMO Tim & Sven are right in law and in common sense. Manifestly, any action that you hope *may* succeed is a preferred logical alternative to an action that you know *cannot* succeed because of either... (i) Unauthorised information or (ii) The laws about it. I agree with Herman that this law needs urgent clarification. IMO the main problems with *Unauthorised Information Legislation* lie elsewhere. For instance... [A] Determining logical alternatives is easy. Selecting which were suggested by the unauthorised information is hard. Assessing a players "peer-group" is controversial. The result is that different directors rule differently on identical facts. Players hate inconsistent rulings especially when they are unlucky enough to draw the short straw. Some directors imagine that compromise rulings involving weighted averages of likely scores are more acceptable. That is literally true, in the sense that players feel that it is pointless to appeal such rulings; admittedly, they are also a boon to regular offenders; most players, however, recognise a poor fudge when they see one; and both sides are usually left dissatisfied. [B] An experienced player knows how directors usually interpret the law. For example, after hesitating over a close decision, an expert will often grasp the nettle and take the "suggested" action himself (in an attempt to rescue partner from the ethical dilemma created by the break in tempo). Only if pass is fairly clear-cut will he pass. Hence, among experienced players "Pass" is the likely suggested action. AFAIK, however, among the thousands of published "Hesitation" appeals, there is no case where a player was penalised for the *pass* so often suggested. [C] Experienced players subconsciously read unauthorised information from their partners more accurately than the director. To the player the suggested action is obvious. Whereas, to the director or any third party, there may be no action clearly suggested. A simple example: if partner is prone to underbid in this context, then a slow pass may show a stronger hand than a slow pass in a context where partner is inclined to overbid. Real life situations are typically more complex but regular partners will still read their partner's "tells" better than strangers. [D] A radical solution (with obvious difficulties and draw-backs) would be to penalise unauthorised information itself as an infraction, where it makes sense to do so. Although hard to implement, this would result in more consistent and objective rulings. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 10 15:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIA In-Reply-To: <9A21C1CA-6373-42CA-ACDF-035558435DE7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > Twist the language all you like. "Amongst" in this context > does *not* mean "in the vicinity of". I'll leave the twisting of language to others Ed. There is a group "all alternatives". Each of those may logical or illogical. Each may also be suggested/non-suggested (the latter pairing is independent of the former). If the set of non-suggested LAs is non-empty it is illegal to choose a suggested action regardless of whether that action itself is logical or not because the suggested action is being chosen from a wider group which includes non-suggested LAs. Looking at: AK98xx,x,AQxx,Ax and having the uncontested auction: 1S-2C 3D-3H (fsf) 3S-4H (cue agreeing Spades) Do we think 7S now is a logical alternative? I don't. What I do know is that my partner alerted my natural 3D bid considering it a splinter in support of clubs. I know that 5C (which would be a cue bid and a logical action in search of the grand absent the UI) will be passed out when we have a certain slam on. Do you think I am allowed to punt 7S (which has the merit of being a big plus if it makes)? Do you think that if I select 7S and it makes I have "carefully avoided taking any advantage that might accrue to his side"? I didn't. I bid 5C which was duly passed by partner for -10 Imps on the Butler as expected. 7S would have been +11. 7S was an illogical goat among the non-suggested sheep. Tim From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 10 17:35:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:35:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIA In-Reply-To: <45CDD484.6010903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000701c74d31$7b639ad0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel ............... > [A] Determining logical alternatives is easy. Selecting which were > suggested by the unauthorised information is hard. Not too hard because we do not have to establish that the action was actually suggested, it is sufficient that it "could demonstrably have been suggested". ............ > Only if pass is fairly clear-cut will he pass. Hence, among experienced > players "Pass" is the likely suggested action. AFAIK, however, among the > thousands of published "Hesitation" appeals, there is no case where a > player was penalised for the *pass* so often suggested. I remember (although not in detail any more) having had cases where I awarded adjusted scores for six bid down one instead of the table result at five bid just made because of UI that could have suggested to PASS at five rather than going to slam. I can't believe I am the only Director having made such rulings? Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 20:50:01 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:50:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <45CD916B.2000708@skynet.be> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209225257.01d212e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC85BA.90100@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070210092936.01d25610@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CD916B.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 10/02/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> > >> IMPs otoh are rounded to integers. Normal scores 20-40 give the same IMP. > >> Then, it is not needed to use more precise formulas when awarding > > > > So my question is..why not expand the VP scale (say 0-100 should do) so > > that every integral IMP converts to an integral VP. Different number of > > boards can quickly be accomodated via > > erf(x), sqrt(2), n/n-1 or whatever. > > > > Yes Tony, that would be a sensible solution. But it means changing the > whole way we deal with the calculation. My argument was within the > current system. If we use a 30-step VP scale, then all subsequent > regulations must also deal with integer (30-scale) VP's. Why? As a matter of fact we don't in Norway. If a team get an unexpected bye (opponents don't show up) they are awarded 18 VP's preliminary. If their average score in the matches played is above 18 (or the non-show's average score aginst the non-show is above 12) their score for the bye is adjustet upwards, using non-integer VP's (one digit after decimal point). They are awarded the best of 18 VP's, their own average and the non-show's opponents average vs the nonshow. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > I must get out more. Vowed 10 years ago never to enter a blml argument > > with Herman, but > > last night had to watch England beat Aust at pyjama cricket. The pain > > killers were just > > kicking in. I am going out, I may be a little while, > > > > Which just goes to prove that ODI is mere (well, you said it: pyjama-) > cricket. Saw the highlights of that match yesterday evening. How one > man can beat a whole team! > > > Tony(Sydney) > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Feb 10 21:30:16 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:30:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations Message-ID: <45CE2B58.8060702@aol.com> A few days ago I started compiling a list of abbreviations used in blml correspondence which weren't in the list of blml abreviations. I have omitted very obvious ones. In some cases I can guess at the meaning although I'm not always certain. I am a native English speaker; I suspect for blmlers with English as a second, third or whatever language there might be less likelihood of recognising the meaning. Here is the list after only a few days. (capitalisation as used in correspondence) HK URL TPTB otoh ODI AFAIK fsf May I suggest either expanding the list of abbreviations or avoiding usage of any not on the list? Ciao, JE From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Feb 11 00:20:52 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:20:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIA References: <45CD9052.9050700@skynet.be> <45CDD484.6010903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <006101c74d6a$1c7ee9a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel" > > [D] A radical solution (with obvious difficulties and draw-backs) would be to penalise unauthorised information itself as an infraction, where it makes sense to do so. Although hard to implement, this would result in more consistent and objective rulings. I would rather see the law stating the desirability of maintaining even tempo (L73D1) made into a "must" type of law, but apply it to tempo-sensitive situations only. If no damage results from an infraction, assign a PP. If there is damage, handle the UI normally, and maybe a PP. Thist would not solve the UI problem, but would help a lot. Breaking tempo in high-level competitive auctions could be handled as it is now (not an infraction in itself). We have several top pairs in San Diego who have no difficulty maintaining slow even tempo. One pair had problems with UI-related AC decisions at NABCs and have now adopted even tempo, pausing 4-5 seconds before all low-level calls. No problem now. Well, they do have a problem with finishing a round on time, but that's mainly because their card play is very slow. Novices here are given no ethical training whatsoever and no instruction concerning ACBL regulations or Law 16. From what I have seen elsewhere, this is probably common. The result is gross creation and misuse of UI. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 00:57:07 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:57:07 -0600 Subject: [blml] abbreviations In-Reply-To: <45CE2B58.8060702@aol.com> References: <45CE2B58.8060702@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702101557w729eecc0q7e3ac08a4dd17837@mail.gmail.com> > HK > URL > TPTB > otoh > ODI > AFAIK > fsf > May I suggest either expanding the list of abbreviations or avoiding > usage of any not on the list? Ciao, JE HK is heart king? We need that kind of abbreviation. 3H is a bid and H3 is a card. It really works. URL and AFAIK are standard and seem okay to me, though AFAIK seems a little ugly for my taste. otoh should probably be OTOH, but ugly either way. Is fsf fourth-suit forcing? 4SF may be fine on a convention card. TPTB and ODI---out of context, I don't know what those are. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Feb 11 02:35:38 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:35:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIA In-Reply-To: <006101c74d6a$1c7ee9a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <45CD9052.9050700@skynet.be> <45CDD484.6010903@NTLworld.com> <006101c74d6a$1c7ee9a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <430EBCB3-9929-4BF8-804E-76AE7ABA6E28@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 10, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Marvin French wrote: > If no damage results from an infraction, assign a PP. If there is > damage, handle the UI normally, and maybe a PP. The logic of this escapes me. If you must, in the sense of "must" in the laws, maintain even tempo, then a PP is appropriate whether or not there is damage. The fact there is damage, and that therefore the score will be adjusted, should not obviate the requirement for a PP. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 11 02:36:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:36:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French - part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Marvin French: [see the "part one" thread for earlier debate] >It need not be a specific action that is suggested. If >a player thinks a very long time before passing over a >5C opening bid, the UI demonstrably suggests action by >partner, even though it is unknown whether the thinker >was considering a double or a bid. If passing is not >illogical, thinker's partner must pass. He might claim >that he would have acted if partner had passed in >tempo. We should not doubt him, but merely say that >his intention is irrelevant. Contrary to popular >belief, the law does not say a player must ignore the >UI and take his normal action. While a slow pass or >slow double may suggest an action, a slow bid seldom >does. A forcing pass, however slow, does not suggest >action, it commands it. Richard Hills: I agree with all of the above paragraph _except_ for the final sentence. In the archived thread "100% of Nothing" (January 2005) it was pointed out that: (a) sometimes it is a logical alternative to violate a partnership agreement that a pass is 100% forcing if abiding by your agreement causes you to choose between -790 or -800, and (b) sometimes a sloooow forcing pass gives you unauthorised information by reminding you of your methods, since after an in tempo forcing pass you would misinterpret your methods and incorrectly think that the pass was non-forcing. Note that the footnote to Law 40E2 prohibits aids to memory. The blml archives are at: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/ Marvin French: >Law 16A1 When Such Information is Given > >"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 organization 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 >unauthorized information might have been conveyed)." > >Discussion: L16A1's parenthesized sentence assumes >that "reserving the rights", implying potentially >damaging UI, has been invoked by a player. If the >opponents do not agree, they (not "the player") >should call the TD. Failure to do so evidently >implies agreement, meaning that the UI is tacitly >acknowledged and may not be successfully denied >later. The ACBL exercised the option of prohibiting >the reservation of rights, which in effect cancels >L16A1 entirely and adds a new law. Its "ELECTION" >states: > >"At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be >allowed to announce that they reserve the right to >call 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." > >This confusing language seems self-contradictory. >The first sentence says the TD must be called >immediately, as does the first part of the second >sentence. However, the second part of that >sentence, "...resulting in calls or bids...", >implies that the TD call should come when a >suspicious action has taken place. Moreover, the >writer did not seem to know that bids are calls, or >that Law 16A1 applies to plays as well as calls. It >is likely that the writer intended "could result in >calls or bids", but that would be in violation of >the next law, which is not an option. Anyway, no >"reservation of rights". But what then? See >Procedures for Dealing with UI (below) for an >answer. Richard Hills: Okay, the ACBL Election was sloppily drafted. So what? Even though I am a non-ACBL pedant, the intent of the election seems clear. The ACBL sensibly did not want to waste the Director's time by having the Director summoned after every hesitation. Rather, players "should" summon the Director when a hesitation is followed by a doubtful call by the hesitator's partner. My only pedantic quibble is the use of the word "should" when Law 16A1 uses the word "may". This is important, since The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws specifically defines "should" and "may". On the other hand, perhaps the ACBL Election is even more sloppily drafted, and is not only a Law 16A1 Election, but also an interpretation of Law 16A2. The word "should" appears in Law 16A2, but with the footnoted caveat, "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Marvin French: >L16A2 When Illegal Alternative is Chosen > >When a player has substantial reason to believe* >that an opponent who had a logical alternative >has chosen an action that could have been >suggested by such information, he should summon >the Director forthwith. The Director shall require >the auction and play to continue, standing ready >to assign an adjusted score if he discovers that >an infraction of law has resulted in damage. > >*When play ends; or, as to dummy?s hand, when >dummy is exposed. > >Discussion: The heading isn't quite right, it >should be "...May Have Been Chosen", but headings >are not part of the laws so that is not important. >Since the TD may not be called until dummy's hand >or completed play shows evidence of a possible >irregularity, the auction cannot continue--it is >over. It seems likely that the footnote was added >late and no one noticed that it affected the law >itself. Richard Hills: But if the Director is summoned prematurely before the end of the auction, "require the auction to continue" is useful guidance for that Director who has arrived too early. Marvin French: >We can skip the remainder of Law 16, which deals >with UI from sources other than partner. > >Law 73 mostly reinforces the provisions of Law 16, >but there are two parts that are especially >pertinent to this discussion. > >Law 73D1 Inadvertent Variations [in tempo or >manner] > >"It is desirable, though not always required, for >players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying >manner. However, players should be particularly >careful in positions in which variations may work >to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, >inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which >a call or play is made does not in itself >constitute a violation of propriety, but >inferences from such variation my appropriately be >drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." > >Law 73D2 Intentional Variations [in tempo or >manner] > >"A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent >by means of remark or gesture, through the haste >or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating >before playing a singleton), or by the manner in >which the call or play is made." > >Law 73F2 Player Injured by Illegal Deception > >If the Director determines that an innocent >player has drawn a false inference from a remark, >manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has >no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and >who could have known, at the time of the action, >that the action could work to his benefit, the >Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law >12C). > >Discussion: Note that it is only inadvertent >variations from which an opponent's inference is >at the opponent's own risk. When illegal >(deliberate) deception is involved, Richard Hills: Incorrect. Marv has overlooked the subtlety of the words "However" and "Otherwise" in Law 73D1. There is a more obvious clue in Law 73F2 which carefully uses the phrase "no demonstrable bridge reason" rather than using the words "inadvertent" and/or "deliberate". Marvin French: >an opponent who is deceived thereby is entitled to >a possible score adjustment. This is an area that >calls for judgment on the TDs part. Was the action >inadvertent or deliberate? Richard Hills: No, the question is, "Could the player have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to their benefit?" Marvin French: >Take the case of hesitating before playing a >singleton. This should rarely, if ever, be ruled >inadvertent (arthritic hands?). The same is true >of hesitating with small cards as if considering >covering an honor. There is no bridge reason for >such actions, which are unlikely to be >inadvertent. Players who employ the same slow >tempo in every situation (as L73D1) recommends) >should be sure opponents know that before these >situations arise. Richard Hills: I take with a grain of salt an assertion by a player, "My tempo is always slow." As Marv correctly notes, it is only _same_ slow tempo which is consistent with the Law 73D1 adjectives "steady" and "unvaring". Marvin French: >Procedures for Dealing with UI > >Some UI is "appropriate", because it is legally >created. That includes replies to opponents' >questions and Alert explanations. It also >includes Alerts and Announcements themselves, >which tell partner "I haven't forgotten". Taking >a long time to think is appropriate UI unless it >is done deliberately to aid partner >communication. Most other UI is "inappropriate", >because creating it is illegal. > >Some breaks in tempo (BITs) are irregularities >in themselves, making them inappropriate, as >when there is an immediate and obvious >likelihood of affecting partner's actions, Richard Hills: Incorrect as a general rule. Provided that there is a demonstrable bridge reason for the break in tempo, creation of UI via that BIT is legal, as specifically stated in Law 73D1. What is illegal is partner choosing to violate Law 73C and Law 16 by a _subsequent_ use of that UI. If pard eschews any demonstrably suggested logical alternative, then the opponents are not damaged. >or when it violates a regulation. A player leads >the king from AK-sixth against a suit slam, Qxxx >in dummy, and third seat hesitates markedly >before playing (thereby denying a singleton). The >irregularity is obvious, and the TD should be >called. Richard Hills: The TD need not be called if the opening leader now selects the only legal logical alternative of continuing with the ace. [to be continued in part three] Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 11 05:22:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:22:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061103130218.0211f6d0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asked: >I launched a thread, here, some years ago, about Cooper echoes (playing >an abnormally high card from dummy to tell partner the contract's >copacetic). > >Does one have to mention it on the CC ? Are you allowed to falsecard >that signal, especially at matchpoints, where defenders might want to >limit you to your contract ? Etc. Richard Hills replies: All the system cards of my various partnerships include a prominent written mention of "Cooper Echoes". My partner carefully explains to the opponents that not only do I play Cooper Echoes, but that I also play Psychic Cooper Echoes. Against humourless opponents it could argued that a Cooper Echo is an infraction of Law 74A2, since it could be deemed an act of gamesmanship interfering with their enjoyment of the game. On the other hand, it seems to me that declarer is entitled on each trick to designate any legal card in dummy (provided that declarer is obeying the Law 74B1 requirement to pay sufficient attention to the game). Many years ago Grattan Endicott suggested that a Cooper Echo might be an illegal communication from declarer to dummy, an infraction of Law 73. But because dummy is "le mort", it seems to me that any information sent *to* dummy cannot be deemed communication. (Of course it is possible that a communication *from* dummy might be an illegal infraction of Laws 42 and/or 43 and/or 45F.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 11 05:31:30 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:31:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 50 caveat (was Clubbed Queen) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >Some laws are not in the little blue book. If the TD has >reason to believe that a book ruling would conflict with >superior legislation such as the ADA (Americans with >Disabilities Act) he would be well advised to take that >into account. Ideally NAs would have regulations in place >which were sensitive to such national legislation. Richard Hills: So basketball is subject to legal sanction because it insensitively discriminates against short people? :-) On the other hand, there is a league of wheelchair Rugby players who were the subject of the 2005 documentary "Murderball". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 11 05:52:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:52:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4581A3EC.5010904@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >We are especially grateful to Ton Kooijiman for volunteering >to collect illustrative examples. IMO, such examples should >be *borderline* For example, "this opening 1N bid is legal >(by agreement) but if you substituted a nine for a ten, it >would be illegal". These are especially useful in cases >where a director must use "judgement" rather than apply a >metric or decide on simple objective facts. Isaac Asimov, Foundation: "A fire eater must eat fire, even if he has to kindle it himself." Richard Hills: The long-established Nigellic wish that a uniform bidding system be prescribed as a worldwide default method in the Lawbook is again being floated in Nigel's opinion above. If there is one thing which Directors do have expertise in, it is in using their judgement. What some Directors would find helpful is advice in Ton's appendix as to the _framework_ within which they exercise their judgement. That is, clarification of the step-by-step procedures needed to construct a ruling. Blml lurker Laval Dubreuil performed a similar (unofficial) service with his flow charts explaining the step-by-step procedures for common 1997 Lawbook rulings. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Sun Feb 11 06:57:43 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:57:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4581A3EC.5010904@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@mail.gmail.com> On 2/10/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > >We are especially grateful to Ton Kooijiman for volunteering > >to collect illustrative examples. IMO, such examples should > >be *borderline* For example, "this opening 1N bid is legal > >(by agreement) but if you substituted a nine for a ten, it > >would be illegal". These are especially useful in cases > >where a director must use "judgement" rather than apply a > >metric or decide on simple objective facts. > > Isaac Asimov, Foundation: > > "A fire eater must eat fire, even if he has to kindle it > himself." > > Richard Hills: > > The long-established Nigellic wish that a uniform bidding > system be prescribed as a worldwide default method in the > Lawbook is again being floated in Nigel's opinion above. > > If there is one thing which Directors do have expertise in, > it is in using their judgement. > > What some Directors would find helpful is advice in Ton's > appendix as to the _framework_ within which they exercise > their judgement. That is, clarification of the step-by-step > procedures needed to construct a ruling. > Can you tell us where Ton's appendix can be seen? I would rather have a few more rules and a little less discretion. At a recent ACBL NABC, for example, I was told I had to prealert an 11-13 NT opening, because the range was unusual. (Inexplicably, Memphis backed this up as valid director's discretion.) In the same session, I was also told, when my partner's claim was contested, that we should all pick up our cards and play the hand out. Funny thing, I said, "NO---play ceases" (I hear that that was wrong of me---too positively stated, blah blah). But a new director was summoned to do it right---and that director was the one who had required the prealert. Yes, directors have experience exercising judgement, but that proves nothing. I like Nigel's idea. Who says it has to be world wide? -Jerry Fusselman From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Sun Feb 11 11:35:09 2007 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:35:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? Message-ID: <45CEF15D.2020503@hotmail.com> Opponents use a special overcall system that allows them to show all kind on 2-suited hands. e.g 1C-(1NT) shows Diamond and Hearts.... Questions: - Should opponents provide you with a good defence against these overcalls? - Should opponents provide you this defence in advance and should you learn this defence before or can you look at/use their system notes during the play? - Suppose opps have very detailed system note with them: Can you agree with your partner to play all defences that are in this notes and use the notes during the play? - Can you ask opps during the play what is a good defence against eg 1C-(1NT) , ask it in detail and do the bid that corresponds your hand? From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 11 11:57:50 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:57:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? In-Reply-To: <45CEF15D.2020503@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c74dcb$7932ca20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of koen > Opponents use a special overcall system that allows them to show all > kind on 2-suited hands. > e.g 1C-(1NT) shows Diamond and Hearts.... > Questions: > - Should opponents provide you with a good defence against these > overcalls? > - Should opponents provide you this defence in advance and should you > learn this defence before or can you look at/use their system notes > during the play? > - Suppose opps have very detailed system note with them: Can you agree > with your partner to play all defences that are in this notes and use > the notes during the play? > - Can you ask opps during the play what is a good defence against eg > 1C-(1NT) , ask it in detail and do the bid that corresponds your hand? Your questions are mainly of regulations and not of law. Many regulations today define certain systems as HUM (Highly unusual methods) with heavy restrictions on where and how to use such systems. One common condition is that pairs using such systems must provide their opponents with an approved defense system which they may consult at any time during the auction and play. Your descriptions above do not seem to fall into the category of HUM systems so I would guess your opponents are just subject to the ordinary duties of disclosure. Furthermore I believe that if you agree with your partner to play your opponents' system or any part of it then footnote 12 to Law 40E2 effectively prohibits you from using their declarations as an aid for your own auction. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 11 12:37:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] IMP-scales for 2/3/4 boards In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070210204937.01d9bec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <45C99D44.70108@skynet.be> <002801c74af9$56db1920$0701a8c0@john> <45CADE4A.6040903@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209151719.01d2a870@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC34FE.5000703@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070209225257.01d212e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CC85BA.90100@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070210092936.01d25610@mail.optusnet.com.au> <45CD916B.2000708@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070210204937.01d9bec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <45CEFFEF.8040503@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > Herman wrote > >> If we use a 30-step VP scale, then all subsequent >> regulations must also deal with integer (30-scale) VP's. > > This is not true. Who was the first person who > allowed non-integer match points? What a visionary! > > And now we are beaten by Belgium in tennis. Wot next? > The Holland cricket team? > worse: the English! > Tony (Sydney) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Sat Feb 10 22:20:28 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:20:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] abbreviations References: <45CE2B58.8060702@aol.com> Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261493D9@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> ________________________________ From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org on behalf of Jeff Easterson Sent: Sat 10/02/2007 20:30 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: [blml] abbreviations A few days ago I started compiling a list of abbreviations used in blml correspondence which weren't in the list of blml abreviations. I have omitted very obvious ones. In some cases I can guess at the meaning although I'm not always certain. I am a native English speaker; I suspect for blmlers with English as a second, third or whatever language there might be less likelihood of recognising the meaning. Here is the list after only a few days. (capitalisation as used in correspondence) HK URL TPTB otoh ODI AFAIK fsf May I suggest either expanding the list of abbreviations or avoiding usage of any not on the list? Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ Jeff I understand your point, and it is true that "fsf" could be included. When the list of abbreviations was first compiled, people asked for non-bridge terms to be included. The decision was not to include non-bridge abbreviations because there were too many and there are other lists. Google is your friend: I check/found all these by typing them in to google, except fsf. Robin HK = Hong Kong - standard English URL = Uniform Resource Locator - standard computing/internet TPTB = The Powers That Be - internet slang otoh = on the other hand - internet slang ODI = One-Day International - standard cricket [Go England!] AFAIK = As Far As I Know - internet slang fsf = fourth-suit forcing - bridge! ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20070210/18780607/attachment.htm From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Feb 11 21:16:46 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:16:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIA References: <45CD9052.9050700@skynet.be> <45CDD484.6010903@NTLworld.com> <006101c74d6a$1c7ee9a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <430EBCB3-9929-4BF8-804E-76AE7ABA6E28@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002901c74e19$8f3c6f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Marvin French wrote: > > > If no damage results from an infraction, assign a PP. If there is > > damage, handle the UI normally, and maybe a PP. > > The logic of this escapes me. If you must, in the sense of "must" in > the laws, maintain even tempo, then a PP is appropriate whether or > not there is damage. The fact there is damage, and that therefore the > score will be adjusted, should not obviate the requirement for a PP. As you know, I oppose the use of PPs for disciplinary purposes. The whole story is on my website under "Bridge Laws and Regulations." It follows a well-known legal principle (*sui generis*, of the same kind) that says PPs should be used only for things typified by L90B, none of which involve punishment for breaking a law that provides its own remedy. Except for extreme cases covered by L91, discipline should take place outside the game, not in the game. For that reason Zero Tolerance offenses are covered by L91, not L90. In this case you could be right. If the TD will make clear beforehand that he expects players to maintain proper tempo, then not doing so could be taken as a "Failure to Comply" with an instruction of the TD (L90B8). If so, the PP could be assigned whether or not there is damage. However, most TDs would probably just give a lecture, not a PP, if the offender has suffered a score adjustment. While on this subject, I'd like to point out that TDs ought to have latitude when implementing poorly-worded laws. If L16A's literal meaning is that it is not illegal to take an illogical action (e.g., to give partner a lesson in ethics), then in spite of that a TD should not give more to the non-offenders than they would have received after a logical (but illegal) action (the worst result "at all probable."). The offending side keeps its illogical result, of course, unless it represents an advantage in the score attributable to the infraction (WBFLC, Lille). Thank goodness an AC may not overrule a TD in regard to the interpretation of a law. It can judge the logic of an action, but not its legal consequences. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 11 22:48:15 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:48:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Can you tell us where Ton's appendix can be seen? Richard Hills: On an X-ray in his doctor's filing cabinet? Grattan Endicott (14th December 2006): [snip] >>Where I believe the Code of Laws that is developing >>to replace the 1997 Laws will have an advantage over >>past years is in the fact that the single official >>version of the Laws will be presented worldwide on >>the internet, available for any and every TD to >>access if he encounters a problem. Hopefully we will >>be able to add, when settled, an appendix of >>illustrations of intended interpretations and >>applications to which we will be able to add from >>time to time, meeting the Presidential wish that the >>WBF should develop a Jurisprudence for international >>application. The target would be to meld harmoniously >>the opinions deriving from the various bridge regions >>represented on the WBF standing Laws and Appeals >>Committees. Ton Kooijman has taken on the task of >>producing a basic set of examples for his colleagues >>to consider; he has the kind of brain that is well >>adapted to the job and we should all wish him joy >>with it. [snip] Jerry Fusselman: >I would rather have a few more rules and a little less >discretion. > >At a recent ACBL NABC, for example, I was told I had >to prealert an 11-13 NT opening, because the range was >unusual. (Inexplicably, Memphis backed this up as >valid director's discretion.) Richard Hills: It is not inexplicable to me. The non-conventional or natural meaning of a double is "for penalties". But in this super-scientific age of negative doubles, I always pre-alert the fact that my partnership has the sensible but (alas) unusual agreement to employ penalty doubles in sequences such as: Pard RHO Me 1H 2C Dble = +800 And Jerry Fusselman is incorrect in thinking that the director was merely using discretion. Both the ACBL and the ABF Alert Regulations require natural but unusual calls to be alerted. Jerry Fusselman: >In the same session, I was also told, when my >partner's claim was contested, that we should all >pick up our cards and play the hand out. Richard Hills: That is not pertinent to Jerry's wish for "a few more rules". Rather, it is relevant to a wish that floor Directors be properly trained in current rules before being employed to direct at a National Championship. (I suspect that such a lazy Director who obviously had never bothered reading the fabulous Lawbook would not be employed at an English National Championship, since England has a comprehensive training and certification program for Directors.) Jerry Fusselman: >Funny thing, I said, "NO---play ceases" (I hear that >that was wrong of me---too positively stated, blah >blah). Law 72A6: "The responsibility for penalising irregularities and redressing damage rests solely upon the Director and these Laws, not upon the players themselves." Jerry Fusselman: >But a new director was summoned to do it right---and >that director was the one who had required the >prealert. Richard Hills: Indeed. A Director who knows and correctly applies Law 68D is likely to also know and correctly apply the ACBL Alert Regulation, ignoring unfounded objections from a novice sea-lawyer. :-) Alexander Pope (1688-1744): "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 12 00:58:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:58:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >The HK was played (OOT, so an infraction) and then withdrawn. That >remains true even if the PC provisions are waived. L16C2 handles >the rest. [snip] Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information." Law 50D1 bracketed caveat: "(the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner)" Richard Hills: You know that pard is going to play the major penalty card of the heart king to this trick. According to Law 16C2 that is unauthorised information. According to Law 50D1 that is authorised information. W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Pirates of Penzance: >>A paradox? >>A paradox! >>A most ingenious paradox! >>We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks, >>But none to beat this paradox! Richard Hills: To paradoctor this paradox perhaps Kojak's Law could be used: "A specific rule in the Lawbook is an over-riding exception to a general rule in the Lawbook." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 12 01:29:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:29:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45CD9052.9050700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>>>As has been argued here before "Among the white sheep were a goat >>>>and a black ram - when asked to choose his favourite animal the >>>>farmer selected the goat." >>>> >>>>For Goat read "Illogical Alternative", for black ram read >>>>"Suggested LA" for sheep read "Non-suggested LAs". Thus it is >>>>linguistically possible to select an IA from among LAs. This >>>>interpretation is consistent with the words of L16a2 "When a >>>>player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had >>>>a logical alternative..". It is the existence of LAs which >>>>matters - not the logicality of the selected action. Only white >>>>sheep are legal! Herman De Wael: >>>No Tim, the goat is legal! >>>only the black ram is the suggested alternative and cannot be >>>chosen. Tim West-Meads: >>There is a group "all alternatives". Each of those may logical or >>illogical. Each may also be suggested/non-suggested (the latter >>pairing is independent of the former). If the set of non-suggested >>LAs is non-empty it is illegal to choose a suggested action >>regardless of whether that action itself is logical or not because >>the suggested action is being chosen from a wider group which >>includes non-suggested LAs. >> >>Looking at: AK98xx,x,AQxx,Ax and having the uncontested auction: >>1S-2C >>3D-3H (fsf) >>3S-4H (cue agreeing Spades) >> >>Do we think 7S now is a logical alternative? I don't. What I do >>know is that my partner alerted my natural 3D bid considering it a >>splinter in support of clubs. I know that 5C (which would be a cue >>bid and a logical action in search of the grand absent the UI) will >>be passed out when we have a certain slam on. Do you think I am >>allowed to punt 7S (which has the merit of being a big plus if it >>makes)? Do you think that if I select 7S and it makes I have >>"carefully avoided taking any advantage that might accrue to his >>side"? >> >>I didn't. I bid 5C which was duly passed by partner for -10 Imps on >>the Butler as expected. 7S would have been +11. 7S was an >>illogical goat among the non-suggested sheep. Nigel Guthrie: >IMO Tim & Sven are right in law and in common sense. Richard Hills: Yes and no. Tim West-Meads and Sven Pran have correctly deduced the _intended_ meaning of the Law 16A direction, "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." But Herman De Wael and Ed Reppert have correctly parsed the _actual words_ of the Law 16A direction. (Of course, as Tim correctly notes, the _actual words_ of Law 73C - "carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side" - have a broader scope.) Nigel Guthrie: >I agree with Herman that this law needs urgent clarification. Richard Hills: If I was El Supremo of the WBF, I would reword the Law 16A direction to read: "the partner may not choose an action which is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information if there is at least one logical alternative action which is not demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Mon Feb 12 01:31:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:31:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? In-Reply-To: <000001c74dcb$7932ca20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c74dcb$7932ca20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45CFB566.6070803@NTLworld.com> [koen] Opponents use a special overcall system that allows them to show all kind on 2-suited hands. e.g 1C-(1NT) shows Diamond and Hearts.... Questions: - Should opponents provide you with a good defence against these overcalls? - Should opponents provide you this defence in advance and should you learn this defence before or can you look at/use their system notes during the play? - Suppose opps have very detailed system note with them: Can you agree with your partner to play all defences that are in this notes and use the notes during the play? - Can you ask opps during the play what is a good defence against eg 1C-(1NT) , ask it in detail and do the bid that corresponds your hand? [Sven Pran] Your questions are mainly of regulations and not of law. Many regulations today define certain systems as HUM (Highly unusual methods) with heavy restrictions on where and how to use such systems. One common condition is that pairs using such systems must provide their opponents with an approved defense system which they may consult at any time during the auction and play. Your descriptions above do not seem to fall into the category of HUM systems so I would guess your opponents are just subject to the ordinary duties of disclosure. Furthermore I believe that if you agree with your partner to play your opponents' system or any part of it then footnote 12 to Law 40E2 effectively prohibits you from using their declarations as an aid for your own auction. [Nige1] IMO Koen has the right idea. Currently, each national organisation defines local *alert regulations*. These *implicitly* define a local *standard system* from which you alert departures. Under most jurisdictions this *standard system* is a random hodgepodge, hard to remember, and which few would elect to use at the table. Players have to learn different local "systems" for each jurisdiction. A better choice of standard system - for example SAYC -- would be (i) Simple and basic but *playable*. (ii) Could become a *universal standard* so disclosure regulations could be *global*. (iii) Avoid the controversy about the meaning of terms like "natural" "artificial" or "conventional". The *standard system* would engender a myriad of other benefits: [A] There could be 2 classes of competition... (a) Standard system (you can delete conventions from the standard convention card but may not add or modify them). (b) Anything goes. [B] the *standard system* would be ideal for beginners, no-fear events, pick-up partnerships, individuals, and international events that a wide audience could easily follow. [C] The laws could be indulgent about bidding mistakes by users of the standard system but vulpine about convention disruption by those employing more sophisticated methods. [D] Where you depart from the standard system, the law could insist that you supply an approved written defence. If opponents adopt your defence, then they can consult your notes during the auction, as Koen suggests. All this is so simple and sensible and has so few drawbacks that I hope the WBFLC consider it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 12 01:50:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:50:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c74dcb$7932ca20$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [big snip] >Furthermore I believe that if you agree with your partner to play >your opponents' system or any part of it then footnote 12 to Law >40E2 effectively prohibits you from using their declarations as >an aid for your own auction. Law 40E2: "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own." Law 40E2 footnote (first sentence): "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Richard Hills: "or any part of it"??? So if my Symmetric Relay (system notes available on request) partnership met another Symmetric Relay partnership playing a slightly different version of the system, I could not look at their system card to discover the differences, because the non- differences on their system card would be an illegal aid to my memory of my own version? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Mon Feb 12 02:09:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:09:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com> > > Jerry Fusselman: > > >I would rather have a few more rules and a little less > >discretion. > > > >At a recent ACBL NABC, for example, I was told I had > >to prealert an 11-13 NT opening, because the range was > >unusual. (Inexplicably, Memphis backed this up as > >valid director's discretion.) > > Richard Hills: > > It is not inexplicable to me. The non-conventional or > natural meaning of a double is "for penalties". But in > this super-scientific age of negative doubles, I always > pre-alert the fact that my partnership has the > sensible but (alas) unusual agreement to employ penalty > doubles in sequences such as: > > Pard RHO Me > 1H 2C Dble = +800 > > And Jerry Fusselman is incorrect in thinking that the > director was merely using discretion. I am sticking to my guns on my choice of the word "inexplicable." Maybe you will surprise me and stick to yours after you see the regs for the ACBL. Please look at http://www.acbl.org/play/AlertChart.pdf For example, it states, that this is alertable: "Very light overcalls (fewer than 6 HCP) Also pre-Alert." So, my hope it that in national ACBL events, all directors should rule that an agreement to overcall with 3 HCP is both alertable and prealertable. But not that any agreement to do so with 7 HCP is prealertable. Also, and more to my point, under the column, "Announcements", it says "State Range, if natural, for all 1NT openings." Note that there is no reference to prealerting here, and there is plenty of room for such a reference. In the ACBL, we announce all opening 1NT notrump ranges. An announcement is a form of alert. I never said that a weak notrump was not alertable. Though they don't cover every conceivable call, the ACBL regs seem quite clear to me that 1 NT 11--13, though announcable, is not prealertable. But there's more evidence in http://web2.acbl.org/Alert/alertpamp.htm . There you will find these two sentences together: "Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors." This is explained under the regulations for prealerts, and I think it is clearly saying that weak notrumps and four-card majors are not prealertable. It goes on to say that one should prealert "a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings," All of these citations were available on the web at the time of the tournament, and they match similar documents at clubs and articles in the ACBL's bridge magazine. Are you convinced that, in ACBL national events, 1NT 11--13 is announcable but not prealertable? In this light, can you explain why it is a good idea for an ACBL director in a national event to be able to say, "Today, I require weak notrumps to be prealerted."? Is there anyone reading this who really thinks it is a good idea to have ACBL directors change ACBL alert regulations? ...and then to have the national authority endorse the change? Of course, directors have to interpret alert regulations, but do we really want them to clearly change them? If so, what other laws and regulations should directors be encouraged to change? -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 12 02:25:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:25:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002901c74e19$8f3c6f80$6601a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >While on this subject, I'd like to point out that TDs >ought to have latitude when implementing poorly-worded >laws. Richard Hills: Directors have the power to interpret ambiguous laws. See Law 81C5. If by "latitude" Marv is suggesting that Directors have the power to ignore laws and regulations that they do not like, then that is specifically prohibited. Law 81B2: "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." Marvin French: >If L16A's literal meaning is that it is not illegal to >take an illogical action (e.g., to give partner a >lesson in ethics), Richard Hills: Deliberately taking an illogical action to "give partner a lesson" is an infraction of the courtesy requirement of Law 74A2, which Law applies to all three opponents, not merely two of them. Marvin French: >then in spite of that a TD should not give more to the >non-offenders than they would have received after a >logical (but illegal) action (the worst result "at all >probable."). Richard Hills: Marv's "should" is contrary to a bedrock principle embodied in Law 12 that the non-offending side never gets an adjusted score which is worse than their table score. Marvin French: >The offending side keeps its illogical result, of >course, unless it represents an advantage in the score >attributable to the infraction (WBFLC, Lille). > >Thank goodness an AC may not overrule a TD in regard >to the interpretation of a law. It can judge the logic >of an action, but not its legal consequences. Richard Hills: Now Marv is presiding over the Courts of Chaos, with a "thank goodness" implied suggestion that a Director can freely rewrite the Lawbook to suit that Director's personal principles because an Appeals Committee lacks the power to over-rule the Director on matters of Law. This would bring back the bad old days of the 1940s, when all-powerful ACBL Directors each ruled according to their individual whim, thus creating Courts of Chaos inconsistencies in rulings. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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.willey at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 02:50:49 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:50:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702111750h63b06f8bu3eccc41ea18120a1@mail.gmail.com> > Is there anyone reading this who really thinks it is a good idea to > have ACBL directors change ACBL alert regulations? ...and then to have > the national authority endorse the change? Of course, directors have > to interpret alert regulations, but do we really want them to clearly > change them? If so, what other laws and regulations should directors > be encouraged to change? I'm sure that this email won't win me many new friends amongst the "powers that be" in Memphis, however, the ACBL's TD doesn't seem competent to find their ass with both hands. Over the course of the last sixth monthes I've seen Memphis provide a series of complete inane rulings, recommendations, and comments. Sadly, I don't find this latest piece of idiocy at all surprise. The best recommendation that I can give is ask the question a couple more times. Eventually, you'll receive a different ruling that you find more to your liking. Case in point: A month ago there was a disagreement on BBO discussion list about whether or not a Muiderberg 2S opening was legal at the GCC level. Adam Meyerson and I both submitted this question to "rulings at ACBL.org". We received completely contradictory statements. >From my perspective neither of of the Directors who were responding had a clue what they were talking about. (for what its worth, we're talking about very senior directors here). For anyone who cares, the complete thread is available at http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=17333&st=0 You can see all the emails that went back and forth, along with a bunch of commentary. >From my perspective, it is abundantly clear that the ACBL needs to invest some resources and produce the equivalent of the EBU Orange and White Books. If the ACBL's Senior Directing staff can't answer basic question what hope do local TD have producing intelligble rulings. I wouldn't argue that the Orange Book of the White Book are perfect, however, I consider them well written, solid, and above all reasonable. The ACBL is larger than the EBU and has significantly more resources. The fact that we haven't produced anything equivalent represents a grave failure in organization competency. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 12 04:17:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:17:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>I am sticking to my guns on my choice of the word "inexplicable." >>Maybe you will surprise me and stick to yours after you see the regs >>for the ACBL. [snip] Willy Wonka: "The best kind of prize is a sur-prise." Extracts from ACBL Alert Pamphlet: >This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly >unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying >the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be >determined in light of historical usage rather than local >geographical usage. >..... >Pre-Alerts are given before the auction period begins on the first >board of a round. Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning >of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. >(See Part III.) >..... >3) SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > >Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems >that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include >either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention >card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that >most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canap? >system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction >begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor- >suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the >opponents. Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >>This is explained under the regulations for prealerts, and I think >>it is clearly saying that weak notrumps and four-card majors are not >>prealertable. It goes on to say that one should prealert "a 10-12 >>1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings," [snip] Richard Hills: Jerry omitted the words "for example", so a pre-alert of 1NT does not necessarily mean that 10-12 is the pre-alertable range. Indeed weak notrumps are not pre-alertable. But what defines a weak notrump? Under the "light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage" a weak notrump has a 12-14 range, but Jerry was using an unusual ultra-weak 11-13 range. And given the obvious fact that an 11-13 range is very unusual in the ACBL, which has "historical usage" of ultra-conservative bidding, it seems to me that Jerry should have _voluntarily_ pre-alerted his opponents to his style, consistent with the "fully and freely available to the opponents" principle in Law 75A, _even if_ his interpretation of the ACBL Alert regulation is deemed to be correct. For what it is worth, my personal style is to go above and beyond the disclosure mandated by the ABF Alert Regulation. My personal view is that it is contrary to the nature of bridge to gain a good result by playing a legal method which can be legally hidden from unsuspecting opponents until it is too late for them to discuss a defence. This is why I prefer the ABF "pre-alert" rule to the EBU "announce" rule. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 12 04:30:14 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:30:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert Message-ID: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this; what should the standard be? For example, here are some common auctions on which a call is Alertable (or Announceable). Suppose East makes the call with the indicated meaning, West fails to Alert or Announce, neither North nor South asks, and N-S claim damage. On which of these auctions are N-S entitled to an adjusted score? S W N E 1C! X (1C=Precision, X=majors) 1NT 2C (one-suited hand, any suit) 1C P 1S 2H X (support double) 1C P 1S 1NT (unusual sandwich NT by an unpassed hand) 1NT X 2D (X=penalty, 2D=transfer) 1S 1NT P 2D (transfer) 1D P 1S P 2C P 2H (fourth suit forcing) 2H P 2NT P 3D (Ogust, good suit, weak hand) 1NT P 2C P 2D P 3H (Smolen, four hearts and five spades) 1C X 1S X (shows four hearts) My suggestion: if the missing Alert is very common, and the player can ask without causing a UI problem, he must ask to protect himself. I would say that this applies to the first four sequences. Precision players know that few players use a double of 1C to show clubs, and there is no UI problem in finding out what the double means, even though you need to ask because it is not on the convention card. Conventional defenses to 1NT are also very common, and will be expected even if the Alert is missing. The unalerted support double and sandwich NT are also situations in which an expected Alert is missing, and checking about it is unlikely to create UI. In these four situations, an experienced player must ask (or look at the convention card), or he cannot get an adjustment for MI. A player who would pass over a natural bid but double an artificial bid to show the suit will create UI if he asks, is told the bid is natural, and passes. Thus a player cannot be expected to protect himself against an unalerted transfer or fourth suit forcing. (The three example sequences are ones on which many people do play the call as natural.) Smolen and Ogust are not universal meanings for these calls, so N-S may not suspect that anything is wrong and should not lose a right to an MI adjustment. If N-S wanted to do something during the auction, they are entitled to an adjustment. And if the auction ends and E-W are the declaring side, East should correct the MI, and N-S are entitled to an adjustment for that infraction if the MI is not corrected and they are damaged in the play. And the final example is a clear case for an MI adjustment if the alert is missing, because the natural meaning (a penalty double) is normal. I mentioned it only because it is one on which I know to protect myself. Many intermediate players don't quite understand the concept of negative doubles and have no idea that this is not a standard negative double situation. (Some experts also play this, but they know to Alert.) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Feb 12 04:34:33 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:34:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00a301c74e56$b6c58360$6400a8c0@rota> Richard Hills writes: > And given the obvious fact that an 11-13 range is very unusual in the > ACBL, which has "historical usage" of ultra-conservative bidding, it > seems to me that Jerry should have _voluntarily_ pre-alerted his > opponents to his style, consistent with the "fully and freely > available to the opponents" principle in Law 75A, _even if_ his > interpretation of the ACBL Alert regulation is deemed to be correct. The rule should be that any system over which the opponents might need to discuss their defenses must be pre-alerted. A 14-16 point 1NT opening, for example, should be a pre-alert, so that the opponents can agree whether to use their weak or strong NT defense against it. An 11-13 in an otherwise natural system doesn't require a pre-alert because the opponents can defend the same as they would against an 11-14 or 12-14; I agree that it is a desirable courtesy. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 12 05:31:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:31:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a301c74e56$b6c58360$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] >An 11-13 in an otherwise natural system doesn't require a >pre-alert because the opponents can defend the same as >they would against an 11-14 or 12-14; I agree that it is a >desirable courtesy. Richard Hills: So a 10-13 range can be defended against as if it was an 11-13 range, a 10-12 range can be defended against as if it was a 10-13 range, etc, etc. It seems to me that David's reasoning is analogous to the slip-sliding reasoning in the Unexpected Hanging Paradox. From Wikipedia: A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one day in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day. Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that if the hanging were on Friday then it would not be a surprise, since he would know by Thursday night that he was to be hanged the following day, as it would be the only day left. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday. He then reasons that the hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because that day would also not be a surprise. On Wednesday night he would know that, with two days left (one of which he already knows cannot be execution day), the hanging should be expected on the following day. By similar reasoning he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all. The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoner's door at noon on Wednesday - an utter surprise to him. Everything the judge said has come true. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Mon Feb 12 06:37:39 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:37:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702112137y4128145ci65a59cc91f1b6747@mail.gmail.com> > > >>This is explained under the regulations for prealerts, and I think > >>it is clearly saying that weak notrumps and four-card majors are not > >>prealertable. It goes on to say that one should prealert "a 10-12 > >>1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings," > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Jerry omitted the words "for example", so a pre-alert of 1NT does not > necessarily mean that 10-12 is the pre-alertable range. No, I am afraid you misunderstood me entirely. I thought it would be obvious to any bridge player who can read English that my quote is just one example. What else could it be? The reason for the quote is to show that the ACBL does not consider weak notrumps prealertable per se. This sentence was a chance for them to do so and save some words, but they declined. They could have said that a 10-12 notrump range is prealerted. They went out of their way to avoid this, so it would seem clear that a 10-12 range,by itself, would not be prealertable. > > Indeed weak notrumps are not pre-alertable. But what defines a weak > notrump? Under the "light of historical usage rather than local > geographical usage" a weak notrump has a 12-14 range, but Jerry was > using an unusual ultra-weak 11-13 range. > Hardly ultra-weak, for there is also the 10-12 range. I don't see this argument. Are you saying that a pair might be ready for 12-14 notrumps or 10-12 notrumps but at a loss for how to deal with 11-13 notrumps? If so, I would love to hear about it. Anyone? > And given the obvious fact that an 11-13 range is very unusual in the > ACBL, which has "historical usage" of ultra-conservative bidding, it > seems to me that Jerry should have _voluntarily_ pre-alerted his > opponents to his style, consistent with the "fully and freely > available to the opponents" principle in Law 75A, _even if_ his > interpretation of the ACBL Alert regulation is deemed to be correct. > About 12 years ago, I called Memphis to ask about ten of the most likely parts of my system that should be prealerted, just in case, and Gary Blaiss said no, nothing, and my enquiry at the time included the 11-13 range. I now play an 11-14 range, does that make it more prealertable in anyone's eyes? I used to prealert stuff, but it takes too much time away from the round and seems to offer little or no value, given what I play. Here in the ACBL, my rough estimate at the time was that we lost about 60 seconds from the round when I prealerted. 60 seconds is the average, though the median was perhaps 12 seconds. There is a lot of stuff in red on my card! Bridge is a timed game. Also, two of my partners not want to play methods that require prealerts. For a few months I prealerted that we had wide-ranging weak two bids in third seat, and you would not believe the number of yawns that caused. However, that one simply had to be prealerted, because the wider range implied that we had to abandon all conventional followups from third seat. II can send the pdf of my card to anyone to see what you would wish to have prealerted. But I really don't see how the 11-13 notrump range causes anyone any problems if they are ready for other weak notrump ranges. Bridge is a timed game, and there are more useful things to use the time for than to wait for the 5% of the time that an opponents calls the director to see if our methods are GCC legal (They are) for calls that are not destined to come up. > For what it is worth, my personal style is to go above and beyond the > disclosure mandated by the ABF Alert Regulation. Actually, it is my style too, but there is a limit to how much time you have to explain your methods. You have to use your time wisely. I work on how best to convey the useful information in a memorable and complete manner. I take pride in this. And I don't hear many complaints. One fellow was livid that I opened 1NT with a 6-card minor. Another was livid that my partner, after a standard 1S-1N forcing auction, rebid 2D with three great diamonds when he had three small clubs (It was never discussed). Both complained loudly and bitterly during the hand, but I think that kind of behavior is generally risk-free in the ACBL. Those are the only two cases I can recall of prealerts that someone expressed interest in. Should I start prealerting these two possibilities? > My personal view is > that it is contrary to the nature of bridge to gain a good result by > playing a legal method which can be legally hidden from unsuspecting > opponents until it is too late for them to discuss a defence. Duh!! Why are you writing this here? My goal has never been to hide my methods---quite the opposite. But no one has ever said to me that they were stumped about what to do about 11-13 but knew how to handle 12-14. I suspect that 12-14 is the weak range less than half of the time here in my area, but I am not sure. I could give lots of lots of examples of things we alert that we are apparently not required to alert. Anything I would wish to know as an opponent gets alerted. But I think it unwise to waste 5 minutes before every round bragging about twenty nuances of our system and how ethical we are. The funny thing is that I cannot recall a director say that a bid we don't alert should be alerted. And only this one director thought we should prealert something. We alert negative inferences all over the place, and opponents seem to find that 100 times more useful than prealerting a simple 11-13 or 11-14 range. Does anyone else out there think that 11-13 vs 12-14 is a crucial difference, and that 12-14 is what ACBL players are ready for, but 11-13 or 11-14 is likely to have them stumped? And if you think 11-13 really requires a prealert in ACBL land, then why didn't the ACBL alert regulations mention it when they had such obvious chances to do so specifically in three separate places in the alert regulations? >From earlier today: > Richard Hills: > > To paradoctor this paradox perhaps Kojak's Law could be used: > > "A specific rule in the Lawbook is an over-riding exception to a > general rule in the Lawbook." I consider the sections of the alert regulations that I previously quoted to be specific rules that make it clear they never intended weak notrumps of any range to be prealerted. Richard's argument is only from general rules combined with a supposition about 12-14 in the ACBL that is not clear to me. But if anyone can substantiate, I am interested. -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:29:11 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:29:11 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> David Grabiner wrote: > The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by > experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to > Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." > > I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this; what should > the standard be? > > For example, here are some common auctions on which a call is Alertable (or > Announceable). Suppose East makes the call with the indicated meaning, West > fails to Alert or Announce, neither North nor South asks, and N-S claim > damage. On which of these auctions are N-S entitled to an adjusted score? > > S W N E > 1C! X (1C=Precision, X=majors) > > 1NT 2C (one-suited hand, any suit) > > 1C > P 1S 2H X (support double) > > 1C P 1S 1NT (unusual sandwich NT by an unpassed hand) > > 1NT X 2D (X=penalty, 2D=transfer) > > 1S 1NT P 2D (transfer) > > 1D P 1S > P 2C P 2H (fourth suit forcing) > > 2H > P 2NT P 3D (Ogust, good suit, weak hand) > > 1NT P 2C > P 2D P 3H (Smolen, four hearts and five spades) > > 1C X 1S X (shows four hearts) > > My suggestion: if the missing Alert is very common, and the player can ask > without causing a UI problem, he must ask to protect himself. > > I would say that this applies to the first four sequences. Interesting position. Let's look at your second example, 1NT-2C. If South has long clubs or a void in clubs, you are saying, I think, that he better not ask, for it might cause a UI problem. But if his club holding is average, then he can and should ask, you seem to be saying. But when he does ask, it conveys UI that his clubs are unremarkable. The best solution for examples that are covered by the CC is probably to always look for CC confirmation of there being no alert, whether you really need to know or not. That covers numbers 2--4. For number 1, I would think a Precision player should ask for descriptions of any interference that comes his way, because strength and distribution will vary so much. > > A player who would pass over a natural bid but double an artificial bid to > show the suit will create UI if he asks, is told the bid is natural, and > passes. Thus a player cannot be expected to protect himself against an > unalerted transfer or fourth suit forcing. (The three example sequences are > ones on which many people do play the call as natural.) > > Smolen and Ogust are not universal meanings for these calls, so N-S may not > suspect that anything is wrong and should not lose a right to an MI > adjustment. If N-S wanted to do something during the auction, they are > entitled to an adjustment. And if the auction ends and E-W are the > declaring side, East should correct the MI, and N-S are entitled to an > adjustment for that infraction if the MI is not corrected and they are > damaged in the play. > I consider Ogust your easiest case. With Ogust (etc.), you 100% have to ask about nonalerted replies, for the 2NT call almost guarantees that either 2NT or the answer should have been alerted. A nonforcing, natural 2NT is alertable in the ACBL, and it is almost inconceivable (to me anyway) how 2NT could be forcing while 3D is unalertable. If NS are perfect, then they can handle your other cases too. Smolen and fourth-suit forcing are also on the card. The Systems-on check boxes handle your the two transfer cases. Again, check the CC every time, or ask every time, for suspicious nonalerts. And do it with a uniform degree of scepticism. This is asking quite a lot of NS, maybe too much. And still, doing this, they might be liable for UI adjustments if the hand was too interesting in a particular case. They will say, "We check all of the time," but that statement is often be branded as self serving and disregarded. OK, so here is my real recommendation. Every good player should fill out a card explaining their styles in matters of tempo, questions, and examinations of the CCs. It is available to the opponents to see even before the round, and you follow it during the round. For example, on the card is your minimum wait before calling in balancing seat, before doubling, after a surprise overcall, after an artificial bid, after a skip bid, when answering a game try, when the auction is above the four level, and maybe a one or two more. I really think this would make an improvement in our game. The opponents can see it ahead of time, and you stick to it. I have been meaning to try it someday. Of course, sometimes you will take longer, but never less time than your promise on the card. Also on the card is your pattern of asking questions about calls. One thing to write down is that you always ask about calls that you know are usually alerted. Then, it seems to me, you get fewer instances of UI, fewer claims of UI, and you have to be told less often that your statements about your tendencies are merely self serving. However, another solution is to reread the difficult regulation you cited: ""Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." The phrase is "have neglected", not "may have neglected" or "probably have neglected." It seems possible to me that ACBL tournament officials do not want you to try to protect yourself in cases you don't really know for sure---for the obvious UI reasons. -Jerry Fusselman From henk at ripe.net Mon Feb 12 09:39:22 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:39:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations In-Reply-To: <45CE2B58.8060702@aol.com> References: <45CE2B58.8060702@aol.com> Message-ID: <45D027BA.80300@ripe.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > A few days ago I started compiling a list of abbreviations used in blml > correspondence which weren't in the list of blml abreviations. I have > omitted very obvious ones. In some cases I can guess at the meaning > although I'm not always certain. I am a native English speaker; I > suspect for blmlers with English as a second, third or whatever language > there might be less likelihood of recognising the meaning. Here is the > list after only a few days. (capitalisation as used in correspondence) > HK > URL > TPTB > otoh > ODI > AFAIK > fsf The only one that is bridge related is FSF. All others are generic. I've added FSF to the list. Henk > May I suggest either expanding the list of abbreviations or avoiding > usage of any not on the list? Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 12 10:11:01 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:11:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c74e85$b77f2b10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: ............. > >Furthermore I believe that if you agree with your partner to play > >your opponents' system or any part of it then footnote 12 to Law > >40E2 effectively prohibits you from using their declarations as > >an aid for your own auction. > > Law 40E2: > > "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to > his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, > but not to his own." > > Law 40E2 footnote (first sentence): > > "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to > any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." > > Richard Hills: > > "or any part of it"??? > > So if my Symmetric Relay (system notes available on request) > partnership met another Symmetric Relay partnership playing a > slightly different version of the system, I could not look at > their system card to discover the differences, because the non- > differences on their system card would be an illegal aid to my > memory of my own version? I tried to be very careful when spelling out my comment and still Richard managed to read something I didn't write, fantastic! Nothing prohibits a player from looking at opponents' system card even if opponents' system happens to match his own system or any part of it. But if a player looks at opponents' system card in order to refresh his memory on his own system, something he could do because he knows that the systems are identical in some way and he needs a reminder on some detail with his own system, then _such_ use of opponents' system card is illegal. Or simplified: Looking at opponents' system card for a description of opponents' auction is legal; looking at it for a description of your own auction is not. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 12 10:19:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:19:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c74e86$dec47670$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au .............. > If I was El Supremo of the WBF, I would reword the Law 16A direction > to read: > > "the partner may not choose an action which is demonstrably suggested > by the unauthorized information if there is at least one logical > alternative action which is not demonstrably suggested by the > unauthorized information." Isn't that precisely what Law 16A expresses today except that today's text does not require proof of being suggested; only that it "could" be suggested? Our game is not served well by a law that calls for extensive investigation in order to find such proof which by its nature must be a proof of intent. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 12 14:10:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > You know that pard is going to play the major penalty card of the > heart king to this trick. According to Law 16C2 that is unauthorised > information. According to Law 50D1 that is authorised information. > >>A paradox? > >>A paradox! > >>A most ingenious paradox! In this case the apparent paradox is resolved because the knowledge that the HK must be played at the first legal opportunity arises from the TD's PC ruling rather than from the withdrawn action itself. OK, I know the laws do not explicitly classify TD rulings as AI but....! Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 12 14:34:35 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:34:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence References: <45AE3FA6.5040301@aol.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070118100128.02b7deb0@pop.starpower.net><004c01c73b1e$f85de830$2ea987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20070118130639.02b807a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00b701c74eaa$b37fc310$24b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] psyches, rule of coincidence > 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". > +=+ In scrolling through an accumulation of stuff when deleting I noticed this, to which I did not respond. There is no 'explicit repudiation' of anything. The Law Book puts the judgement of the evidence in any single incident in the hands of the Director (and subsequently in the hands of the AC). There is no certainty in any single case that the Rule of Coincidence will or will not satisfy the criterion of 'the balance of probability'. There are coincidences and Coincidences. Mr W expresses a view perhaps on the frequency with which the Director should be persuaded by the existence of such evidence; others will take a different stance. My position is simply that each occasion calls for objective judgement of the available facts and inferences. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 12 14:38:53 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:38:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a301c74e56$b6c58360$6400a8c0@rota> References: <00a301c74e56$b6c58360$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <45D06DED.4050109@NTLworld.com> [David Grabiner] The rule should be that any system over which the opponents might need to discuss their defenses must be pre-alerted. A 14-16 point 1NT opening, for example, should be a pre-alert, so that the opponents can agree whether to use their weak or strong NT defense against it. An 11-13 in an otherwise natural system doesn't require a pre-alert because the opponents can defend the same as they would against an 11-14 or 12-14; I agree that it is a desirable courtesy. [nige1] While not perfect, the new EBU convention card goes a long way towards eliminating such problems. The front has boxes for you to specify *notrump* and *two-openers* and has a further space for *other aspects of system which opponents should note* In the UK, before a round, we describe basic system with notrump ranges and so on; we also draw opponents' attention to the first page of the convention card. All this takes less than a minute. This simple effective protocol should be enforced by law. The convention card is yet another aspect of Bridge that cries out for international standardisation. Manifestly, it is strangers and foreigners who most need to rapidly assimilate information from a convention card. I suppose that different conditions might necessitate more than one standard card but the overall layout and wording should be common to all. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 12 15:23:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:23:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c74e86$dec47670$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c74e86$dec47670$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > .............. >> If I was El Supremo of the WBF, I would reword the Law 16A direction >> to read: >> >> "the partner may not choose an action which is demonstrably suggested >> by the unauthorized information if there is at least one logical >> alternative action which is not demonstrably suggested by the >> unauthorized information." > > Isn't that precisely what Law 16A expresses today except that > today's text > does not require proof of being suggested; only that it "could" be > suggested? > > Our game is not served well by a law that calls for extensive > investigation > in order to find such proof which by its nature must be a proof of > intent. The wording "is demonstrably suggested" requires the TD to demonstrate how it (whatever it is) is suggested. The wording "could demonstrably be suggested" merely requires him to assert that he could so demonstrate. What if he's wrong? Worse, what if the assertion comes from a complainant? An incompetent or insecure TD may simply accept it without any demonstration, leading to an incorrect wording. If we interpret "could demonstrably be suggested" so that such a demonstration must be made, but that the conclusion (the suggestion that a particular call or play be made, is debatable, we come closer, I think, to the intent of the lawmakers - but note that the simple assertion "yeah, I could demonstrate that" is not good enough. TDs quite often take shortcuts. In Law 16A cases, one of them is to decide that an action is (or could be) "demonstrably suggested" without actually thinking about how the demonstration might go. So when the TD is wrong about the efficacy of the demonstration, he's wrong about his ruling. I would much rather see the demonstration required to be part of the ruling. I disagree with Sven in two particulars - one, that such a requirement would of necessity require extensive investigation, and two, that such a demonstration must require proof of intent. For the first, if one cannot find an argument that shows that a particular action is "demonstrably suggested" by UI, then it isn't. For the second, the suggestion is to be based on the UI presented and the logic of the auction. It should have nothing to do with either the cards in the alleged UI user's hand, or his intent (including the intent expressed by "I was always going to make that call"). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 12 15:38:18 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:38:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a301c74e56$b6c58360$6400a8c0@rota> References: <00a301c74e56$b6c58360$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <872F3755-F985-4E73-A547-423A5BE7EC21@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:34 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > The rule should be that any system over which the opponents might > need to > discuss their defenses must be pre-alerted. A 14-16 point 1NT > opening, for > example, should be a pre-alert, so that the opponents can agree > whether to > use their weak or strong NT defense against it. An 11-13 in an > otherwise > natural system doesn't require a pre-alert because the opponents > can defend > the same as they would against an 11-14 or 12-14; I agree that it is a > desirable courtesy. It is a desirable courtesy to give your opponents your CC at the start of a round. Do that around here, and you get it shoved back at you with comments like "I don't need that". And don't expect opponents to extend the same courtesy - to them, the CC is not a device for explaining their methods to their opponents, it's *their* personal scorecard, which just happens to have a bunch of conventions listed on its face. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 12 15:44:08 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:44:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000301c74e86$dec47670$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> .............. >>> If I was El Supremo of the WBF, I would reword the Law 16A direction >>> to read: >>> >>> "the partner may not choose an action which is demonstrably >>> suggested >>> by the unauthorized information if there is at least one logical >>> alternative action which is not demonstrably suggested by the >>> unauthorized information." >> >> Isn't that precisely what Law 16A expresses today except that >> today's text >> does not require proof of being suggested; only that it "could" be >> suggested? >> >> Our game is not served well by a law that calls for extensive >> investigation >> in order to find such proof which by its nature must be a proof of >> intent. > > The wording "is demonstrably suggested" requires the TD to > demonstrate how it (whatever it is) is suggested. The wording "could > demonstrably be suggested" merely requires him to assert that he > could so demonstrate. What if he's wrong? Worse, what if the > assertion comes from a complainant? An incompetent or insecure TD may > simply accept it without any demonstration, leading to an incorrect > wording. I meant, of course, "incorrect ruling". > > If we interpret "could demonstrably be suggested" so that such a > demonstration must be made, but that the conclusion (the suggestion > that a particular call or play be made, is debatable, we come closer, > I think, to the intent of the lawmakers - but note that the simple > assertion "yeah, I could demonstrate that" is not good enough. > > TDs quite often take shortcuts. In Law 16A cases, one of them is to > decide that an action is (or could be) "demonstrably suggested" > without actually thinking about how the demonstration might go. So > when the TD is wrong about the efficacy of the demonstration, he's > wrong about his ruling. > > I would much rather see the demonstration required to be part of the > ruling. I disagree with Sven in two particulars - one, that such a > requirement would of necessity require extensive investigation, and > two, that such a demonstration must require proof of intent. For the > first, if one cannot find an argument that shows that a particular > action is "demonstrably suggested" by UI, then it isn't. For the > second, the suggestion is to be based on the UI presented and the > logic of the auction. It should have nothing to do with either the > cards in the alleged UI user's hand, or his intent (including the > intent expressed by "I was always going to make that call"). > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 12 16:18:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:18:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] abbreviations In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702101557w729eecc0q7e3ac08a4dd17837@mail.gmail.co m> References: <45CE2B58.8060702@aol.com> <2b1e598b0702101557w729eecc0q7e3ac08a4dd17837@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070212101558.036d5e20@pop.starpower.net> At 06:57 PM 2/10/07, Jerry wrote: >TPTB and ODI---out of context, I don't know what those are. TPTB = "the powers that be". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 12 16:23:34 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:23:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? In-Reply-To: <45CEF15D.2020503@hotmail.com> References: <45CEF15D.2020503@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070212101839.036d69e0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:35 AM 2/11/07, koen wrote: >Opponents use a special overcall system that allows them to show all >kind on 2-suited hands. >e.g 1C-(1NT) shows Diamond and Hearts.... >Questions: >- Should opponents provide you with a good defence against these >overcalls? >- Should opponents provide you this defence in advance and should you >learn this defence before or can you look at/use their system notes >during the play? >- Suppose opps have very detailed system note with them: Can you agree >with your partner to play all defences that are in this notes and use >the notes during the play? >- Can you ask opps during the play what is a good defence against eg >1C-(1NT) , ask it in detail and do the bid that corresponds your hand? The ACBL requires defenses published in advance, and allows all of the above, for "mid-chart" and "super-chart" (levels 3 and 4 of 4) conventions. I don't know how they classify the particular convention at issue, but suspect it is in one of these catagories, assuming it is allowed at all. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 12 17:01:14 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:01:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702111750h63b06f8bu3eccc41ea18120a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0702111750h63b06f8bu3eccc41ea18120a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D08F4A.8020101@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] I'm sure that this email won't win me many new friends amongst the "powers that be" in Memphis, however, the ACBL's TD doesn't seem competent to find their ass with both hands. Over the course of the last sixth monthes I've seen Memphis provide a series of complete inane rulings, recommendations, and comments. Sadly, I don't find this latest piece of idiocy at all surprise. The best recommendation that I can give is ask the question a couple more times. Eventually, you'll receive a different ruling that you find more to your liking. Case in point: A month ago there was a disagreement on BBO discussion list about whether or not a Muiderberg 2S opening was legal at the GCC level. Adam Meyerson and I both submitted this question to "rulings at ACBL.org". We received completely contradictory statements. >From my perspective neither of of the Directors who were responding had a clue what they were talking about. (for what its worth, we're talking about very senior directors here). For anyone who cares, the complete thread is available at http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=17333&st=0 You can see all the emails that went back and forth, along with a bunch of commentary. >From my perspective, it is abundantly clear that the ACBL needs to invest some resources and produce the equivalent of the EBU Orange and White Books. If the ACBL's Senior Directing staff can't answer basic question what hope do local TD have producing intelligble rulings. I wouldn't argue that the Orange Book of the White Book are perfect, however, I consider them well written, solid, and above all reasonable. The ACBL is larger than the EBU and has significantly more resources. The fact that we haven't produced anything equivalent represents a grave failure in organization competency. [nige1] It would be a bad idea to destroy even one more rain-forest in creating interpretations, Orange books, White books, WBFLC minutes and so on. What players urgently need is *one* law book (published on the web) that is simpler, clearer and more complete. The tower of Babel fostered by national legislatures should be dismantled as fast as chauvinists and ego-trippers permit. It is obvious to any BLMLer that WBFLC law-makers and directors differ among themselves in their interpretation of basic law. In such circumstances, it is a pleasant surprize that ordinary directors get so much right. Players' suffering will increase if the law becomes more complex, nationally fragmented, and over-reliant on "judgement". We are slithering down a slippery slope of sophistication and subjectivity. _______________________________________________ From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 18:23:02 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:23:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D08F4A.8020101@NTLworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0702111750h63b06f8bu3eccc41ea18120a1@mail.gmail.com> <45D08F4A.8020101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702120923s63f15f2fi425cc6a12267a1d4@mail.gmail.com> > It would be a bad idea to destroy even one more rain-forest in creating interpretations, >Orange books, White books, WBFLC minutes and so on. What players urgently need is >*one* law book (published on the web) that is simpler, clearer and more complete. The >tower of Babel fostered by national legislatures should be dismantled as fast as >chauvinists and ego-trippers permit. > > It is obvious to any BLMLer that WBFLC law-makers and directors differ among >themselves in their interpretation of basic law. In such circumstances, it is a pleasant >surprize that ordinary directors get so much right. Players' suffering will increase if the law >becomes more complex, nationally fragmented, and over-reliant on "judgement". > > We are slithering down a slippery slope of sophistication and subjectivity. Nigel: You might not like to hear this, but there is one "Law Book" out there. Furthermore, with a few (minor) exceptions, all of the Sponsoring organizations agree about how these laws are interpreted. Where things get tricky is that fact that the folks who drafted the Laws made a deliberate and concious decision to devolve certain powers to the local sponsoring organization. The most obvious example of this is the right to regulate conventions; however sponsoring organizations also draft conventions, regulate alert/announcement structures, yada yada yada. Personally, I think that this was a very wise decision. I don't see any reason why North American and Australia should use the same Convention Charts. Furthermore, I suspect that North Americans would hate the Australian systems. Equally significant, I'm quite sure that the Aussie would hate living under the draconian North American system regulations. Allowing flexibly permits both groups of players to be happy. In all seriousness: You really need to consider dropping this quioxotic crusade that the entire regulatory structure needs to consistent across the entire world. No one agrees with you. This is (usually) a sign that you've made a mistake somewhere. For the most part, I think that the members of the list agree with many of your basic points. In particular, I think that there is widespread agreement that the the Laws need to written in a fairly simple and logicially consistent manner. However, I think that many of the good points that you raise are lost because many people tune out as soon as you launch into your standard refrain. (Yes, I recognize how ridiculous it is for me to be making this point) From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 12 18:35:01 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:35:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au><2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com><2da24b8e0702111750h63b06f8bu3eccc41ea18120a1@mail.gmail.com><45D08F4A.8020101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0702120923s63f15f2fi425cc6a12267a1d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002b01c74ecc$1ff519c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Personally, I think that this was a very wise decision. I don't see > any reason why North American and Australia should use the same > Convention Charts. Furthermore, I suspect that North Americans would > hate the Australian systems. Equally significant, I'm quite sure that > the Aussie would hate living under the draconian North American system > regulations. Allowing flexibly permits both groups of players to be > happy. > > In all seriousness: You really need to consider dropping this > quioxotic crusade that the entire regulatory structure needs to > consistent across the entire world. No one agrees with you. This is > (usually) a sign that you've made a mistake somewhere. For the most > part, I think that the members of the list agree with many of your > basic points. In particular, I think that there is widespread > agreement that the the Laws need to written in a fairly simple and > logicially consistent manner. However, I think that many of the good > points that you raise are lost because many people tune out as soon as > you launch into your standard refrain. (Yes, I recognize how > ridiculous it is for me to be making this point) You are not alone in your thinking, Richard. For one, I endorse your comments 100%. Nigel raises many good points and they get lost amidst his parochialism in thinking that there should be a uniform structure to bidding theory. The very act of trying to create a uniform structure spells the death knell of bridge; much as it spelt the death knell of the dodo. Change and innovation is the only way for both the game and a species to survive. cheers John. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 20:29:52 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:29:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702121129v62644836x7ea3e2d61d8b2ccb@mail.gmail.com> Offline, a question was asked, "What makes a natural 2NT response to a weak-two bid alertable in the ACBL?" I see now that the alert chart is vague (at best) on this. Nevertheless, Rich Colker (etc.) in case 51 of Toronto 2001 is totally clear that 2NT natural should be alerted, and both the director and panel adjusted the score due to MI from the nonalert: "ACBL regulations do, in fact, require an Alert if 2NT is non-forcing." -Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 12 21:20:04 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:20:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702121129v62644836x7ea3e2d61d8b2ccb@mail.gmail.com> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121129v62644836x7ea3e2d61d8b2ccb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Offline, a question was asked, "What makes a natural 2NT response to a > weak-two bid alertable in the ACBL?" I see now that the alert chart > is vague (at best) on this. > > Nevertheless, Rich Colker (etc.) in case 51 of Toronto 2001 is totally > clear that 2NT natural should be alerted, and both the director and > panel adjusted the score due to MI from the nonalert: "ACBL > regulations do, in fact, require an Alert if 2NT is non-forcing." It is the Alert Procedure, not the Chart, that governs. The procedure says "2D,H,S-P-2NT: Not Alertable if it asks for further clarification. Natural, non-forcing 2NT responses to opening two bids must be Alerted." So Colker, et. al. were correct, and the regulation is not vague at all - at least not on this point. :-) From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 21:38:13 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:38:13 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121129v62644836x7ea3e2d61d8b2ccb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702121238t76d6355at6a2e77821384649e@mail.gmail.com> > It is the Alert Procedure, not the Chart, that governs. The procedure > says "2D,H,S-P-2NT: Not Alertable if it asks for further > clarification. Natural, non-forcing 2NT responses to opening two bids > must be Alerted." So Colker, et. al. were correct, and the regulation > is not vague at all - at least not on this point. :-) > Thanks for the reference! However, even the Procedure manages to be vague. Case 51 involves a weak-two bid in clubs. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 12 22:18:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:18:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702112137y4128145ci65a59cc91f1b6747@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>Indeed weak notrumps are not pre-alertable. But what defines a weak >>>notrump? Under the "light of historical usage rather than local >>>geographical usage" a weak notrump has a 12-14 range, but Jerry was >>>using an unusual ultra-weak 11-13 range. Jerry Fusselman: >>Hardly ultra-weak, for there is also the 10-12 range. I don't see >>this argument. Are you saying that a pair might be ready for 12-14 >>notrumps or 10-12 notrumps but at a loss for how to deal with 11-13 >>notrumps? If so, I would love to hear about it. Anyone? David Grabiner: >The rule should be that any system over which the opponents might need >to discuss their defenses must be pre-alerted. A 14-16 point 1NT >opening, for example, should be a pre-alert, so that the opponents can >agree whether to use their weak or strong NT defense against it. Richard Hills: Indeed, when I once used a fully pre-alerted 14-16 1NT opening, my expert opponents carelessly failed to discuss its definition. So after 1NT by pard, double by RHO, LHO thought it was a TOXIC double of a strong notrump and RHO thought it was a penalty double of a weak notrump. The consequent confusion gave us a windfall of +800. Likewise, a partnership may have agreed to use penalty doubles against the popular mini-notrump (10-12 range) and DONT one-suited doubles against the even more popular weak notrump (12-14 range). Against such a partnership the unusual and idiosyncratic 11-13 range requires a pre- alert, so that the partnership at least has the _opportunity_ for a _timely_ discussion. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 12 22:55:17 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:55:17 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Grabiner" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:30 PM Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert > The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by > experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to > Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." > > I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this; what should > the standard be? How about a twist:. P- 1H- P- 3S ?P-4H-PPP ?P= what is agreement to 3S? reply: natural and preemptive When dummy came down it held a stiff spade and great H support. It came out that the agreement to 3S was a splinter and the TD called. Yup, I was ?P and I had a successful action I was going to take absent MI, and opener got a useful inference from my question that I could beat 3S. I got an adjusted score of the worst likely result. regards roger pewick From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 23:20:17 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:20:17 -0600 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0702112137y4128145ci65a59cc91f1b6747@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702121420u761b147dt519f53af5dfcec84@mail.gmail.com> > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed, when I once used a fully pre-alerted 14-16 1NT opening, my > expert opponents carelessly failed to discuss its definition. So after > 1NT by pard, double by RHO, LHO thought it was a TOXIC double of a > strong notrump and RHO thought it was a penalty double of a weak > notrump. The consequent confusion gave us a windfall of +800. > > Likewise, a partnership may have agreed to use penalty doubles against > the popular mini-notrump (10-12 range) and DONT one-suited doubles > against the even more popular weak notrump (12-14 range). Against such > a partnership the unusual and idiosyncratic 11-13 range requires a pre- > alert, so that the partnership at least has the _opportunity_ for a > _timely_ discussion. > Well, I have never seen it yet, but I will keep a look out. The way I play, there should be no problem. Before the round starts, I have to see what their double of 1NT is (and a few other things) to agree on partnership countermeasures. If it is not on their card (frequent), I have to ask. If they don't have a card, it won't be that complicated. Or do they need protecting if they have this surprise three-way notrump defense but no convention card? There is one other case. If I ever come across a case where their 10-12 and 12-14 are different, yet 11-13 is defined, I could mention our use of 11-13 then, and I'll mention the name Rich Hills, who told me this might happen one day! What are the odds they won't know what's on their card? -Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 12 23:53:02 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:53:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702121238t76d6355at6a2e77821384649e@mail.gmail.com> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121129v62644836x7ea3e2d61d8b2ccb@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121238t76d6355at6a2e77821384649e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6FF2122E-B0B4-4490-A8AF-4F7C30D7EB8E@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 12, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> It is the Alert Procedure, not the Chart, that governs. The procedure >> says "2D,H,S-P-2NT: Not Alertable if it asks for further >> clarification. Natural, non-forcing 2NT responses to opening two bids >> must be Alerted." So Colker, et. al. were correct, and the regulation >> is not vague at all - at least not on this point. :-) >> > > Thanks for the reference! However, even the Procedure manages to be > vague. Case 51 involves a weak-two bid in clubs. Hm. A weak 2 bid in clubs is itself alertable. Either way, I would argue that once a pair agrees to play it as weak, the same rules regarding responses apply as when the opening bid is at the 2 level in some other suit, with the meaning "weak 2 bid". Granted, the alert regulation doesn't say so explicitly, but then I've long been of the opinion that the alert regulations were written by someone with no experience whatsoever in writing rules for a game. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 13 03:41:20 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:41:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702120923s63f15f2fi425cc6a12267a1d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0702111750h63b06f8bu3eccc41ea18120a1@mail.gmail.com> <45D08F4A.8020101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0702120923s63f15f2fi425cc6a12267a1d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D12550.3030000@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] You might not like to hear this, but there is one "Law Book" out there. Furthermore, with a few (minor) exceptions, all of the Sponsoring organizations agree about how these laws are interpreted. [nige1] One basic law-book but lots of local regulations. [Richard W] Where things get tricky is that fact that the folks who drafted the Laws made a deliberate and concious decision to devolve certain powers to the local sponsoring organization. The most obvious example of this is the right to regulate conventions; however sponsoring organizations also draft conventions, regulate alert/announcement structures, yada yada yada. Personally, I think that this was a very wise decision. I don't see any reason why North American and Australia should use the same Convention Charts. Furthermore, I suspect that North Americans would hate the Australian systems. Equally significant, I'm quite sure that the Aussie would hate living under the draconian North American system regulations. Allowing flexibly permits both groups of players to be happy. In all seriousness: You really need to consider dropping this quioxotic crusade that the entire regulatory structure needs to consistent across the entire world. No one agrees with you. This is (usually) a sign that you've made a mistake somewhere. For the most part, I think that the members of the list agree with many of your basic points. In particular, I think that there is widespread agreement that the the Laws need to written in a fairly simple and logicially consistent manner. However, I think that many of the good points that you raise are lost because many people tune out as soon as you launch into your standard refrain. (Yes, I recognize how ridiculous it is for me to be making this point) [nigel] Thank you Richard. I confess that I do believe that a uniform set of rules ( = laws + regulations) would encourage a more level playing field for international competitors and peripatetic players. I accept that may well be a pipe-dream (as Richard points out). In the short term, however, players would settle for *far less* -- All that is needed is a complete set of *default rules*. Bolshy local legislatures would still have the *option* of imposing chauvinistic local regulations; but they would have *no obligation* to do so in order to plug gaping holes in the law-book as they must do at present. I feel that if the *default rules* were sufficiently simple and clear, there is a fair chance that local legislatures would adopt most of them, eventually. Although most directors are players (just as most lawyers are citizens), directors have a subtly different legal agenda from players. Most players would like rules to be as simple, clear, objective, uniform and complete as possible. In contrast, judging by contributions to BLML, many directors relish the variety and challenge of sophisticated legal interpretations and are exhilarated by the broad license to use subjective judgement endowed by current legislation. I also fear that the WBFLC is more influenced by directors and administrators than players. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 13 03:07:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:07:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote (15th July 2004): [big snip] Secondarily, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or subjective Laws are highly desirable, despite Nigel Guthrie's vehement philosophical opposition. Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251: >For clubs, the rules become deliberately >subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". >This, for example, really means that it must >look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness >precisely would have the revenge effect of >promoting a search for loopholes. A recent blml search for loopholes has been on the extensive thread discussing when, exactly, a card has been played. I like the plain in shape subjective solution proposed by John (MadDog) Probst that "a card has been played when the player stops waving it around". * * * Richard Hills writes (13th February 2007): Thirdly, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or subjective Alert regulations are highly desirable, to prevent sea-lawyers wriggling through loopholes. There are two ways to construct an Alert regulation. One way, chosen by the Australian Bridge Federation, is to create (non-objective or subjective) general principles, and then to provide some indicative examples as guidance for players and directors on the application of those (non-objective or subjective) general principles. The other way is the "death by detail" approach, with large numbers of specific situations specifically defined as either: (a) non-alertable, or (b) pre-alertable, or (c) announcable, or (d) alertable on the first round of the auction, but non-alertable if occurring on the second or later round of the auction, or (e) alertable in theory, but not in practice, since players must "protect themselves", or (f) alertable because forcing, or (g) alertable because non-forcing, or (h) no longer alertable, because of the "death by detail" requirement that alert regs change each year as details of popular conventions change, or (i) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 13 04:50:58 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:50:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <200702122212.l1CMC1jF015875@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200702122212.l1CMC1jF015875@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45D135A2.7050903@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > It is the Alert Procedure, not the Chart, that governs. The procedure > says "2D,H,S-P-2NT: Not Alertable if it asks for further > clarification. Natural, non-forcing 2NT responses to opening two bids > must be Alerted." Thanks, Ed. Unfortunately, a few lines down, the procedure also says "A natural 2NT response which is invitational or better does not require an Alert." They _probably_ mean for the latter to apply over one-bids, but I'm going to ask Memphis. Notice that if you play 2any-2NT as natural and non-forcing, you don't even have to check a box on the CC. _Usually_ that means no alert is needed, but apparently not this time. I'll let people know if I get an answer. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 13 05:06:22 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:06:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > The law says "the partner may not > choose from among logical alternative actions one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information." That "from among logical alternative actions" says to > me that the suggested action must be logical. In fact, it says to me > that if a player chooses an action that is not a member of the set > "logical alternative actions", he has done nothing illegal. This question seems to come up on BLML every 6 or 8 years. I'm surprised Ed hasn't seen it before. Basically everyone agrees that "suggested" actions are illegal, but there are at least two ways of reaching that conclusion. Some people say that any action the player chooses is by definition a logical alternative for that player. Others say that L73C is separate and independent of L16, and violations are redressed via L12A1 then 12C2/3. I don't see that the adjusted score will differ depending on which line of reasoning you use. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 11:59:34 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:59:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <6FF2122E-B0B4-4490-A8AF-4F7C30D7EB8E@rochester.rr.com> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121129v62644836x7ea3e2d61d8b2ccb@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121238t76d6355at6a2e77821384649e@mail.gmail.com> <6FF2122E-B0B4-4490-A8AF-4F7C30D7EB8E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702130259r7072518sa1fca2030fd5a77f@mail.gmail.com> On 2/12/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > Hm. A weak 2 bid in clubs is itself alertable. Either way, I would > argue that once a pair agrees to play it as weak, the same rules > regarding responses apply as when the opening bid is at the 2 level > in some other suit, with the meaning "weak 2 bid". Granted, the alert > regulation doesn't say so explicitly, but then I've long been of the > opinion that the alert regulations were written by someone with no > experience whatsoever in writing rules for a game. > Of course a weak 2C opening is alertable. I am almost sure it is prealertable. Ed, your next sentence is maybe not as obvious as you think. For example, consider http://www.marvinfrench.com/p1/laws®s/alerts.pdf, which gives the best (for clarity and completeness) description I have seen for what is alertable in the ACBL. Near the top of this document, the following is listed as alertable: "2C opening that is natural but not strong, and conventional responses." According to the quote, Ogust over a weak 2C is alertable. Unfortunately, it seems he later contracts this by saying this under *not* alertable: "Non-invitational raise of a natural non-strong two bid, or a forcing 2NT response even if conventional." Marv, if your reading this, can you elaborate? I.e., would you say that Ogust over a weak 2C is alertable or not? -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 12:05:28 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:05:28 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702130259r7072518sa1fca2030fd5a77f@mail.gmail.com> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702112329u34b4a349wa2407599e8d4442e@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121129v62644836x7ea3e2d61d8b2ccb@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0702121238t76d6355at6a2e77821384649e@mail.gmail.com> <6FF2122E-B0B4-4490-A8AF-4F7C30D7EB8E@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0702130259r7072518sa1fca2030fd5a77f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702130305m27a29c63k837ea104460399e9@mail.gmail.com> I hope I don't get kicked off BLML for writing "your" in place of "you're." From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 13 11:40:30 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:40:30 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Protecting_yourself_aft?= =?iso-8859-1?q?er_failure_to_alert?= References: <6FF2122E-B0B4-4490-A8AF-4F7C30D7EB8E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <45D1959E.000001.31023@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Ed Reppert Hm. A weak 2 bid in clubs is itself alertable. Either way, I would argue that once a pair agrees to play it as weak, the same rules regarding responses apply as when the opening bid is at the 2 level in some other suit, with the meaning "weak 2 bid". Granted, the alert regulation doesn't say so explicitly, but then I've long been of the opinion that the alert regulations were written by someone with no experience whatsoever in writing rules for a game. IBTD. The fault is not with lawmakers, it is with the complexity of the set of possible conventions. In Belgium, nonforcing changes of suit in competition are alertable. Nonforcing changes of suit after pass aren't. It has been written that the latter is more fundamental, ergo nonforcing competitive new suits by PH aren t. But this doesn't take into account the fact that, according to most nonforcists", the lower bound for their competitive new suits is lower than for a new suit at level 2 by PH. Transfer responses over 1NT aren't alertable. But some partnerships might do it on a 4-carder (Italian style : transfer-then-minor shows 4-5). Unexpected therefore alertable. Is this written somewhere ? Morality : when in doubt, alert. And when in doubt, it is indeed alertable. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070213/9b4d0901/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070213/9b4d0901/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/20070213/9b4d0901/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 13 15:05:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:05:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one In-Reply-To: <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070213090035.02bce4e0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:06 PM 2/12/07, Steve wrote: > > From: Ed Reppert > > The law says "the partner may not > > choose from among logical alternative actions one that could > > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > > information." That "from among logical alternative actions" says to > > me that the suggested action must be logical. In fact, it says to me > > that if a player chooses an action that is not a member of the set > > "logical alternative actions", he has done nothing illegal. > >This question seems to come up on BLML every 6 or 8 years. I'm >surprised Ed hasn't seen it before. > >Basically everyone agrees that "suggested" actions are illegal, but >there are at least two ways of reaching that conclusion. Some people >say that any action the player chooses is by definition a logical >alternative for that player. Others say that L73C is separate and >independent of L16, and violations are redressed via L12A1 then 12C2/3. The third way, far more straightforward than either of those, is simply to recognize that illogical actions can have logical alternatives. WTP? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 13 15:10:14 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:10:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <21E5F984-6D21-45EC-8D44-6783D7748EA5@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 12, 2007, at 11:06 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > This question seems to come up on BLML every 6 or 8 years. I'm > surprised Ed hasn't seen it before. I have. I just don't agree with what "everyone agrees". :-) > Basically everyone agrees that "suggested" actions are illegal, but > there are at least two ways of reaching that conclusion. Some people > say that any action the player chooses is by definition a logical > alternative for that player. Others say that L73C is separate and > independent of L16, and violations are redressed via L12A1 then > 12C2/3. > > I don't see that the adjusted score will differ depending on which > line > of reasoning you use. Problem for me - neither line makes sense to me. The first seems to contain a logical fallacy - "logical" is an objective criterion, independent of the player. The second is problematic because it uses the term "unauthorized information", which leads us right back to Law 16, via Law 73F1. Put it another way - 12A1 allows the TD to award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that the laws do not provide indemnity for an offense. But Law 73F1 *does* provide indemnity, so 12A1 cannot be applied. Back in the late seventies, one of the games I played was Dungeons and Dragons. There was a running battle in "The Strategic Review" (which later became "Dragon Magazine") between E. Gary Gygax, one of the creators of the game, and a couple of players. It revolved around the players trying to make sense of the D&D magic system, which has some gaping logical holes in it. Gygax finally got fed up with the battle, and opined "it's that way because I say so. Now shut up." If that's what the WBFLC wishes to do with "logical alternative", I'll of course ignore the world "logical" (or substitute a different word, such as "implausible") as instructed, but that won't change my mind about what the law actually says. As Galileo said under his breath "it still moves". :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 13 15:17:18 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:17:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070213090035.02bce4e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20070213090035.02bce4e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <190B85D0-9025-469C-A83C-EFD237FEDFFF@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 13, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > The third way, far more straightforward than either of those, is > simply > to recognize that illogical actions can have logical alternatives. > WTP? The problem is that while the statement is true, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I assert that "amongst logical alternatives" means that we are to examine the set of logical alternatives for actions which may be forbidden, not the set of "actions the player chose or might have chosen", and that when the latter set includes an illogical action (so not part of the former set), Law 16 does not make the player's choice of that action illegal. "Everybody knows," of course, that's not the way it is, but "if 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so" (Robert Heinlein, _Time Enough for Love__). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 13 15:24:40 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:24:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Protecting_yourself_aft?= =?iso-8859-1?q?er_failure_to_alert?= In-Reply-To: <45D1959E.000001.31023@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <6FF2122E-B0B4-4490-A8AF-4F7C30D7EB8E@rochester.rr.com> <45D1959E.000001.31023@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > IBTD. The fault is not with lawmakers, it is with the complexity of > the set of possible conventions. Pfui. Have you read the ACBL alert procedure? Among other things, there are at least a couple of places where the situation Steve Willner pointed out occurs: they're talking about one thing, then all of a sudden with no indication of a change in focus, they are (or at least appear to be) taking about something else. Granted the situation is complex - that doesn't absolve lawmakers of the responsibility to write a coherent regulation. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 13 17:23:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <45D135A2.7050903@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > Thanks, Ed. Unfortunately, a few lines down, the procedure also says > "A natural 2NT response which is invitational or better does not > require an Alert." They _probably_ mean for the latter to apply over > one-bids, but I'm going to ask Memphis. The procedure lacks clarity in this area. I admit I'd have assumed that over an unalerted 2 bid then 2N asking was non-alertable and other meanings alertable but over an alerted 2 bid (intermediate/strong/weak in C/2-suiter) there would be no *presumption* that 2N would be an asking bid and thus it would not be alerted if natural and non-forcing but alerted if conventional. I'm wondering how far one can/should stretch L82c. "OK, it's obvious to me NOW that the regulations could reasonably be read either way without it occurring to anyone to check with Memphis - I *could* have spotted that before the event and done something about it. I'm going to take personal responsibility for this one and adjust for both sides as non-offending." Tim From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 13 15:29:07 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:29:07 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Marvin_French=27s_Proce?= =?iso-8859-1?q?dures_for_handling_UI_-_part__one?= References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070213090035.02bce4e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45D1CB32.000001.94835@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Eric Landau The third way, far more straightforward than either of those, is simply to recognize that illogical actions can have logical alternatives. WTP? AG : TP is with the expression "from among logical alternative actions" . To choose something among thingummyjugs, that something has to be a thingummyjug. (think of the proverbial "among rotten apples") Choosing an action among logical ones implies that it is itself logical. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070213/aa2cab79/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/20070213/aa2cab79/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/20070213/aa2cab79/attachment-0001.gif From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 13 19:57:28 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:57:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003f01c74fa0$cf12dcb0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> From: Ed Reppert >> The law says "the partner may not >> choose from among logical alternative actions one that could >> demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information." That "from among logical alternative actions" says to >> me that the suggested action must be logical. In fact, it says to me >> that if a player chooses an action that is not a member of the set >> "logical alternative actions", he has done nothing illegal. > > This question seems to come up on BLML every 6 or 8 years. I'm > surprised Ed hasn't seen it before. > > Basically everyone agrees that "suggested" actions are illegal, but > there are at least two ways of reaching that conclusion. Some people > say that any action the player chooses is by definition a logical > alternative for that player. Others say that L73C is separate and > independent of L16, and violations are redressed via L12A1 then 12C2/3. > > I don't see that the adjusted score will differ depending on which line > of reasoning you use. yeah, last time we tried 1S 3S(h) 6S; making on a bum lead, 3 finesses and a repeating squeeze. 3S +3 if you're a competent TD. john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 13 20:07:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:07:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004801c74fa2$3e0af430$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills wrote (15th July 2004): > > [big snip] > > Secondarily, I argue that (in some circumstances) > non-objective or subjective Laws are highly > desirable, despite Nigel Guthrie's vehement > philosophical opposition. > > Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251: > >>For clubs, the rules become deliberately >>subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". >>This, for example, really means that it must >>look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness >>precisely would have the revenge effect of >>promoting a search for loopholes. > > A recent blml search for loopholes has been on > the extensive thread discussing when, exactly, a > card has been played. I like the plain in shape > subjective solution proposed by John (MadDog) > Probst that "a card has been played when the > player stops waving it around". I had a nice one last night. Iraj is playing with Bijan's wife and Bijan's playing with Iraj's wife. There's a dinner on the outcome. (No doubt this is illegal in the US but I thoroughly approve of a side bet on the game). I play pound bridge with the girls (2 cent) and 3 pound (5 cent) with the boys at my f2f rubber club and know them all well. They're very occasional duplicate players. Iraj (while I'm kibbing) half plays a card in defence and then starts to pick it up. "Iraj, you've played it, pard has seen it" "yeah, quite right John, perfectly reasonable". There was no point in quoting duplicate law at Iraj, but equally he knows what is "fair". A TD almost never has a problem with a played card since he just needs to get into the mind of the player who has played it. HIJACK. I had a law 59 ruling this afternoon; first time I've ever used it in half a million directed hands. OLOOT; "Lead one"; "haven't got any" :) John > > * * * > > Richard Hills writes (13th February 2007): > > Thirdly, I argue that (in some circumstances) > non-objective or subjective Alert regulations > are highly desirable, to prevent sea-lawyers > wriggling through loopholes. > > There are two ways to construct an Alert > regulation. One way, chosen by the Australian > Bridge Federation, is to create (non-objective or > subjective) general principles, and then to > provide some indicative examples as guidance for > players and directors on the application of those > (non-objective or subjective) general principles. > > The other way is the "death by detail" approach, > with large numbers of specific situations > specifically defined as either: > > (a) non-alertable, or > (b) pre-alertable, or > (c) announcable, or > (d) alertable on the first round of the auction, > but non-alertable if occurring on the second or > later round of the auction, or > (e) alertable in theory, but not in practice, > since players must "protect themselves", or > (f) alertable because forcing, or > (g) alertable because non-forcing, or > (h) no longer alertable, because of the "death by > detail" requirement that alert regs change each > year as details of popular conventions change, or > (i) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 13 20:56:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:56:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one In-Reply-To: <190B85D0-9025-469C-A83C-EFD237FEDFFF@rochester.rr.com> References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20070213090035.02bce4e0@pop.starpower.net> <190B85D0-9025-469C-A83C-EFD237FEDFFF@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070213142459.02b648e0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:17 AM 2/13/07, Ed wrote: >On Feb 13, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > The third way, far more straightforward than either of those, is > > simply > > to recognize that illogical actions can have logical alternatives. > > WTP? > >The problem is that while the statement is true, it has nothing to do >with the discussion at hand. I assert that "amongst logical >alternatives" means that we are to examine the set of logical >alternatives for actions which may be forbidden, not the set of >"actions the player chose or might have chosen", and that when the >latter set includes an illogical action (so not part of the former >set), Law 16 does not make the player's choice of that action >illegal. "Everybody knows," of course, that's not the way it is, but >"if 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so" (Robert >Heinlein, _Time Enough for Love__). Why would we "examine the set of LAs for actions which may be forbidden" when the only potentially "forbidden" action is the one actually taken? By my reading, we are to examine the set of logical alternatives for actions over which the one actually taken may have been suggested by the UI in question. L16A2 gives a three-part test for awarding an adjustment when it is determined that UI has been conveyed: (1) "...had a logical alternative"; (2) "...has chosen an action that could have been suggested"; (3) "...resulted in damage". I readily agree that the first sentence of L16A could be clearer -- replacing "from among" by "over" and eliding "over another", for example -- but I see no such ambiguity in the wording of L16A2, which must be assumed to be consistent with the rest of L16A. 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 Feb 13 23:11:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:11:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French - part three [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008e01c73c15$22e71da0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French: [see also the "part one" & "part two" threads] >Or a split-second action over a Skip-bid warning. Since >this BIT violates an ACBL regulation, the TD should be >called immediately instead of waiting to see if damage >results. Richard Hills: As discussed earlier, change "should" to "may", since it is entirely proper to avoid drawing attention to an irregularity. Marvin French: >Players are currently confused as to when they should >call the TD when there is an opposing break in tempo >(BIT), whether extremely slow or extremely fast. Should >it be at the time of the BIT, or when a later >suspicious action is taken, or when they perceive that >they have been damaged? Even TDs disagree about this. >One reason may be that prior to 1987 Law 16 suggested >that the TD should be called immediately. That was >changed in the 1987 version of the Laws, but word is >slow to get around. Another reason is the confusing >EXCEPTION to L16A1, which some interpret as requiring >an immediate TD call. > >While the following steps assume UI during the auction, >the same principles apply during the play. > >1. When inappropriate UI has been created by an opponent >and attention is drawn to it, the TD must be called >immediately [Law 9B1(a)]. In the case of an opponent's >long hesitation or overhasty action (which is seldom an >irregularity in itself), the TD should be called only if >(1) it happens in a tempo-sensitive situation and >(2) the opposition does not agree to the BIT. >There is no harm in politely asking the opponents >whether they agree that UI was created. If they deny it, >calling the TD for help (always permissible) Richard Hills: Never say always. Law 74B5: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants." A naive but paranoid former partner of mine frequently and repeatedly summoned the Director whenever an opponent had the slightest break in tempo. This naive procedure often benefited our side, to the opponents becoming flustered. A more malicious coffee-houser could use Marv's "always permissible" dictum to _deliberately_ disconcert the opponents. Therefore, I would argue that it could sometimes be the case that summoning the Director without good reason is (or might be) a "discourteous to him or to other contestants" infraction of Law 74B5. Marvin French: >is probably going to be a waste of time, but it doesn't >hurt to try when the UI seems clear. If the opponents >agree to the UI, they can be asked if they want to call >the TD (so he can explain the applicable laws). If they >say no, then they do not have good grounds for claiming >ignorance of the law if a ruling goes against them. Law 11A "The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." Richard Hills: Law 11A applies immediately after an irregularity, and gives an incentive to the non-offending side to draw attention to that irregularity. But after attention is drawn, _all_ players - not merely the non-offending side - have a joint "must" responsibility to summon the Director under Law 9B1. However, in the case Marv is discussing, an irregularity has not yet occurred. One opponent has created UI, and the other opponent now has the prerequisite to infract Law 16. An analogy would be marriage is the prerequisite for divorce, with marriage = non-infraction and divorce = infraction. In situations where an opponent might later infract a law, the standard rule "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies. Just as a Director need not babysit a player (except in supervised play for beginners) to stop that player revoking, so a Director need not babysit a player to stop that player infracting Law 16. Marvin French: >Other than that, there is little reason to call the TD >at that time. All he can do is explain the law and >direct the auction and play to continue. Besides, TDs do >not have the time to respond to all instances of BITS, >which are very common. If the players involved are >inexperienced, why not ignore the BIT? After all, the >majority of their BITs are helpful to opponents, not >damaging. Inexperienced players often produce BITs for >no discernible reason, and their partners usually don't >notice them. > >If called, the TD determines whether UI has indeed been >created, and if so informs the player receiving the >information that s/he may not choose from among logical >alternative actions one that could demonstrably have >been suggested over another by the UI (Law 16A). The TD >should add that it is irrelevant if this means the >player must change an intended call. He then leaves, >after asking the other pair to call him back again if >they perceive (either when play ends, or, as to dummy's >hand, when dummy is exposed) that an opponent who had an >LA has taken an action that could have been suggested by >the UI. (L16A2). Richard Hills: And, again, it is not merely the duty of "the other pair" - the non-offending side - to call the Director if Law 16 has been infracted. Nor is a request for an adjusted score the sole prerogative of the non-offending side. Law 12A says "on the application of any player", so when I have been an offending player I have often requested the Director to adversely adjust my score. I believe that my masochistic request is consistent with the spirit of Law 72A2, even if not required by the letter of that Law. Law 72A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Marvin French: >If the TD is not called immediately, he should not be >called until a player has substantial reason (not merely >a suspicion) to believe that an opponent who had a >logical alternative has chosen an action that could have >been suggested by the UI. This can only be at conclusion >of play or, in the case of dummy, at sight of dummy's >hand (Law 16A2). The common belief that rights are >jeopardized by waiting until damage seems evident is not >correct. Rights are not jeopardized when players follow >the Laws. > >If it is dummy's hand that shows evidence of a possible >irregularity, the TD explains the law and directs the >players to continue with play, standing ready to assign >an adjusted score (Law 16A2) when play is completed if he >determines that damage was caused by illegal use of the >UI. > >If evidence of a possible irregularity is not perceived >until play has ended, the TD is called at that time. In >either event the TD determines whether there has been an >irregularity that causes damage to the opponents. Finding >damage, he TD will make an appropriate adjustment to the >score (Law 12C2). > >While not ideal, busy TDs must often skip the step of >"standing ready", Richard Hills: No, since "standing ready" is a requirement of Law, for a Director to skip that step is contrary to the Director's obligations under Law 81B2. But I agree that "standing ready" is no longer a necessary Law, now that the 1960s concept of "call the TD at once, or lose your rights" no longer applies to the non-offending side when seeking a Law 16 ruling. Marvin French: >perhaps not even returning to the table after explaining >the law and saying to the players, "Call me if you think >there is a problem." Ideally the TD, not the players, >should determine whether there was damage, as players >sometimes don't know they were damaged. Law 12A: "The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative....." Law 81C6: ".....to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner....." Marvin French: >TDs usually just don't have time for this, but should >follow the correct procedure if possible, especially >when inexperienced players are involved. Richard Hills: In Australia modern technology has helped Directors gain the necessary time, since all major events (and an increasing number of minor events) are computer-dealt. The associated hand records, with Deep Finesse analysis, makes an assessment of possible damage much quicker and easier for a Director. Marvin French: >If the TD has been asked for a ruling that he can't >give right away for some reason, he should return >later with the ruling and an explanation. Not returning >because no irregularity was determined is >unprofessional. Players should not have to go hunting >for the TD to find out if a ruling was actually made >and to get an explanation. > >2. Players' comments about a possible irregularity >should be made to the TD only, not to the opponents. > >3. If the TD decides on a score adjustment, he will use >Law 12C2's guidelines, giving the nonoffending side >"the most favorable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred", and the offending side "the >most unfavorable result at all probable", which the >ACBL Laws commission has defined (as a guideline, not >to be taken too literally) as at least one chance in >three for the former and at least one chance in six for >the latter. This means that an adjustment for the non- >offenders may not be "likely" at all, merely the most >favorable of the possible favorable results (provided >it isn't extremely unlikely). If the score is adjusted >to a different level of contract (same denomination) >than one actually played, normally the play of the >cards is assumed to be the same. If the non-offenders >revoked, that revoke is assumed in the score >adjustment. > >As with the determination of LAs, TDs must be given >latitude in deciding on the likelihood of results and >not be held to some arithmetical arbitrary often- >changing guideline. If a favorable result looks like it >could well happen, he can assign that to the non- >offenders. If an unfavorable result looks like a >distinct possibility, he can assign that to the >offenders. There is no need to go into a detailed >calculation of probabilities. > >Occasionally the score adjustment may be one-sided, >i.e., for the offending side only. This can happen when >the non-offending side was in reality not damaged by >the irregularity, but shot themselves in the foot by >doing something "wild, irrational, or gambling" that >denied them a favorable result. "Irrational" includes >such things as revokes and creation of penalty cards. >This does not mean they have to play good bridge in >order to get redress, just sane bridge. Note that if >the non-offenders could not have done anything to avoid >the damage, the bridge they play is irrelevant in >regard to their right to redress. > >Example 1: A pair bids a grand slam with the aid of >unauthorized information. The nonoffenders revoke, >which lets the contract make. They keep their bad >score, while the offending score is reduced to the >contract that would have ensued had there been no >irregularity. However, if the assumed contract is in >the same denomination, with the same opening leader, >the revoke is assumed in the score adjustment. The only >change to the assumed play would be when the TD decides >the level of contract or the nature of the irregularity >may have affected the play. This does not include any >emotional upset caused by the nature of the UI! > >Example 2: A pair bids a small slam with the aid of >unauthorized information. The nonoffenders revoke, >giving declarer an overtrick. Since there was nothing >the non-offenders could do to avoid damage, the score >is adjusted for both sides. However, if the assumed >contract is in the same denomination, with the same >opening leader, the revoke is assumed in the score >adjustment. > >Note that the score adjustment may also differ for the >two sides on the basis of two important criteria: 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 regularity. > >Example: After his partner hesitates markedly, a player >makes a doubtful overcall of a weak two bid in hearts >and opener's partner competes to the three level, down >one. Bad distribution for the vulnerable offending side >would quite possibly (not certainly!) have sunk their >contract by two tricks, -200. The non-offending side >gets the result of their two-level contract, making two >(the most favorable result that was likely in the >absence of the irregularity), but the offending side >gets -200, the most unfavorable result that was at all >probable in any event. Richard Hills: Bad example. Since the offending side's infraction was use of UI, not provision of MI, the infraction did not affect the at-the-table defence against the illegal three-level contract. So the offending side's score should be adjusted from -100 to -110, not to -200. A better example would be the vul non-offending side bidding to 4H, cold for ten tricks. The offending side has previously committed MI and now commits use of UI by bidding 4S. Without the MI, the non-offending side would double 4S, but because of the MI the non- offending side bids 5H, down one. There is a one-sixth or better chance that 4Sx would be -800, but the one-third or better chance 4Sx is merely a -500 penalty. In that case, the non-offending side is awarded +620, but the offending side gets -800. Marvin French: >Alert and Announcement mistakes (not made or made >erroneously), together with incorrect explanations of >a call or play, constitute misinformation (MI) as well >as UI. The MI aspects will not be covered in this >discussion. Richard Hills: But a common trap that Directors fall into when giving a MI ruling is that they forget to take into account any secondary UI aspects. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 13 23:48:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:48:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c74fa2$3e0af430$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >HIJACK. I had a law 59 ruling this afternoon; first time I've ever >used it in half a million directed hands. OLOOT; "Lead one"; >"haven't got any" :) Richard Hills: The late Geoff Oystragh wrote an amusing short article for Australian Bridge called "A Safety Play in the Fourth Dimension". The scenario is that you have reached 7D, which you expect to be cold unless there is a first round ruff. Unfortunately the auction has been highly competitive, so a first round ruff is quite likely. RHO perpetrates an opening lead out of turn of a club. If you accept the OLOOT, LHO may ruff. If you request LHO to lead a non-club, LHO may lead a suit that RHO may ruff. And if you request LHO to lead a club, Law 59 may apply, LHO leads another suit, and RHO may ruff. The safety play in the fourth dimension is to elect that the club led out of turn remains a major penalty card, and to let LHO lead any suit. If LHO leads a suit that RHO could ruff, RHO has to play the club major penalty card instead of ruffing. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 14 01:42:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:42:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French - part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French >>or when it violates a regulation. A player leads >>the king from AK-sixth against a suit slam, Qxxx >>in dummy, and third seat hesitates markedly >>before playing (thereby denying a singleton). The >>irregularity is obvious, and the TD should be >>called. Richard Hills: >The TD need not be called if the opening leader >now selects the only legal logical alternative of >continuing with the ace. Richard Hills (clarification): As noted by Edgar Kaplan, a score adjustment needed to correct an inadvertent Law 16 infraction should not be confused with disciplinary action for deliberate cheating. If a player notes some prima facie evidence which suggests that deliberate cheating may have occurred, then an immediate summoning of the Director to accuse the opponents of being possible cheats is _not_ ACBL policy, and is also a gross violation of the courtesy requirement of Law 74A2. Rather, the appropriate action is to confidentially inform the local Conduct and Ethics Committee of the prima facie evidence, so that the potential cheat can receive natural justice rather than having their reputation publicly trashed. After all, there may be an innocent explanation for the break in tempo. For example, in most of my partnerships I play natural count (high-low with a doubleton), but in some of my partnerships I play reverse count (low-high with a doubleton). Ergo, the hesitation in Marv's scenario may be merely inadvertent, not deliberate, due to the player trying to remember their methods. On the other hand, there was a notorious ACBL expert in the 1950s who had the standard agreement to play natural count signals and natural attitude signals. With a worthless doubleton he always hesitated, with the meretricious excuse, "I had to decide between giving a count signal and giving an attitude signal." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 14 02:49:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:49:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006101c74d6a$1c7ee9a0$6601a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >We have several top pairs in San Diego who have no >difficulty maintaining slow even tempo. One pair had >problems with UI-related AC decisions at NABCs and >have now adopted even tempo, pausing 4-5 seconds >before all low-level calls. No problem now. Well, >they do have a problem with finishing a round on >time, but that's mainly because their card play is >very slow. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, snails in the bidding are usually snails in the play as well. But, in my opinion, "no problem now" is an over- statement. The pair in question are getting better results (fewer Law 16 adjusted scores in favour of their opponents), but at the cost of damaging their opponents with unnecessarily slow play. This is because, in my opinion, the first sentence of Law 73D1 is merely advisory: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." Meanwhile, the slower auctions are an "annoyance" to their opponents, Law 74A2, what we in Canberra call the "Soporific Coup". Plus their now more frequent failure to finish the round on time is specifically outlawed by Law 90B2, which prohibits "unduly slow play". In my opinion, the ethical thing for that pair of snails to do is to freely vary their tempo, pulling their card from the bidding box immediately after deciding what that call should be (unless the Stop! regulation applies), but "carefully avoid taking any advantage", Law 73C, of any consequent generation of unauthorised information. Of course, the ideal thing for the snails to do is to learn to play in uniform quick tempo, but in my experience of chess players such a radical shift in habits of thought is very rare. (Chess clocks did not educate deep thinkers to think quicker, rather the chess clocks saw deep thinkers almost always get into "time trouble", eventually having to make ten moves in ten seconds.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 14 03:57:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:57:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c74e85$b77f2b10$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [big snip] >Or simplified: Looking at opponents' system card for a description >of opponents' auction is legal; looking at it for a description of >your own auction is not. Law 40E2: "...any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play..." Richard Hills: Sven Pran is reinterpreting Law 40E2 to change the word "may" into the phrase "might sometimes". It seems to me that Sven's belief that there is an implied constraint on Law 40E2 is contrary to Kojak's Rule for Interpreting the Fabulous Lawbook: "A specific rule in the Lawbook is an over-riding exception to a general rule in the Lawbook." Law 40E2 specifically allows reference to an opponent's convention card, so that seems to me to over-ride the more general rule which prohibits aids to memory. Anyway, Sven's interpretation is totally impractical. Take this scenario: Pard RHO Me LHO 1NT 2S(1) (2) (3) (1) Alerted (2) I examine the opponents' system card (3) LHO calls the director so that the director can ask me if I have infracted the Law 40 footnote by using the opponents' system card to remind myself how the lebensohl convention is played. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 14 04:37:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:37:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D12550.3030000@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >All that is needed is a complete set of *default rules*. Bolshy >local legislatures would still have the *option* of imposing >chauvinistic local regulations; but they would have *no >obligation* to do so in order to plug gaping holes in the law- >book as they must do at present. Richard Hills: In my opinion, ambiguities and obscurities are the main problem with the current Lawbook, not holes. Plus the holes in the current Lawbook are not "gaping", since there is one emergency Law which is a default "patch" for unforeseen circumstances. Law 81C3 (Conditions of Play): The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants. Nigel Guthrie: >Most players would like rules to be as simple, clear, >objective, uniform and complete as possible. Richard Hills: No, most players couldn't care less about what the rules are; they just want to play bridge, so they delegate to directors any worries about the Rubaiyat of Law 58B2. Nigel Guthrie: >In contrast, judging by contributions to BLML, many directors >relish the variety and challenge of sophisticated legal >interpretations and are exhilarated by the broad license to use >subjective judgement endowed by current legislation. Richard Hills: Judging by the largest-ever sample taken in an opinion poll, Landon had a landslide win over Roosevelt in the presidential election of 1936. One of the functions of blml is to probe ambiguities in Law or regulation and (hopefully) suggest constructive solutions. I admit that I relish this analytical role, but that does not mean that a significant number of other directors do so. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 14 04:55:02 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:55:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c74fa2$3e0af430$0701a8c0@john> References: <004801c74fa2$3e0af430$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <45D28816.6010100@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Secondarily, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or subjective Laws are highly desirable, despite Nigel Guthrie's vehement philosophical opposition. [Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251] For clubs, the rules become deliberately subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". This, for example, really means that it must look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness precisely would have the reverse effect of promoting a search for loopholes. [Richard] A recent blml search for loopholes has been on the extensive thread discussing when, exactly, a card has been played. I like the plain in shape subjective solution proposed by John (MadDog) Probst that "a card has been played when the player stops waving it around". [nige1] The dispute was whether "held" means "held *stationary*". Richard, John and Grattan seem to think it does. If the law actually specified "held stationary" the law would still be complex but less controversial. IMO, a simpler law would be better. [Richard (13th February 2007)] Thirdly, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective or subjective Alert regulations are highly desirable, to prevent sea-lawyers wriggling through loopholes. [John McEnroe (CR)] You cannot be serious! [nige1] Again Richard argues that a subjective rule may be better than the same rule phrased objectively. Admittedly, Richard has a point: it is hard to argue with a subjective ruling. A subjective regulation makes it easier for each individual to impose his own idiosyncratic interpretation and judgement *unopposed*, but... [A] Different assessors arrive at different judgements on identical facts, so [B] Inconsistent rulings result in worries about fairness, and [C] Justice is not *seen to be done*. [Richard] There are two ways to construct an Alert regulation. One way, chosen by the Australian Bridge Federation, is to create (non-objective or subjective) general principles, and then to provide some indicative examples as guidance for players and directors on the application of those (non-objective or subjective) general principles. The other way is the "death by detail" approach, with large numbers of specific situations specifically defined as ... [SNIP] [nige1] The Australian Bridge Federation has a sensible tolerant attitude to systemic agreements and its disclosure regulations seem more objective and simple than most. Some years ago, however, the ABF asked for suggestions about disclosure rules and rejected my *third way* :( [3] Dispense with alerts completely :) ...Don't *alert* partner's calls, instead... (a) *Unless* opponents asked you *not to explain* before starting the round -- (b) *During* the auction, *explain* (announce) any call that you would have alerted. (c) *After* the auction, offer to explain, anyway. ...This protocol [3] avoids any unauthorised information that might be engendered, had you asked selectively. If you would have asked about *all* alerted calls then it saves the time wasted by alerts and questions. If you *switch off* explanations that further reduces UI and saves more time because instead of waiting for an explanation of each alertable call... (d) At the end of the auction, You may ask a *Sven Pran* question "What do your partner's calls tell you about his hand?" to elicit a succinct and lucid response: shape, strength, and so on. ...Disclosure is even simpler if you... (e) Explain departures from a (local or international) *standard* system. This disclosure protocol is no panacea (Frances Hinden and others were kind enough to point out shortcomings) but, overall, IMO, it would be fairer, faster and simpler. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 14 04:52:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:52:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [big snip] >Are you convinced that, in ACBL national events, 1NT 11--13 is >announcable but not prealertable? In this light, can you explain why >it is a good idea for an ACBL director in a national event to be able >to say, "Today, I require weak notrumps to be prealerted."? Richard Hills: Okay, I am convinced after carefully re-reading the ACBL Alert reg. (But see my posting in the parallel thread "a player's view".) Jerry Fusselman: >Is there anyone reading this who really thinks it is a good idea to >have ACBL directors change ACBL alert regulations? ...and then to >have the national authority endorse the change? Of course, directors >have to interpret alert regulations, but do we really want them to >clearly change them? If so, what other laws and regulations should >directors be encouraged to change? Richard Hills: Um. It seems to me that the core of the problem was not the director changing the regulation to be consistent with Law 75A, but the reg being inconsistent with Law 75A in the first place. Law 81B2 says that the director is bound by Law and regulation, but what should a director do when a regulation is contrary to Law? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 14 05:11:37 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:11:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D28BF9.6040502@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills[ No, most players couldn't care less about what the rules are; they just want to play bridge, so they delegate to directors any worries about the Rubaiyat of Law 58B2. [nige1] A game *is* its rules. To enjoy and do well at a game, it helps to know its rules. In my experience, most Bridge players (and some directors) would prefer a single set of rules that they could understand. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 14 07:09:11 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:09:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09E06AD6-03AC-4AA7-86EC-91E430614DC1@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 13, 2007, at 8:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > (Chess clocks did not educate deep thinkers to think quicker, > rather the chess clocks saw deep thinkers almost always get into > "time trouble", eventually having to make ten moves in ten seconds.) It is a mistake IMO to compare the timing requirements of chess with those of bridge. "Bridge is a timed event" we say, and "7.5 minutes a board" (or whatever), but in fact timing is not specified in the laws, except for the prohibition on "unduly slow play" Richard mentions - but what is "unduly slow"? Slow enough to cause a "soporific coup" may qualify. Consistently not being finished when the round is called may qualify. But all the laws actually *require* about timing is that "In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players." (Law 8B). If we are to justify the practice of canceling boards for certain pairs because they haven't got to those boards when the round is called, we must, I think, do so by recognizing that the laws are flawed in this area. Otherwise, if we are to take law 8B literally, we must allow those boards to be played, even if the TD doesn't get home 'til midnight (the most common comment I hear from club TDs around here is that "I'm not hanging around here all night.") Granted there can be reasons extraneous to the game for finishing on time (keeping players and TDs happy, or vacating the venue by the time required by the lease, for example), the laws do not address those concerns. IMO, your pair with the five second tempo would do well to try to shorten it, given that the specific time limit is self imposed. Be that as it may, I do not believe it is a given that a pair who practice "even tempo" must necessarily get into trouble due to time constraints, nor that even so slow a tempo as five seconds in the bidding necessarily means slowness in the play (IME, slow play is most often caused by (1) failure to plan the play at trick one, (2) discussing hands in the middle of the round, and (3) digging out personal scores or pickup slips and writing down the contract before attending to the opening lead and facing of dummy.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 14 07:54:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:54:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D28BF9.6040502@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>No, most players couldn't care less about what the rules are; >>they just want to play bridge, so they delegate to directors >>any worries about the Rubaiyat of Law 58B2. Nigel Guthrie: >A game *is* its rules. Richard Hills: No. The rules of a game are merely its framework. The game also includes the players, the venue, the weather, etc, etc. Nigel Guthrie: >To enjoy and do well at a game, it helps to know its rules. Richard Hills: Not so. A player need not have memorised Law 58B2 to realise that carelessly playing two cards at once is a poor strategy. Nigel Guthrie: >In my experience, most Bridge players (and some directors) >would prefer a single set of rules that they could >understand. Richard Hills: Experimenter bias is a well known scientific phenomenon; it is easy for a scientist to record data which fits their clever hypothesis, and ignore data which contradicts it. And anecdotal evidence, an assertion of "in my experience" is even more dubious, since it is very difficult to conduct a double-blind test of an anecdote to confirm its hypothesis. Indeed, science is defined by the concept that if it is not possible to disprove a hypothesis due to the intrinsic nature of the hypothesis (for example, "Intelligent Design"), then that hypothesis is not scientific. Anyway, there is a counter-anecdote to Nigel's anecdote. Richard Willey: >>>In all seriousness: You really need to consider dropping >>>this quixotic crusade that the entire regulatory structure >>>needs to consistent across the entire world. >>> >>>No one agrees with you. Richard Hills: And Richard Willey's poetic license "No one" is scientific, since it can be disproved by a single counter-example. But an assertion that "most Bridge players" are Nigellian needs specific support from many easily identified people before it can be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis. However, the lesser "beware of the leopard" suggestion that the Lawbook and its subordinate regulations should be easy to find and well-written has indeed gained specific support from many easily identified people. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 14 09:48:40 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:48:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c75014$eccbb690$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Anyway, Sven's interpretation is totally impractical. Take this > scenario: > > Pard RHO Me LHO > 1NT 2S(1) (2) (3) > > (1) Alerted > > (2) I examine the opponents' system card > > (3) LHO calls the director so that the director can ask me if I > have infracted the Law 40 footnote by using the opponents' system > card to remind myself how the lebensohl convention is played. Taken completely out of context my comments were of course neither logical nor practical. May I remind you that the situation discussed was a pair stating that "we play your system" (whatever that system is) and then proceeding to use opponents' system card as an aid to knowing this system. I simply showed how the laws could (and should?) be used to ban such procedure. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 14 15:35:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:35:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? In-Reply-To: <000001c75014$eccbb690$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c75014$eccbb690$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070214092435.02b09100@pop.starpower.net> At 03:48 AM 2/14/07, Sven wrote: >May I remind you that the situation discussed was a pair stating that "we >play your system" (whatever that system is) and then proceeding to use >opponents' system card as an aid to knowing this system. > >I simply showed how the laws could (and should?) be used to ban such >procedure. To respond to Sven's parenthetical, why would we want to? Decades ago, when I was an "up and coming" young player, I occasionally indulged in this practice. A few sessions of "your system for your convenience" did for my knowledge and understanding of the range and variety of methods I was likely to encounter "out there" as much as several months of "non-hands-on" study would have. If you don't mind sacrificing lots of matchpoints to improve your bridge knowledge, I would highly recommend it for intermediate-level students of the game. Regrettably, in the intervening decades, the ACBL has decided to prohibit it (via a regulation against varying one's basic system in mid-session). So I guess I only recommend it to non-ACBL intermediate-level students of the game. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 14 12:30:33 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:30:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0702102157l144ace9bl451e43b70fe2df6d@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0702111709j183a7a68i14b7b3cd49bc5651@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0702111750h63b06f8bu3eccc41ea18120a1@mail.gmail.com> <45D08F4A.8020101@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0702120923s63f15f2fi425cc6a12267a1d4@mail.gmail.com> <45D12550.3030000@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000a01c75045$50c9b3b0$3e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I also fear that the WBFLC is more influenced by > directors and administrators than players. > +=+ It has been found difficult to enlist players, or Directors, who do not become administrators upon joining the Administration. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Even Nigel becomes pseudo-administrative when he embarks upon guidance for the committee. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 14 13:05:28 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:05:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu><45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> <21E5F984-6D21-45EC-8D44-6783D7748EA5@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c75045$51bf5e50$3e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Gygax finally got fed up with the battle, and opined > "it's that way because I say so. Now shut up." If that's > what the WBFLC wishes to do with "logical alternative", > I'll of course ignore the world "logical" (or substitute a > different word, such as "implausible") as instructed, > but that won't change my mind about what the law > actually says. As Galileo said under his breath "it still > moves". :-) > +=+ Very understandable feelings, Ed, but..... My problem with this thread is that it is discussing what is a logical alternative action for a player of his peer quality, playing his methods in the circumstances of the situation. If he tells us he would do 'x', and we believe him, I think it presumptuous to assert that 'x' is not, for him, a logical alternative action. In the WBF Code of Practice we did attempt to address the issue in our guidance for appeals committees. We say: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it". I opine that to maintain that his action is not a 'logical alternative' for the purposes of the law requires an element of disbelief as to the player's assertion or a finding that he is not supported by a requisite (minority) quota of his peers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 14 16:11:13 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:11:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070214092435.02b09100@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c75014$eccbb690$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070214092435.02b09100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45D32691.4000406@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > At 03:48 AM 2/14/07, Sven wrote: > >> May I remind you that the situation discussed was a pair stating that "we >> play your system" (whatever that system is) and then proceeding to use >> opponents' system card as an aid to knowing this system. >> >> I simply showed how the laws could (and should?) be used to ban such >> procedure. > > To respond to Sven's parenthetical, why would we want to? > > Decades ago, when I was an "up and coming" young player, I occasionally > indulged in this practice. A few sessions of "your system for your > convenience" did for my knowledge and understanding of the range and > variety of methods I was likely to encounter "out there" as much as > several months of "non-hands-on" study would have. If you don't mind > sacrificing lots of matchpoints to improve your bridge knowledge, I > would highly recommend it for intermediate-level students of the game. > > Regrettably, in the intervening decades, the ACBL has decided to > prohibit it (via a regulation against varying one's basic system in > mid-session). So I guess I only recommend it to non-ACBL > intermediate-level students of the game. i am very tempted to try. just to prevent an ensuing problem: how did you handle the situation where you encountered opponents using the same meta-system as you? jpr > > Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 14 16:35:09 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:35:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070214092435.02b09100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01c7504d$b5f20730$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 03:48 AM 2/14/07, Sven wrote: > > >May I remind you that the situation discussed was a pair stating that "we > >play your system" (whatever that system is) and then proceeding to use > >opponents' system card as an aid to knowing this system. > > > >I simply showed how the laws could (and should?) be used to ban such > >procedure. > > To respond to Sven's parenthetical, why would we want to? > > Decades ago, when I was an "up and coming" young player, I occasionally > indulged in this practice. A few sessions of "your system for your > convenience" did for my knowledge and understanding of the range and > variety of methods I was likely to encounter "out there" as much as > several months of "non-hands-on" study would have. If you don't mind > sacrificing lots of matchpoints to improve your bridge knowledge, I > would highly recommend it for intermediate-level students of the game. > > Regrettably, in the intervening decades, the ACBL has decided to > prohibit it (via a regulation against varying one's basic system in > mid-session). So I guess I only recommend it to non-ACBL > intermediate-level students of the game. Another shot that miss the target. Up and coming players are encouraged to learn a system thoroughly and get themselves familiar with that before trying experiments. Such players were never the target for my comments. I addressed the "experienced" players who consider themselves so clever that they on the flight can vary their system and for instance declare that they play their opponents' system. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 14 16:59:22 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:59:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] No. The rules of a game are merely its framework. The game also includes the players, the venue, the weather, etc, etc. [nigel] I suppose it depends on which dictionary Humpty Dumpty chooses. I prefer "a competitive activity with rules". David Burns agreed, in a legal contest, that "a game is its rules". [Richard H] Not so [that, to enjoy and do well at a game, it helps to know its rules]. A player need not have memorised Law 58B2 to realise that carelessly playing two cards at once is a poor strategy. [nige1] Again and again, BLML illustrates that detailed knowledge of laws, regulations, interpretations and minutes can endow a player with a decisive edge. [Richard H] [disputing nigel's "In my experience, most Bridge players (and some directors) would prefer a single set of rules that they could understand] Experimenter bias is a well known scientific phenomenon; it is easy for a scientist to record data which fits their clever hypothesis, and ignore data which contradicts it. And anecdotal evidence, an assertion of "in my experience" is even more dubious, since it is very difficult to conduct a double-blind test of an anecdote to confirm its hypothesis. Indeed, science is defined by the concept that if it is not possible to disprove a hypothesis due to the intrinsic nature of the hypothesis (for example, "Intelligent Design"), then that hypothesis is not scientific. Anyway, there is a counter-anecdote to Nigel's anecdote. [Richard Willey] In all seriousness: You really need to consider dropping this quixotic crusade that the entire regulatory structure needs to consistent across the entire world. No one agrees with you. [RH] And Richard Willey's poetic license "No one" is scientific, since it can be disproved by a single counter-example. But an assertion that "most Bridge players" are Nigellian needs specific support from many easily identified people before it can be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis. However, the lesser "beware of the leopard" suggestion that the Lawbook and its subordinate regulations should be easy to find and well-written has indeed gained specific support from many easily identified people. [nige1] I agree with Richard about the undesirability of obscure legislation ("Beware of the Leopard") but feel that Richard is really exceptional if he deems it easy to comply with rules that you neither know nor understand :) Like Richard, most of us rely on experience and common sense. It is hard for an individual to gather significant evidence. It would be easy for the WBF and NBOs to poll players but, given the likely statistical conclusions, their reluctance is understandable. I feel (just my gut feeling Richard) that a majority (including Richard) agree with most of the following... [A] BLML illustrates that TFLB can be hard to interpret. Few have read their own local regulations and interpretations, let alone those of the places that they visit. Fewer still have time to explore other authoritative sources. (For current purposes, please read the word *rules* to include Bridge laws, regulations, authoritative interpretations, commentaries, and case-law paradigms). [B] WBFLC should maintain a single up-to-date authoritative version of TFLB on the web, incorporating changes in place when they become law. [C] Ton's illustrative borderline examples will mitigate the problem of rules that rely on subjective judgement. [D] WBFLC should complete TFLB with *default-rules* to plug its many gaps. For example screens, bidding-boxes, convention-cards, licensing, disclosure (alerts or whatever) ... [E] It would then be easy for any sponsor who prefers local regulation to highlight their changes in a *local* web edition of TFLB, so that each legislature has a *single up-to-date authoritative source*. [F] It would still be np hard to make the rules simple, clear, objective and consistent enough for players to understand -- while at least preserving the essential enjoyable nature of the game; but B-E would be useful preliminaries. BLML is hardly an unbiased sample of Bridge players (: Turkey/Christmas analogies may be apt :) but please would BLMLers answer A-F with *YES* ( = broadly agree) or *NO* ( = broadly disagree). Additional comments (for instance: improving the questions) gratefully anticipated. IMO, the results are of interest to all of us. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 14 18:08:54 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:08:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Feb 14, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Nigel wrote: > (For current purposes, please read the word *rules* to include Bridge > laws, regulations, authoritative interpretations, commentaries, and > case-law paradigms). Hm. Raises a question. Is it the position of authority (WBFLC, ZA, NBO) that case law provides valid interpretations? We *know* that TDs and appeals committees make mistakes. I would submit that perhaps such decisions *at high levels* might provide valid case law, but decisions at lower levels (in ACBL terms, Regional or Sectional tournaments or clubs) ought not to be so considered. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 14 18:19:19 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:19:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? References: <000001c75014$eccbb690$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070214092435.02b09100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c7505c$a0335340$b9df403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? > > Regrettably, in the intervening decades, the ACBL > has decided to prohibit it (via a regulation against > varying one's basic system in mid-session). So I > guess I only recommend it to non-ACBL > intermediate-level students of the game. > +=+ International tournaments frequently require 24/48 hours notice of a change on the CC - and commonly limit the complexity of any newly entered agreement. On the wider front, Sven is no doubt technically correct in saying that you cannot consult your own convention card, so that it is illegal to use it as an aide memoire for one's "own" methods - but, as others have noted, he is in some difficulty when seeking to identify whether a player is using the card for that purpose or for the legitimate purpose of understanding what opponents are doing. That said, most CC regulations require supply of two copies of one's CC to opponents and technically any such requirement is not met by telling them to take the information from their own CCs. One may think that to comply with such a regulation players are required to produce, for opponents, two CCs of their own preparation on each occasion they change from one CC to another. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 14 18:43:42 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:43:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c75045$51bf5e50$3e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200702091616.l19GGf9k001303@cfa.harvard.edu> <45D1393E.6060409@cfa.harvard.edu> <21E5F984-6D21-45EC-8D44-6783D7748EA5@rochester.rr.com> <000b01c75045$51bf5e50$3e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Feb 14, 2007, at 7:05 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > My problem with this thread is that it is discussing > what is a logical alternative action for a player of his > peer quality, playing his methods in the circumstances > of the situation. If he tells us he would do 'x', and we > believe him, I think it presumptuous to assert that 'x' is > not, for him, a logical alternative action. This is, I believe, fundamental to the discussion. You, and the CoP, define "Logical" as a relative concept. I would define it otherwise. To me, if it can be shown via rules of logic that a given sequence of calls, coupled with the current bidder's hand and knowledge of his and his opponent's bidding systems, that such-and-such a call makes sense (there may, of course, be more than one such call) then that call is a logical alternative. IOW, there must be a valid logical argument leading to the conclusion. It seems to me the opposing position is that a given call is a "logical alternative" if some number of the player's peers would make it, logic notwithstanding. IIRC, you said here once that "plausible" might have been a better word than "logical" in the context of "logical alternative". That may be true, but it's not the word in the laws, and I'm reluctant to decide the laws mean something other than what they actually say. I suppose the WBFLC (or the executive?) has that power, but I don't really like it much there, either. There is the field of "fuzzy" logic, in which the two-valued nature of traditional logic (an assertion is either true or false) is replaced by a multi-valued system, in which there are degrees of truth (A is more true than B, but less true than C). I confess to having abandoned my attempt, years ago, to understand these "fuzzy logics" - they made my head hurt. :-) Nonetheless, I suppose they might lead to a conclusion that "x is a logical alternative for player y" because it is closer to the "100% true" end of the spectrum than some value z, but I would not have expected the drafters of the laws of bridge to be so familiar with such systems of logic as to include them in the laws, in particular without recognizing that the majority of readers would not expect such a fuzzy meaning of "logical". In any case, it seems Humpty Dumpty, or the WBFLC, has spoken, via the CoP, and "logical" is defined to mean something other than "logical". Amen. :-) From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 14 21:26:33 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:26:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll > [Richard Hills] > > No. The rules of a game are merely its framework. The game > also includes the players, the venue, the weather, etc, etc. > > [nigel] > > I suppose it depends on which dictionary Humpty Dumpty chooses. > I prefer "a competitive activity with rules". David Burns agreed, > in a legal contest, that "a game is its rules". > > [Richard H] > > Not so [that, to enjoy and do well at a game, it helps to know its > rules]. A player need not have memorised Law 58B2 to realise that > carelessly playing two cards at once is a poor strategy. > > [nige1] > > Again and again, BLML illustrates that detailed knowledge of laws, > regulations, interpretations and minutes can endow a player with a > decisive edge. When law is constructed from principles that are fundamental throughout it follows that a player grasping those principles can readily [a] ascertain at the time something has happened that it likely is or is not a crime- and probably be right [b] have an idea what to do next- and probably be right [c] when a remedy is pronounced, have an idea if the remedy is appropriate- and probably be right .......without previous study of the particulars of the law. One might conclude after study of the 1997 promulgation: while considering a particular situation that principle1 would seem to apply to playerA while principle2 would seem to apply to playerB and so on; yet, for a similar situation principle37 would seem to apply instead. And yes, under such circumstances, fluent knowlege of the law would derive a decided edge. regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 14 22:17:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:17:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? In-Reply-To: <45D32691.4000406@meteo.fr> References: <000001c75014$eccbb690$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20070214092435.02b09100@pop.starpower.net> <45D32691.4000406@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070214160839.02aef940@pop.starpower.net> At 10:11 AM 2/14/07, Jean-Pierre wrote: >Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Decades ago, when I was an "up and coming" young player, I > occasionally > > indulged in this practice. A few sessions of "your system for your > > convenience" did for my knowledge and understanding of the range and > > variety of methods I was likely to encounter "out there" as much as > > several months of "non-hands-on" study would have. If you don't mind > > sacrificing lots of matchpoints to improve your bridge knowledge, I > > would highly recommend it for intermediate-level students of the game. > > > > Regrettably, in the intervening decades, the ACBL has decided to > > prohibit it (via a regulation against varying one's basic system in > > mid-session). So I guess I only recommend it to non-ACBL > > intermediate-level students of the game. > > i am very tempted to try. just to prevent an ensuing problem: how did >you handle the situation where you encountered opponents using the same >meta-system as you? It never came up. Although other members of this forum besides myself have admitted to trying it, I've never actually seen it at the table except when perpetrated by my partnership. I suppose both sides would just get on with the game. Is this a case where the legitimacy of "we have no agreement" could not be doubted? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 14 22:24:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:24:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <09E06AD6-03AC-4AA7-86EC-91E430614DC1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >If we are to justify the practice of canceling boards for certain >pairs because they haven't got to those boards when the round is >called, we must, I think, do so by recognizing that the laws are >flawed in this area. Otherwise, if we are to take law 8B >literally, we must allow those boards to be played, even if the >TD doesn't get home 'til midnight (the most common comment I hear >from club TDs around here is that "I'm not hanging around here >all night.") [snip] Law 8B: "In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players." Richard Hills: The issue is the phrase "not completed play". I argue that the Director can complete the play of a board - cancel a board - via a ruling under Law 82B1. Law 82B1: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws." Richard Hills: Unduly slow play is an error in procedure, an infraction of Law 90B2. Therefore the Director can give an adjusted score on the cancelled board of Ave- to the snails, and Ave+ to their innocent opponents. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Feb 14 23:19:27 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:19:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations Message-ID: <45D38AEF.60506@aol.com> Ahoy blml! In the 4-5 days since I last wrote about abbreviations used not in the list, following abbreviations have appeared. WTP TP IBTD IIRC ZA np (possibly this was a typo). Can anyone supply me with meanings for the above? Am I the only blmler frustrated when encountering abbreviations not on the list and which he doesn't recognise. (A few seem to be "internet slang". But are all of us experienced internet users? I'm not.) Ciao, JE From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 23:38:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:38:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] abbreviations In-Reply-To: <45D38AEF.60506@aol.com> References: <45D38AEF.60506@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702141438l3d2c4c0ah5fdd2e913d49dd78@mail.gmail.com> Jeff Easterson: > > WTP > TP > IBTD > IIRC > ZA > np (possibly this was a typo). WTP What's the problem IIRC If I recall correctly ZA Zonal authority. That leaves TP IBTD np (possibly a typo) From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 15 00:09:26 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:09:26 -0600 Subject: [blml] abbreviations References: <45D38AEF.60506@aol.com> <2b1e598b0702141438l3d2c4c0ah5fdd2e913d49dd78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Jeff Easterson" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] abbreviations I have been wondering what NB is. regards roger pewick > Jeff Easterson: >> >> WTP >> TP >> IBTD I beg to differ >> IIRC >> ZA >> np (possibly this was a typo). no problem > WTP What's the problem > > IIRC If I recall correctly > > ZA Zonal authority. > > That leaves > TP > IBTD > np (possibly a typo) From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 15 00:19:09 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:19:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] abbreviations In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:09:26 CST." Message-ID: <200702142245.OAA32646@mailhub.irvine.com> > I have been wondering what NB is. New Brunswick, of course! Actually, I find it a little silly that people are asking "What does this abbreviation mean" and not even giving us an iota of context that would help us answer, as if these abbreviations just float around through space all by themselves. Where have you seen it, and is it in a place where it can't have the standard Latin/English meaning (nota bene)? -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 15 00:32:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:32:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702141438l3d2c4c0ah5fdd2e913d49dd78@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >>Ahoy blml! In the 4-5 days since I last wrote about abbreviations >>used not in the list, following abbreviations have appeared. >> >>WTP >>TP >>IBTD >>IIRC >>ZA >>np (possibly this was a typo). >>Can anyone supply me with meanings for the above? Am I the only >>blmler frustrated when encountering abbreviations not on the list >>and which he doesn't recognise. (A few seem to be "internet >>slang". But are all of us experienced internet users? I'm not.) >>Ciao, JE Jerry Fusselman: >WTP What's the problem > >IIRC If I recall correctly > >ZA Zonal authority. > >That leaves >TP >IBTD >np (possibly a typo) Richard Hills: TP = total points, IBTD = I beg to differ, np = no problem. As a matter of my personal blml netiquette, the only abbreviations that I use are "bridge" abbreviations, not internet jargon. So I used HK as meaning "heart king" not "Hong Kong". (The reason that I use HK instead of KH is to be consistent with H3 the card and 3H the bid). Meanwhile, I spell out in full "in my opinion" rather than use the jargon IMHO. * * * "Netiquette on blml" posting 17th June 2004: As some day it must happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still SOs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! Best pseudo-witty wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 15 00:32:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:32:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702141438l3d2c4c0ah5fdd2e913d49dd78@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >>Ahoy blml! In the 4-5 days since I last wrote about abbreviations >>used not in the list, following abbreviations have appeared. >> >>WTP >>TP >>IBTD >>IIRC >>ZA >>np (possibly this was a typo). >>Can anyone supply me with meanings for the above? Am I the only >>blmler frustrated when encountering abbreviations not on the list >>and which he doesn't recognise. (A few seem to be "internet >>slang". But are all of us experienced internet users? I'm not.) >>Ciao, JE Jerry Fusselman: >WTP What's the problem > >IIRC If I recall correctly > >ZA Zonal authority. > >That leaves >TP >IBTD >np (possibly a typo) Richard Hills: TP = total points, IBTD = I beg to differ, np = no problem. As a matter of my personal blml netiquette, the only abbreviations that I use are "bridge" abbreviations, not internet jargon. So I used HK as meaning "heart king" not "Hong Kong". (The reason that I use HK instead of KH is to be consistent with H3 the card and 3H the bid). Meanwhile, I spell out in full "in my opinion" rather than use the jargon IMHO. * * * "Netiquette on blml" posting 17th June 2004: As some day it must happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still SOs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! Best pseudo-witty wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 15 01:10:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:10:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Turn but a stone [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >In this case the apparent paradox is >resolved because the knowledge that >the HK must be played at the first >legal opportunity arises from the >TD's PC ruling rather than from the >withdrawn action itself. > >OK, I know the laws do not explicitly >classify TD rulings as AI but....! Richard Hills: In some circumstances, as for example partner summoning the director before the opening lead to correct your misexplanation (Law 75D2), and the auction consequently restarting (Law 21B1), the presence of the TD and the ruling of the TD are indeed UI to you. See last month's "Nine Princes in Amber" thread for a real-life case. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 15 01:47:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:47:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D28816.6010100@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Thirdly, I argue that (in some circumstances) non-objective >>or subjective Alert regulations are highly desirable, to >>prevent sea-lawyers wriggling through loopholes. Nigel (John McEnroe) Guthrie: >You cannot be serious! >..... >A subjective regulation makes it easier for each individual >to impose his own idiosyncratic interpretation and judgement Richard Hills: Many moons ago I played the first edition of the classic computer game SimCity. The principle of the game is to build and improve a simulated city for the benefit of its simulated inhabitants. But "improve" and "benefit" are subjective goals which a Guthrie would spurn. One of the learning scenarios included in the package was a prefabricated city which had an inefficient transport network. For that learning scenario there was the single objective and details-based rule to reduce traffic congestion. No problem. I dived through the loophole created by the objective and details-based rule. I hit the simulated city with several simulated earthquakes. After all the simulated people were dead, traffic congestion dropped to zero. And sure enough, a victory screen appeared on my computer to tell me that I had won the scenario in record time. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Thu Feb 15 01:51:30 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:51:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? References: <000001c75014$eccbb690$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20070214092435.02b09100@pop.starpower.net><45D32691.4000406@meteo.fr> <6.1.1.1.0.20070214160839.02aef940@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002301c7509b$6ea8aed0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? At 10:11 AM 2/14/07, Jean-Pierre wrote: >Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Decades ago, when I was an "up and coming" young player, I > occasionally > > indulged in this practice. A few sessions of "your system for your > > convenience" did for my knowledge and understanding of the range and > > variety of methods I was likely to encounter "out there" as much as > > several months of "non-hands-on" study would have. If you don't mind > > sacrificing lots of matchpoints to improve your bridge knowledge, I > > would highly recommend it for intermediate-level students of the game. > > > > Regrettably, in the intervening decades, the ACBL has decided to > > prohibit it (via a regulation against varying one's basic system in > > mid-session). So I guess I only recommend it to non-ACBL > > intermediate-level students of the game. > > i am very tempted to try. just to prevent an ensuing problem: how did >you handle the situation where you encountered opponents using the same >meta-system as you? It never came up. Although other members of this forum besides myself have admitted to trying it, I've never actually seen it at the table except when perpetrated by my partnership. If one were challenged to name two proponents of such methods one would look no further than Eric and myself :) I did doubt the legality of one question I asked. We were in the middle of a symmetric relay auction and were having to rely heavily on opponents for help by the time we got to the 4th round and I did ask whether, if they had had such an auction, the next relay asked for key-cards excluding the singleton. The big problem was the UI I created with the question :) In the bear pit pretty well everyone was amused by the method and delighted to help out; even volunteering what the next bid would show/ask in some of the more byzantine systems. After all we were paying them the compliment of using *their* system. The only people I had problems with are the ones I watch like a hawk today. Bridge, after all, is meant to be fun. John I suppose both sides would just get on with the game. Is this a case where the legitimacy of "we have no agreement" could not be doubted? 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 Thu Feb 15 02:02:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:02:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200702142245.OAA32646@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>I have been wondering what NB is. >New Brunswick, of course! > >Actually, I find it a little silly that people are asking "What does >this abbreviation mean" and not even giving us an iota of context >that would help us answer, as if these abbreviations just float >around through space all by themselves. Where have you seen it, and >is it in a place where it can't have the standard Latin/English >meaning (nota bene)? > > -- Adam Most of the world uses the word "Pass" or the abbreviation "P", but there is a British idiosyncratic habit to use the phrase "No bid" and the abbreviation "NB". This idiosyncrasy dates back to the time of spoken bidding, since in the Oxbridge accent "Pass" was a homophone of "Hearts". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 15 02:49:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:49:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D331DA.2010902@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: I feel (just my gut feeling Richard) that a majority (including Richard) agree with most of the following... [A] BLML illustrates that TFLB can be hard to interpret. Few have read their own local regulations and interpretations, let alone those of the places that they visit. Fewer still have time to explore other authoritative sources. (For current purposes, please read the word *rules* to include Bridge laws, regulations, authoritative interpretations, commentaries, and case-law paradigms). Richard Hills: >Yes, but. >Grattan Endicott has previously advised blml that the Drafting >Committee is of one mind that the forthcoming edition of the Lawbook >should be drafted so that it easier to interpret. Nigel Guthrie: [B] WBFLC should maintain a single up-to-date authoritative version of TFLB on the web, incorporating changes in place when they become law. Richard Hills: >Yes, but. >Not "single" website. Copies of the 1997 Lawbook are freely available >on many websites. I think having identical copies of the 2008 Lawbook >available on many websites would also be useful. Nigel Guthrie: [C] Ton's illustrative borderline examples will mitigate the problem of rules that rely on subjective judgement. Richard Hills: >Have you stopped beating your wife? >In Grattan's announcement of Ton's work-in-progress, nowhere was the >word "borderline" used. >The problems with the subjective judgement of logical alternatives >have already been mitigated by the modern practice of double-blind >polling of peers. Nigel Guthrie: [D] WBFLC should complete TFLB with *default-rules* to plug its many gaps. For example screens, bidding-boxes, convention-cards, licensing, disclosure (alerts or whatever) ... Richard Hills: >Yes and no. >Default rules, yes. Defaults tantamount to the Guthrie hobbyhorse of >comprehensive universal regulations, no. Nigel Guthrie: [E] It would then be easy for any sponsor who prefers local regulation to highlight their changes in a *local* web edition of TFLB, so that each legislature has a *single up-to-date authoritative source*. >Definitely no. >Again Nigel is trying to sneak his hobbyhorse in the back door. Nigel Guthrie: [F] It would still be np hard to make the rules simple, clear, objective and consistent enough for players to understand -- while at least preserving the essential enjoyable nature of the game; but B-E would be useful preliminaries. Richard Hills: >Yes and no. >Yes, writing a set of rules for bridge is NP-Hard. >No, B-E are not useful preliminaries. >If there are any blmlers who are not mathematicians, "NP-Hard" is an >abbreviation for "Nondeterministic Polynomial-time hard". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 15 03:16:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:16:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Use opponents system. How far can you go? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c7505c$a0335340$b9df403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: Many years ago in an Aussie Youth Championship it happened that two of the partnerships were playing a Forcing Pass Relay system. When my FPR partnership met the other FPR pair, on one deal I opened with a Forcing Pass and my LHO overcalled with a Forcing Pass. Now both of the partnerships commenced game-force relays. Eventually my partner got bored with relaying, and doubled for +800. The opponents had come across a glitch in their system, since they had never played against another Forcing Pass system before. One of them thought that their standard agreement that a Pass in second seat was strong applied. The other thought that a Pass which was an overcall of a Forcing Pass should be a "real" Pass. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Thu Feb 15 03:20:24 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:20:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] abbreviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D3C368.9080400@NTLworld.com> NB = "Nota Bene" (note well) or less likely: New Brunswick or Niobium NP = (usually) "No Problem" but (when computing) "Non deterministic Polynomial" I admit that I wrote "it is np hard to make the rules simple, clear, objective and consistent enough for players to understand" I confess that this was intended as a (pathetic) pun -- because NP hard problems are the opposite of "no problem": they are particularly intractable. Sorry. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 15 04:54:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:54:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [big snip] >In any case, it seems Humpty Dumpty, or the WBFLC, has spoken, >via the CoP, and "logical" is defined to mean something other >than "logical". Amen. :-) Richard Hills: So what? The word "finesse" has a dictionary meaning "subtle management; artfulness", but a bridge meaning of a very basic and unsubtle technique artlessly over-used by beginners. The word "psychic" has a dictionary meaning "of the soul or mind", but a bridge meaning of a gross misstatement. The word "revoke" has a dictionary meaning "rescind, withdraw, cancel", but a bridge meaning of a play of an illegal card. And the bridge meaning of "turn a trick" is entirely different to the colloquial meaning. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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 Feb 15 05:24:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:24:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >When law is constructed from principles that are fundamental throughout it >follows that a player grasping those principles can readily > >[a] ascertain at the time something has happened that it likely is or is >not a crime - and probably be right > >[b] have an idea what to do next - and probably be right > >[c] when a remedy is pronounced, have an idea if the remedy is appropriate >- and probably be right > >.......without previous study of the particulars of the law. > >One might conclude after study of the 1997 promulgation: while considering >a particular situation that principle1 would seem to apply to playerA while >principle2 would seem to apply to playerB and so on; yet, for a similar >situation principle37 would seem to apply instead. > >And yes, under such circumstances, fluent knowledge of the law would derive >a decided edge. Richard Hills: Indeed, I once gained an edge by my knowledge of the "principle37" Law 72B3, which Law has a diametrically opposite principle to the bedrock principles underlying the other Laws in The Proprieties. Law 72B3: >>There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of >>law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a >>mistaken explanation). Richard Hills: In the thread "Invisible Revoke", I carelessly failed to follow suit when declarer was drawing trumps. By the time I realised my error the revoke had been established (so Law 62A no longer over-rode Law 72B3). And I later gained an extra trick with a ruff. But none of my three opponents realised that I had revoked, so there was not any equity correction of the revoke via Law 64C. During subsequent blml discussion Ton Kooijman opined that "no obligation to" meant that it was legal for me to _volunteer_ news of my revoke once the two-trick penalty period had passed, so that a Law 64C equity one-trick rectification could be arranged. This is the policy that I will follow in future should the situation recur. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 15 06:19:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:19:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Close Encounter of the Third Kind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560701301628v33e7dfcar259ee0ae704df122@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [big snip] >>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. EBU Appeals Casebook 2000, Appeal 9 "Claim carefully!": [big snip] >Director's ruling: >4D -1 by West, NS +50 > >Details of ruling: >Intention to finesse not made in original statement. It would be >careless or inferior to play CJ - not irrational. (Laws 70D, 70E.) > >Appeal lodged by: >East-West > >Appeals Committee decision: >Director's ruling upheld. Deposit returned > >Appeals Committee's comments: >Sadly, the Committee do not feel that there is scope to allow the >appeal. West was at fault in failing to state his line for the >claim (which was blatantly obvious) and North-South are entitled >to exact their rights under the Law. David Stevenson (casebook commentator): [snip] >The Appeals Committee has expressed their distaste, but they do >not consider the play of the CJ irrational. Some North-South >players would not have contested this claim at all. [snip] Herman De Wael (casebook commentator): [snip] >This, together with the almost unethical Director call by >North/South, [snip] Richard Hills: In the WBF Code of Practice, the section on Ethics states that, "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." In this case a player legally called the Director after a dodgy claim, the Director ruled that the claim was invalid, and the Appeals Committee upheld the Director's ruling. Yet in the official casebook there are published a whole series of innuendoes tantamount to "trying to win a trick by stealth": * "Sadly" * "Blatantly obvious" * "Exact their rights" (echoes of exacting a pound of flesh?) * "Distaste" * "Some would not have contested at all" * "Almost unethical" Sensibly the Law and Ethics Committee comments on this case were restricted to what is required by Law, eschewing personal views on the ethics of successfully disputing a claim. Laws & Ethics Committee comments: >The L&E did not conclude whether they agreed with the statement >that the winning line was "blatantly obvious". However, the L&E >views that if the Appeals Committee thought the winning line >was "blatantly obvious" then all other lines would presumably >be "irrational" within the footnote to Law 70C3. If so the >Appeals Committee should have held that, in effect, the finesse >should be allowed. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 15 06:50:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:50:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Hm. Raises a question. Is it the position of authority (WBFLC, ZA, >NBO) that case law provides valid interpretations? We *know* that >TDs and appeals committees make mistakes. I would submit that >perhaps such decisions *at high levels* might provide valid case >law, but decisions at lower levels (in ACBL terms, Regional or >Sectional tournaments or clubs) ought not to be so >considered. Richard Hills: An appendix to the WBF Code of Practice contains selected cases, with added WBF commentary. However, when I was assisting with the proof-reading for the 2006 EBU White Book, I noticed that the White Book reprinted only the core of the Code of Practice, and omitted its appendices. When I suggested to the White Book editor, David Stevenson, that the CoP appendices be included he replied: "Our attitude to WBFLC minutes and the CoP is quite complex, so I have not really done what you suggested despite them seeming very reasonable." Any blmler who wants to read an unexpurgated copy of the WBF Code of Practice can download it from: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/appeals/default.asp But even the WBF LC does not stand by its case law, since it has published a disclaimer on the above website: >>Disclaimer published by the WBF Laws Committee >>"No opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision of the >>committee, should be considered to have the authority of a >>committee decision. Directors seeking guidance should refer to >>their respective NBOs." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Thu Feb 15 12:37:05 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:37:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D445E1.9070503@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070215/525130d8/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 15 13:59:40 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:59:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] abbreviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D3C368.9080400@NTLworld.com> References: <45D3C368.9080400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45D4593C.90102@NTLworld.com> [Chambers dictionary provides more expansions for "NP"] NP or np abbreviation *1* new paragraph. *2* (/always/ *NP*) /IVR/ New Providence, Bahamas. *3* Notary Public. *4* /grammar/ noun phrase. Np symbol, /chem/ neptunium. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 15 15:21:33 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:21:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070215090811.02b43990@pop.starpower.net> At 12:08 PM 2/14/07, Ed wrote: >On Feb 14, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Nigel wrote: > > > (For current purposes, please read the word *rules* to include Bridge > > laws, regulations, authoritative interpretations, commentaries, and > > case-law paradigms). > >Hm. Raises a question. Is it the position of authority (WBFLC, ZA, >NBO) that case law provides valid interpretations? We *know* that TDs >and appeals committees make mistakes. I would submit that perhaps >such decisions *at high levels* might provide valid case law, but >decisions at lower levels (in ACBL terms, Regional or Sectional >tournaments or clubs) ought not to be so considered. I would think that when Nigel mentions "case law" he is talking about those high-level adjudications that get written up and published with "expert commentary" (some of it having been my own, I put the term in quotes) on the reasoning and decisions. One notes that even then, "at high levels", the commentators often disagree with the original adjudicators. Outcomes have no consequence as precedents per se, but the commentary can often suggest a difference between appropriate and inappropriate applications of bridge law or "bridge logic". An obviously one-sided commentary can give very useful "case law" guidance for future adjudications. Of course, one doubts that the vast majority of those who sit on ACs (at least in ACBL-land) ever read the things. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 15 15:50:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:50:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070215094039.02b2d010@pop.starpower.net> At 03:26 PM 2/14/07, Roger wrote: >When law is constructed from principles that are fundamental >throughout it >follows that a player grasping those principles can readily > >[a] ascertain at the time something has happened that it likely is or >is not >a crime- and probably be right > >[b] have an idea what to do next- and probably be right > >[c] when a remedy is pronounced, have an idea if the remedy is >appropriate- >and probably be right > >.......without previous study of the particulars of the law. Once upon a time, as a novice sports reporter for a local radio station, I covered my first NASL (U.S. professional soccer) game with a more senior colleague. I knew virtually nothing about the rules of soccer; I'd certainly never seen a lawbook. At one point I asked him to explain what constituted a personal foul -- being used to American football, I expected a long and complicated answer. But what he told me was, "If it looks like it ought to be a foul, it is." He was right. In 30 or so years of watching soccer since, I've never needed to ask again. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 15 16:00:21 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:00:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] abbreviations In-Reply-To: <45D3C368.9080400@NTLworld.com> References: <45D3C368.9080400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070215095920.02b3c110@pop.starpower.net> At 09:20 PM 2/14/07, Nigel wrote: >NB = "Nota Bene" (note well) or less likely: New Brunswick or Niobium Wouldn't niobium be "Nb"? 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 Feb 15 12:05:37 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:05:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000401c75119$eca3ab90$98b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > But even the WBF LC does not stand by its case law, > since it has published a disclaimer on the above website: > > >>Disclaimer published by the WBF Laws Committee > >>"No opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision > >>of the committee, should be considered to have the < >>authority of a committee decision. Directors seeking > >>guidance should refer to their respective NBOs." > +=+ Any matter of bridge judgement in the application of law to a case, as distinct from the interpretation of the meaning of a law, is a matter for ther WBF Standing Appeals Committee not for the WBFLC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 15 13:06:46 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:06:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000501c75119$ed9dea10$98b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The angels keep their ancient places; - Turn but a stone, and start a wing! 'Tis ye, 'tis your estranged faces That miss the many-splendoured thing." [Francis Thompson] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert: > > [big snip] > > >In any case, it seems Humpty Dumpty, or the > >WBFLC, has spoken, via the CoP, and "logical" > > is defined to mean something other than "logical". Amen. :-) > > Richard Hills: > > So what? > +=+ And not without precedent. Over the years Kojak and I have shared a similar problem with respect to 'irrational'. In a game where language is often a term of the art, or jargon as you might say, it is desirable to be as clear as possible about the meaning of the language in which the rules are written. In drafting the next code of laws considerable attention has been given to this objective but, despite much consultation, it would be rash in the extreme to suggest that there will be no problem of this category when it is activated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 15 17:04:36 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:04:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] abbreviations References: <45D3C368.9080400@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070215095920.02b3c110@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002a01c7511b$20bd4430$98b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] abbreviations > At 09:20 PM 2/14/07, Nigel wrote: > > >NB = "Nota Bene" (note well) or less likely: > >New Brunswick or Niobium > > Wouldn't niobium be "Nb"? > > > Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net < +=+ Perhaps he means Nio Bium. +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 15 18:05:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:05:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Marvin French's Procedures for handling UI - part one[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c75119$ed9dea10$98b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000501c75119$ed9dea10$98b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <5784A780-8497-4F3D-9C7C-C7A788DFACD1@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:06 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ And not without precedent. Over the years > Kojak and I have shared a similar problem with > respect to 'irrational'. Yep. :-) > In a game where language is often a term of > the art, or jargon as you might say, it is desirable > to be as clear as possible about the meaning of > the language in which the rules are written. In > drafting the next code of laws considerable > attention has been given to this objective but, > despite much consultation, it would be rash in the > extreme to suggest that there will be no problem > of this category when it is activated. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Well, at least an effort has been made. That's a start. :-) Might be interesting to translate the laws to Lobjan. See :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 15 18:12:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:12:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2007, at 12:50 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote, quoting the WBF CoP: > Disclaimer published by the WBF Laws Committee > "No opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision of the > committee, should be considered to have the authority of a > committee decision. Directors seeking guidance should refer to > their respective NBOs." Interesting. The first part of that says that NBO's opinions do not "have the authority of a committee decision", so why should we consult them? For an "interim" solution? I daresay an NBO will rarely, if ever, say to the WBFLC "we issued this interim opinion because we could find no definitive answer from the committee. Would you please consider the question and provide such an answer?" Even if they did, I dunno if the LC would comply. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 15 18:17:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:17:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c75119$eca3ab90$98b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000401c75119$eca3ab90$98b387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> But even the WBF LC does not stand by its case law, >> since it has published a disclaimer on the above website: >> >>>> Disclaimer published by the WBF Laws Committee >>>> "No opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision >>>> of the committee, should be considered to have the > < >>authority of a committee decision. Directors seeking >>>> guidance should refer to their respective NBOs." >> > +=+ Any matter of bridge judgement in the application > of law to a case, as distinct from the interpretation of > the meaning of a law, is a matter for the WBF Standing > Appeals Committee not for the WBFLC. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hm. So in matters of judgement, it is the opinion of the Standing Appeals Committee, not that of the LC, that governs? It seems the disclaimer is incomplete. :-) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 14 18:49:59 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:49:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:59 PM Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll > [Richard H] > > Not so [that, to enjoy and do well at a game, it > helps to know its rules]. A player need not have > memorised Law 58B2 to realise that carelessly > playing two cards at once is a poor strategy. > +=+ I suggest that a game is defined by its rules, or by a statement of an object to be obtained in compliance with its rules. This does not predicate a necessity of familiarity with its rules if the player accepts the remedies that follow breaches of them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 16 02:32:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070215090811.02b43990@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >I would think that when Nigel mentions "case law" he is talking about >those high-level adjudications that get written up and published with >"expert commentary" (some of it having been my own, I put the term in >quotes) on the reasoning and decisions. One notes that even then, >"at high levels", the commentators often disagree with the original >adjudicators. Outcomes have no consequence as precedents per se, but >the commentary can often suggest a difference between appropriate and >inappropriate applications of bridge law or "bridge logic". An >obviously one-sided commentary can give very useful "case law" >guidance for future adjudications. > >Of course, one doubts that the vast majority of those who sit on ACs >(at least in ACBL-land) ever read the things. EBU-land Law and Ethics Committee minutes, January 10th 2007: 3.1.1 Appeals Committee Forum Mr Stevenson proposed that a forum be arranged for those interested in serving on appeals committees or those who already served. Mr Barnfield thought it an excellent idea and offered to contribute but was unlikely to be available for the likely date. Correspondence from Frances Hinden was also considered offering a possible programme and also the offer of help in putting the course together. Both Mrs Bugden and Mr Martin asked what advice already existed for Appeals Committees to which the answer was the White Book. Mr Martin suggested that a short booklet of advice might be produced covering the main points. Mr Endicott also thought it an excellent idea with the booklet being made available to referees and Appeals Committee chairman. Mr Stevenson suggested either Friday afternoon during the Brighton Summer Meeting for the pilot event, and while some members expressed concern about Brighton as a venue for it, it was agreed to go ahead. It was agreed that the 2nd Friday was the more practical date. If successful further forums could be held around the country, similar to TD Training Courses. 3.1.2 Appeals booklet - suggestion to widen the scope The secretary reported that he had been approached by several members who considered the annual publication of Appeals was to be commended but they wondered why it only covered Brighton, Crockfords Final and the Spring Foursomes. Mr Stevenson said that the appeals in the booklet were of good quality and could make excellent training material. Mr Dhondy thought it a good idea to extend to other events. There would be an additional cost in preparation in adding extra events. It was suggested that possible additions would be Bournemouth Spring Bank Holiday and Autumn Congresses, London and Blackpool Year End and Easter Congresses. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 16 02:51:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:51:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >I daresay an NBO will rarely, if ever, say to the WBFLC "we >issued this interim opinion because we could find no >definitive answer from the committee. Would you please >consider the question and provide such an answer?" Even if >they did, I dunno if the LC would comply. Richard Hills: 1. The Australian Bridge Federation has frequently asked the WBF Laws Committee such a question. 2. Grattan Endicott has previously explained to blml that such a question from an NBO often becomes a WBF LC agenda item. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 16 03:47:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:47:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1D Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) Dble 3NT Pass ? (1) Alerted and explained as a splinter bid, club support and a singleton spade You, East, hold: Q AJ AKT76 KQ863 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri Feb 16 06:24:42 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:24:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D5401A.1080604@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: East >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- --- 1D >Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) >Dble 3NT Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as a splinter >bid, club support and a singleton spade > >You, East, hold: > >Q >AJ >AKT76 >KQ863 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > > Depends on our system only. I would ask my partners keycard with clubs as trump and after partner's answer I'll bid 7clubs if he has 2, 6C if he has 1 and 5C if he has 0. I prefer to play 4D as kickback RKC, but 4C or 4N rkc or blk is also OK in this situation. I cannot imagine any other possible bid (maybe 6 clubs, if i'm not sure about wich is our rkc bid). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 16 06:17:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:17:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Broken the second rule of war [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1C (1) Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) Pass 5C (8) Pass ? (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced (3) 17+ hcp, relay (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 (5) Controls? (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king (8) No spade king You, East, hold: AKT82 --- KT7 AQJT5 Do you believe partner's bidding? If not, what contract do you guess? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 16 06:58:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:58:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D5401A.1080604@cs.elte.hu> References: <45D5401A.1080604@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702152158p28fc4bacl7fedf18e0e350605@mail.gmail.com> On 2/15/07, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Matchpoint pairs > >Dlr: East > >Vul: North-South > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > >--- --- --- 1D > >Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > >Dble 3NT Pass ? > > > >(1) Alerted and explained as a splinter > >bid, club support and a singleton spade > > > >You, East, hold: > > > >Q > >AJ > >AKT76 > >KQ863 > > > >What call do you make? > >What other calls do you consider making? > > > > > Depends on our system only. I would ask my partners keycard with clubs > as trump and after partner's answer I'll bid 7clubs if he has 2, 6C if > he has 1 and 5C if he has 0. > I prefer to play 4D as kickback RKC, but 4C or 4N rkc or blk is also OK > in this situation. > I cannot imagine any other possible bid (maybe 6 clubs, if i'm not sure > about wich is our rkc bid). > Pard's negative 3NT sounds like a minimum hand with Kxx- or KJx- in spades, but that's actually fine here. Like Laszlo, I would use keycard or Gerber depending on what we have in place. I would be disappointed if we don't reach a good slam in clubs or NT. I have a feeling 3S was not alerted splinter. -Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 08:52:13 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:52:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/02/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1D > Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > Dble 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as a splinter > bid, club support and a singleton spade > > You, East, hold: > > Q > AJ > AKT76 > KQ863 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? This depends on the menaing of 1D-2NT in our agreements. If that's natural and invitational, I'd expect partner to have a GF with 5+C and 4S. The only hand partner then could have where we're not cold for slam is KJTx-KQ-QJ-JT9xx. If that's our agreements, I'd bid 4C now, to try to reach a slam. If partner raises this to 5C I'll pass. If he makes a cuebid we're heading for a slam (grand is possible). I'd not consider any other call. If partner could have a game invitational hand, I'd still bid 4C, since 3NT might easily go down on a heart lead. In this scenario I'd also consider passing 3NT. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 > > 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. DIAC 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 Fri Feb 16 09:01:03 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:01:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Broken the second rule of war [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/02/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1C (1) > Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) > Pass 5C (8) Pass ? > > (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any > (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced > (3) 17+ hcp, relay > (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 > (5) Controls? > (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum > (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king > (8) No spade king > > You, East, hold: > > AKT82 > --- > KT7 > AQJT5 > > Do you believe partner's bidding? > If not, what contract do you guess? I'd certainly be curios to opponents both passing even at red with 12 hearts between them. But since I've got no clue to what wheel might have fallen off, I'd stick to what partner has showed. So I'll continue bidding on the assumption that parnter is ??xx-A-A??x-xxxx 11-13. He's got to have a queen in S or D, possibly both. I'd just bid 6S (or 6C), expecting to stand a good chance to make if partner's got what he's told me. I see abolutely no reason to try to guess a contract under the assumption that a wheel fell off somewhere. That's never good for the partnership morale - what if everything is fine and I screw up by guessing something is wrong? I'll rather take my poison. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 > > 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. DIAC 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 16 11:26:16 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:26:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <45D586C8.4070806@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I suggest that a game is defined by its rules, or by a statement of an object to be obtained in compliance with its rules. This does not predicate a necessity of familiarity with its rules if the player accepts the remedies that follow breaches of them. [nige1] Most will agree with Grattan: for example you need pay no heed to the law about murder if you're happy to be executed or live in prison. At Bridge, if you are oblivious to sanctions, then the same argument applies :) If you do care about adverse rulings, however, then you must be more careful :( It may be hard to persuade Richard, Grattan or Kojak but surely most BLMLers concede the obvious? that in-depth knowledge of the rules help a player succeed? BLML illustrates situations where players of different levels may gain from detailed knowledge of rules and obscure interpretations. Some instances... [A] A trivial example that ensnares the inexperienced: if you play a wrong card or face a wrong bid, then you must resist the natural reaction of replacing it with another or you may compound your error. [B] A naive player who vaguely suspects opponents of law-breaking, may be relieved to see a director hovering near his table. Judging from BLML, he will be disappointed if he is gullible enough to believe law 81C6 [The directors normal duties include to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner....] [C] An example familiar to more experienced players: if opponents dispute your faulty claim, a belated attempt to complete it is futile. Especially if you have "lost the place". Instead put your trust in the law! If the director is a good analyst who has respect for you, then he may find a winning line and judge that it would be irrational for you to miss it :) [D] I confess that I did not realise that it is perfectly legal to lead to the next trick while the current trick still has faced cards. This may be worth a Bermuda Bowl if it confuses a harassed declarer. [E] A more complex example: Legal eagles like David Stevenson recommend agreements that exact the maximum gain from an opponent's insufficient bid or bid out of turn. If you're less sophisticated you may never consider such methods. You may be unfamiliar with the options available; or how to use them to your best advantage; you may not even realise that so profitable a ploy could be legal. {F] This applies to regulations as well as to laws: To the ordinary player, the new edition of the EBU Orange book appears to have looser definitions than the old. For example it replaces the objective "rule of 19" requirement with the subjective "rule of 19 *or equivalent playing strength*". While some lost matches by complying with the old rule, it transpired that EBU directors had always felt that judgement should be applied to such regulations, so had bid and ruled accordingly. Sufficient unto the day... From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 16 15:19:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:19:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070216091214.02b8c820@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 PM 2/15/07, richard.hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: East >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- --- 1D >Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) >Dble 3NT Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as a splinter >bid, club support and a singleton spade > >You, East, hold: > >Q >AJ >AKT76 >KQ863 > >What call do you make? 5C, if it asks for aces (a common agreement in my area). Otherwise 4C. >What other calls do you consider making? 4NT. but only if 2C was not GF. 6C with some partners. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 16 22:40:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:40:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <45D586C8.4070806@NTLworld.com> References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> <45D586C8.4070806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070216154145.0308f6c0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:26 AM 2/16/07, Nigel wrote: >Most will agree with Grattan: for example you need pay no heed to the >law about murder if you're happy to be executed or live in prison. At >Bridge, if you are oblivious to sanctions, then the same argument >applies :) You also need pay no heed to the law about murder if you have no intention of murdering anyone. I would expect that to cover rather more people than the number who would be happy to be executed or go to prison. The nature of sanctions for transgressions only matters to those who intend to transgress. If you violate a law by accident or ignorance, you pay the penalty, whatever it is. You only need to know what the penalty is when you're deciding whether it would be "worth it". >If you do care about adverse rulings, however, then you must be more >careful :( > >It may be hard to persuade Richard, Grattan or Kojak but surely most >BLMLers concede the obvious? that in-depth knowledge of the rules help >a player succeed? Nigel seems to live in a world where most bridge players are sharpies and gamesmen, if not outright cheats. I don't. In my world, 99.9% of those who are particularly knowledgeable about the laws use their knowledge far more often to their own disadvantage than to gain an edge. The 0.1% who try to game the rules (use "that in-depth knowledge of the rules to help [them] succeed") are inevitably frustrated by the other 99.9% (with the help of the TDs, of course). >BLML illustrates situations where players of different levels may gain >from detailed knowledge of rules and obscure interpretations. Some >instances... > >[A] A trivial example that ensnares the inexperienced: if you play a >wrong card or face a wrong bid, then you must resist the natural >reaction of replacing it with another or you may compound your error. Actually, it is the more experienced players for whom replacing a faced card is a natural reaction. "Naive" players (those who are ignorant of the rules) do not know that there are circumstances where the faced card may legally be replaced; their natural reaction is to assume that "played is played". >[B] A naive player who vaguely suspects opponents of law-breaking, may >be relieved to see a director hovering near his table. Judging from >BLML, he will be disappointed if he is gullible enough to believe law >81C6 [The directors normal duties include to rectify an error or >irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner....] A naive player who knows nothing of the laws will be disappointed because he expected a TD to follow Law 81C6 to the letter? Excuse me? >[C] An example familiar to more experienced players: if opponents >dispute your faulty claim, a belated attempt to complete it is futile. >Especially if you have "lost the place". Instead put your trust in the >law! If the director is a good analyst who has respect for you, then >he may find a winning line and judge that it would be irrational for >you to miss it :) Given a competent director, a belated attempt to complete a faulty claim will always be futile, and will have no effect whatsoever on the subsequent ruling; a naive player may make the attempt, where a knowledgeable one wouldn't bother, but it will not cost him anything. As to the director awarding a winning line because "it would be irrational for you to miss it", I agree that this is a problem, but has nothing to do with the current discussion. He will be basing his judgment on "class of player", not "class of lawyer" -- he may give me a more favorable ruling than he would to a novice, but that's his judgment of how well we play, not how well we know the rules. >[D] I confess that I did not realise that it is perfectly legal to >lead to the next trick while the current trick still has faced cards. >This may be worth a Bermuda Bowl if it confuses a harassed declarer. This is Nigel's problem in spades. He seems to imply that had he known it were "perfectly legal" he would have been doing it on a regular basis, hoping to "confuse a harassed declarer". It's a good thing L74 outlaws all that nastiness, since in Nigel's world "the law" is the only thing that keeps bridge players from behaving like professional wrestlers. Would we really see bridge players who are pleasant and personable today directing streams of obscene invective at their opponents for the sole purpose of disconcerting them if we simply repealed the law against it? And is there really any hope of seeing a Bermuda-Bowl-caliber player become hopelessly confused and blow a hand because at some point there were five faced cards on the table? >[E] A more complex example: Legal eagles like David Stevenson >recommend agreements that exact the maximum gain from an opponent's >insufficient bid or bid out of turn. If you're less sophisticated you >may never consider such methods. You may be unfamiliar with the >options available; or how to use them to your best advantage; you may >not even realise that so profitable a ploy could be legal. And "bridge eagles" like just about everyone recommend agreements that exact the maximum gain from an opponent's sufficient bid in turn. Experienced players will have more agreements that cover more situations and generally work better than will inexperienced players, who "may be unfamiliar with the options available". Is there something wrong with that? Only a player who knows a great deal wbout the rules "may not even realise that so profitable a ploy could be legal". It would never occur to a relatively naive player "that so profitable a ploy" might be illegal. Cf [A] above. >{F] This applies to regulations as well as to laws: To the ordinary >player, the new edition of the EBU Orange book appears to have looser >definitions than the old. For example it replaces the objective "rule >of 19" requirement with the subjective "rule of 19 *or equivalent >playing strength*". While some lost matches by complying with the old >rule, it transpired that EBU directors had always felt that judgement >should be applied to such regulations, so had bid and ruled accordingly. As above. The naive player hasn't read the EBU Orange Book. He doesn't know from the "Rule of 19"; he opens with what he considers an opening bid. If Nigel was fooled into passing opening bids it was *because* he carefully parsed the words of the OB to the letter. If you don't care about the rules, you won't be fooled into doing something wrong by the way in which you choose to interpret them. Nigel offers "some instances" to support his argument, but I see fewer examples than counter-examples among them. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Fri Feb 16 17:43:42 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:43:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:24:42 +0100." <45D5401A.1080604@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <200702161610.IAA16705@mailhub.irvine.com> Laszlo wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >Matchpoint pairs > >Dlr: East > >Vul: North-South > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > >--- --- --- 1D > >Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > >Dble 3NT Pass ? > > > >(1) Alerted and explained as a splinter > >bid, club support and a singleton spade > > > >You, East, hold: > > > >Q > >AJ > >AKT76 > >KQ863 > > > >What call do you make? > >What other calls do you consider making? > > > > > Depends on our system only. I would ask my partners keycard with clubs > as trump and after partner's answer I'll bid 7clubs if he has 2, 6C if > he has 1 and 5C if he has 0. I don't think I want to be in a grand opposite two aces unless partner also has the HK or SK: otherwise, what am I going to do with that heart loser? So I'd ask for kings next. Either asking for the number of kings or for specific kings would help. Next question: If asking for aces is the right approach now, why wasn't it the right approach in the last round? What's the point of splintering and giving free information to the defense? Even blasting 6C last time would have been better, except that you might miss the grand; even if somehow you're off two aces, you might not get a spade lead and then maybe you can pitch it on partner's KQ of hearts. Of course, none of this answers Richard's question. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 16 23:42:39 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:42:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2007, at 8:51 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 1. The Australian Bridge Federation has frequently asked the > WBF Laws Committee such a question. Has the ACBL ever asked? > 2. Grattan Endicott has previously explained to blml that > such a question from an NBO often becomes a WBF LC agenda > item. "Frequent questions" from one NBO is one thing. Have other NBOs asked such questions? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Feb 17 01:10:38 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:10:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200702161610.IAA16705@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1D Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) Dble 3NT Pass 4NT(2) Pass 5D Pass 6C Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted and explained as a splinter bid, club support and a singleton spade (2) Simple Blackwood You, North, hold: AK732 95432 4 T2 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 17 02:03:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Broken the second rule of war [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: >I'd certainly be curious to opponents both passing even at red with >12 hearts between them. But since I've got no clue to what wheel >might have fallen off, I'd stick to what partner has showed. Richard Hills: In my experience of relay systems, pard usually gets the initial response right; it is in the later specific shape-showing responses that pard can add or subtract a step. Therefore, my guess for a wheel falling off is that pard correctly showed spades or balanced, but pard later incorrectly showed spades when pard should have shown balanced instead. (Of course, I have an unfair 20/20 hindsight on this particular problem, since I know the full deal.) Harald Skj?ran: [snip] >I'd just bid 6S (or 6C), expecting to stand a good chance to make >if partner's got what he's told me. I see absolutely no reason to >try to guess a contract under the assumption that a wheel fell off >somewhere. [snip] Richard Hills: I agree that it is right to bid 6S or 6C. But which contract? At imps scoring it is worthwhile investing two imps by choosing 6C as an anti-wheel "safety play". Holding 100 honours in clubs, the contract is still likely to make if pard holds a balanced hand with a worthless doubleton in clubs, since the king of clubs may be the only loser whether playing in 6S or 6C. But if pard has holds a balanced hand with a worthless doubleton in spades, 6C may make when 6S fails. * * * EBU casebook 2001 appeal number 18, "The Swedes bid it better!" Tournament Director: David Stevenson Appeals Committee: John Young (Chairman) Rob Cliffe Tony Ratcliff Swiss Teams Brd: 18 9 Dlr: East KT542 Vul: North-South 98542 97 QJ4 AKT82 A873 --- AQ3 KT7 843 AQJT5 7653 QJ96 J6 K62 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1C (1) Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) Pass 5C (8) Pass ? (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced (3) 17+ hcp, relay (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 (5) Controls? (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king {but the word "initially" was omitted in the at-the-table explanation} (8) No spade king Result at table: 6C making by East, NS -920, lead Sx Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: West says 3H was a mistake: he confused the responses for 4=1=4=4 with 3=4=3=3. N/S ask why 4NT was not described as a possible prelude to further asks. Also they ask whether East has fielded West's misbid. After spade lead declarer won finessed, club. South "knew" North had spade king so no ruff. She actually ducked the club. East was suspicious of West's 3H call because it gave N/S twelve hearts. He bid 4NT in case West provided helpful answer like 6C or 6D. He was not thinking of grand slam. Director's ruling: Table result stands Record of hand to be sent to L&EC Details of ruling: Misinformation of 3H: probably not, but no damage anyway. Misinformation of 4NT: No. No reason to describe as prelude to further ask (compare Blackwood). Fielded misbid: No. Because of coincidence of action report to be kept Appeal lodged by: North-South Comments by East-West: West did not know he had made incorrect bids. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: We feel that N/S were not damaged by any erroneous information. * * * Field-Marshal Montgomery (1887-1976): "The U.S has broken the second rule of war. That is, don't go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is don't march on Moscow. I developed these two rules myself." Richard Hills: According to Bobby Wolff, the second rule of bridge is the Rule of Coincidence. East-West have landed on their feet after the dreaded offence of Convention Disruption, so under the Rule of Coincidence their score should be adjusted. Matthias Berghaus (casebook panellist): "Very mysterious case. East had doubts about 3H (who wouldn't ?). I think what has happened is that East tried to get West to bid something he could 'read', something which would give him a clue what this bid was really meant to show. In a relay system (which this seems to be) you can try to guess WHICH wheel has come off. I know. Believe me. Hence 4NT, asking for a card partner is known not to hold. At least this would explain the comment about 'Helpful 6C or D' from partner. I think East was flying blind and bid a contract which could survive minimal trump support from partner. So I believe there was no infraction, but this is guesswork." David Stevenson (casebook panellist): "The Rule of Coincidence used to apply in North America. In effect it said that if both players did something strange but successful on the same hand then you ruled against them automatically. Fortunately it no longer applies. "However, the basic idea was sound: TDs and Committees should be properly sceptical of such situations. Here, where the TD did not think there was any reason to adjust he did decide to send a report to the L&EC in case any similar hands were recorded for this pair. "The following would be a good Rule of Coincidence: 'When both members of a partnership take strange yet ultimately successful action on the same hand the TD or Appeals Committee should always investigate carefully to see whether there are further considerations, such as concealed understandings or unauthorised information. If the TD or Appeals Committee ultimately rules no infraction (or no damage) he or they should consider whether to make a report to the sponsoring organisation.'" Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Sat Feb 17 02:36:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:36:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070216154145.0308f6c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> <45D586C8.4070806@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070216154145.0308f6c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45D65C0A.2080706@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Nigel seems to live in a world where most bridge players are sharpies and gamesmen, if not outright cheats. I don't. In my world, 99.9% of those who are particularly knowledgeable about the laws use their knowledge far more often to their own disadvantage than to gain an edge. The 0.1% who try to game the rules (use "that in-depth knowledge of the rules to help [them] succeed") are inevitably frustrated by the other 99.9% (with the help of the TDs, of course). [nigel] Had Eric Landau read any of my previous posts touching on "cheating", he would know that he misrepresents me. I live in the real world. As Victor Mollo illustrates in his books, the World of Bridge is a microcosm with about the same proportion of "goodies" and "baddies"; most of us are in between. Many people are tempted to break rules when it is profitable or they think they can get away with it. We all have friends who break speed limits and marriage vows; or cheat on their expenses and taxes :) At or away from the bridge table, few admit to cheating or wrong-doing because human beings are so good at rationalisation. I am sure that most BLMLers are aware of this. For example, often, BLML contributors themselves defend what to others seems to be inadequate disclosure... [A] If I remember rightly, a BLMLer wrote that he opened certain 3 counts in third seat. He did not bother to tell opponents because of their "low frequency". Others are happy to admit to similar habits. [B] Many refuse to divulge what they judge to be "General knowledge and experience" -- even when opponents are clearly ignorant of that knowledge. [C] Some BLMLers trot out a stone-walling variant "No player is obliged to give opponents free bridge lessons." [D] Many are economical with the truth because of sympathetic concern that "too many much information may exhaust the opponents' attention span and confuse them". A peculiar claim when it takes seconds to inform opponents what partner's calls have told you about his hand: shape, strength, controls, stops, and so on. [E] Some are so convinced that *other* players prevaricate that they feel forced to copy them to protect themselves and level the playing field. In certain local clubs, you would need a thumbscrew to extract information about any opponents' carding methods. [F] When there is evidence that partner has forgotten an agreement (for example by alerting or not alerting) then you may argue that it is sometimes excusable to misinform opponents about your agreement to avoid giving useful unauthorised information to partner (I hope I'm not misrepresenting your position, Herman). [G] Grattan tells us that if an opponent asks about a call and we're unsure then we mustn't guess. This provides secretive players with an excuse for non-disclosure. For most of us, the things of which we are certain is a small set; and a Bridge agreement is an unlikely member. Most infractions are inadvertent but even they are deliberate, the range of rationalisations is limited only by the ingenuity of the human mind; these players are not really "cheats", however, and they would be hurt and offended to be so labelled. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sat Feb 17 04:58:14 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:58:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: <200702161610.IAA16705@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200702161610.IAA16705@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <45D67D56.5030602@cs.elte.hu> Adam Beneschan wrote: >Laszlo wrote: > > > >>richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >> >>>Matchpoint pairs >>>Dlr: East >>>Vul: North-South >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >>>--- --- --- 1D >>>Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) >>>Dble 3NT Pass ? >>> >>>(1) Alerted and explained as a splinter >>>bid, club support and a singleton spade >>> >>>You, East, hold: >>> >>>Q >>>AJ >>>AKT76 >>>KQ863 >>> >>>What call do you make? >>>What other calls do you consider making? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Depends on our system only. I would ask my partners keycard with clubs >>as trump and after partner's answer I'll bid 7clubs if he has 2, 6C if >>he has 1 and 5C if he has 0. >> >> > >I don't think I want to be in a grand opposite two aces unless partner >also has the HK or SK: otherwise, what am I going to do with that >heart loser? So I'd ask for kings next. Either asking for the number >of kings or for specific kings would help. > >Next question: If asking for aces is the right approach now, why >wasn't it the right approach in the last round? What's the point of >splintering and giving free information to the defense? > Of course there's no point of splintering, but we have no chance to withdrow our bidding. I'd rather splinter with: 2,A4,KT762,KQ863 Laci From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sat Feb 17 05:05:38 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 05:05:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D67F12.8090100@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: East >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- --- 1D >Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) >Dble 3NT Pass 4NT(2) >Pass 5D Pass 6C >Pass Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as a splinter >bid, club support and a singleton spade >(2) Simple Blackwood > >You, North, hold: > >AK732 >95432 >4 >T2 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > > Pass, no other idea. what was partner's double? did promise spades? Laci From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Feb 17 09:41:10 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:41:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Broken the second rule of war [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D6BFA6.7070507@t-online.de> Hi, richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that it is right to bid 6S or 6C. But which contract? At > imps scoring it is worthwhile investing two imps by choosing 6C as > an anti-wheel "safety play". > > Holding 100 honours in clubs, the contract is still likely to make > if pard holds a balanced hand with a worthless doubleton in clubs, > since the king of clubs may be the only loser whether playing in > 6S or 6C. But if pard has holds a balanced hand with a worthless > doubleton in spades, 6C may make when 6S fails. > > * * * > > EBU casebook 2001 appeal number 18, "The Swedes bid it better!" > > Tournament Director: > David Stevenson > > Appeals Committee: > John Young (Chairman) Rob Cliffe Tony Ratcliff > > Swiss Teams > Brd: 18 9 > Dlr: East KT542 > Vul: North-South 98542 > 97 > QJ4 AKT82 > A873 --- > AQ3 KT7 > 843 AQJT5 > 7653 > QJ96 > J6 > K62 > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1C (1) > Pass 1H (2) Pass 1S (3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass 3S (5) > Pass 4H (6) Pass 4NT(7) > Pass 5C (8) Pass ? > > (1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any > (2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced > (3) 17+ hcp, relay > (4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4 > (5) Controls? > (6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum > (7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king > > {but the word "initially" was omitted in the at-the-table > explanation} > > (8) No spade king > > Result at table: > 6C making by East, NS -920, lead Sx > > > > Matthias Berghaus (casebook panellist): > > "Very mysterious case. East had doubts about 3H (who wouldn't ?). > I think what has happened is that East tried to get West to bid > something he could 'read', something which would give him a clue > what this bid was really meant to show. In a relay system (which > this seems to be) you can try to guess WHICH wheel has come off. > I know. Believe me. Hence 4NT, asking for a card partner is known > not to hold. At least this would explain the comment about > 'Helpful 6C or D' from partner. I think East was flying blind and > bid a contract which could survive minimal trump support from > partner. So I believe there was no infraction, but this is > guesswork." > > I still agree with my own comments (isn`t that nice :-) ). I refrained from answering Richard`s post earlier, having recognized the hand. This deal illustrates the danger in any "Rule of Coincidence": Mere coincidence could lead to automatic rulings, but you have to get to the bottom of the case anyway to determine whether there was ( in this case) misinformation and resulting damage. Since I used to play a relay system for a couple of years I have some experience in trying to find out which wheel is missing. Sometimes you have a suspicion (as here), sometimes you see partner showing something you look at in your own hand (and no extra shape to "invent" the queen oftrumps, fr example), so you try to find out what went wrong. Sometimes you can read the situation by trying out different questions you might have asked. Does partner think X was KCB instead of another shape relay? What other question might partner have answered? Sometimes it all falls into place then, sometimes you try another relay to get a "readable" response. The third step after a yes/no question gives a hint... This often puts you in a difficult position regarding explanations, since you want to disclose every aspect of the biddding without giving the show away by explaining things the opps are not entitled to be told. Of course the Swedish East could have said something like "I suspect my partner forgot the system", but this might be MI (if opps kept quiet with 12 hearts), or it may give them more information than they are entitled to, or it may give them the wrong impression of your hand, which at least borders on MI, since you just volunteered information which led them onto the wrong track.... So telling them what the system is is the way to go, letting them fend for themselves and letting the TD sort it out if need be. I wonder what Herman has to say about this. I am fairly confident that he recognized the deal too, having been a commentator in this casebook. This case has some aspects touching the dWs. Best regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Feb 17 09:53:45 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:53:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: <45D67D56.5030602@cs.elte.hu> References: <200702161610.IAA16705@mailhub.irvine.com> <200702161610.IAA16705@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070217095022.02156640@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:58 17/02/2007 +0100, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > >Next question: If asking for aces is the right approach now, why > >wasn't it the right approach in the last round? What's the point of > >splintering and giving free information to the defense? > > >Of course there's no point of splintering, but we have no chance to >withdrow our bidding. >I'd rather splinter with: 2,A4,KT762,KQ863 Laci's 100% right. And that's why, according to many, there is NO aces-ask at this point of the sequence. And that's why such problems should include a list of meanings for the most probable declarations in the pair's system. If you're glad to bid 4NT, BW, and YT to bid 4NT, natural, raw answers won't help that much. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Feb 17 09:55:03 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:55:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Slightly offtopic: Reading the pause Message-ID: <45D6C2E7.4070105@t-online.de> Hi all, this is not really a laws question, more an anecdote, so don`t take it too serious. There will be a "solution" after the weekend (I have to leave to play Bridge for two days). The deal is a reconstruction from memory, don`t take that too serious either. You hold: Ax KQx AKJxxx xx Teams, neither vul, Partner deals and opens 1NT (11-14, any 5card-suit acceptable, no 5422 except with both minors). With opps being silent the bidding goes: 1NT 2C 2H (4 or 5 H) 2S 3C (4H, 4D) 3D 3H (3442) after about 90 seconds, the only systemic answers being 3H and 3S, no zoom or something. Essentially a yes/no question. Your own bids were relays, 2S being GF. What do you make of the situation? If you were willing to use UI, what information can you extract from this? And what do you tell opps if they ask about the pause? (This is a club game, so you try to be helpful.... Remember, this is not serious, there is no "right" answer. It is only an illustration where a relay system may lead you. Best regards Matthias From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Feb 17 10:44:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:44:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <45D65C0A.2080706@NTLworld.com> References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> <45D586C8.4070806@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070216154145.0308f6c0@pop.starpower.net> <45D65C0A.2080706@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45D6CE78.803@skynet.be> Nigel wrote: > > At or away from the bridge table, few admit to cheating or wrong-doing > because human beings are so good at rationalisation. I am sure that most > BLMLers are aware of this. For example, often, BLML contributors > themselves defend what to others seems to be inadequate disclosure... > If they defend such actions, it's because they believe it IS adequate disclosure. The question is not about if we are cheating or not, but if our definitions of "adequate" are the same. > [A] If I remember rightly, a BLMLer wrote that he opened certain 3 > counts in third seat. He did not bother to tell opponents because of > their "low frequency". Others are happy to admit to similar habits. > That blml-er wished some years ago to write this on his CC. He was stopped by his peers because they thought putting it on the CC meant it was systemic. It isn't. A tendency to go outside the system must be disclosed, but the definition of what is in- or outside of the system cannot be that it is disclosed, else everything is inside the system, and you can no longer disclose a tendency to go outside it. That certain blml-er certainly believes he is acting correctly. > [B] Many refuse to divulge what they judge to be "General knowledge and > experience" -- even when opponents are clearly ignorant of that knowledge. > So they are wrong - WTP? > [C] Some BLMLers trot out a stone-walling variant "No player is obliged > to give opponents free bridge lessons." > And they are right! - WTP? Again, the problem is not with actions that they believe are ethical, but with different opinions on what constitutes general knowledge. > [D] Many are economical with the truth because of sympathetic concern > that "too many much information may exhaust the opponents' attention > span and confuse them". A peculiar claim when it takes seconds to inform > opponents what partner's calls have told you about his hand: shape, > strength, controls, stops, and so on. > And they are wrong - WTP? > [E] Some are so convinced that *other* players prevaricate that they > feel forced to copy them to protect themselves and level the playing > field. In certain local clubs, you would need a thumbscrew to extract > information about any opponents' carding methods. > And they are wrong - WTP? > [F] When there is evidence that partner has forgotten an agreement (for > example by alerting or not alerting) then you may argue that it is > sometimes excusable to misinform opponents about your agreement to avoid > giving useful unauthorised information to partner (I hope I'm not > misrepresenting your position, Herman). > You are not. Last night, my partner did not alert my 2C, which was check-back. He subsequently bid 2H (my suit) which, by system, shows a minimum hand. I did not alert, because I knew that: a) he had not intended any indication as to strength (in fact he was maximum) b) I was not going to give him UI. Of course I bid as if he was minimum (and he still transformed 2NT to 4H) and told the opponents before the lead. But they were never misinformed as to his holdings - so why should I give him UI and opponents MI at the same time? > [G] Grattan tells us that if an opponent asks about a call and we're > unsure then we mustn't guess. This provides secretive players with an > excuse for non-disclosure. For most of us, the things of which we are > certain is a small set; and a Bridge agreement is an unlikely member. > Again, you mistake actions and intentions. Yes, unethical players use this excuse. But that does not make ethical players who tell the truth into unethical ones! > Most infractions are inadvertent but even they are deliberate, the range > of rationalisations is limited only by the ingenuity of the human mind; > these players are not really "cheats", however, and they would be hurt > and offended to be so labelled. > Indeed - so I ask again - What is The Problem? (abbreviation spelt out once for the benefit of Jeff) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 17 18:47:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard asked: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1D > Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > Dble 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as a splinter > bid, club support and a singleton spade > > You, East, hold: > > Q > AJ > AKT76 > KQ863 > > What call do you make? 4H - cue. Nothing else appeals (possibly because I don't have any other methods that suit the hand and possibly because I play with partners who would be reluctant to bypass 3N at MPs holding AJT,Kxx,xx,Axxxx). Tim From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 19:16:29 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:16:29 -0600 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702171016t4da3ceeew3900e65985cf8a8e@mail.gmail.com> Tim wrote: > Richard asked: > > > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: East > > Vul: North-South > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > > --- --- --- 1D > > Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > > Dble 3NT Pass ? > > > > (1) Alerted and explained as a splinter > > bid, club support and a singleton spade > > > > You, East, hold: > > > > Q > > AJ > > AKT76 > > KQ863 > > > > What call do you make? > > 4H - cue. Nothing else appeals (possibly because I don't have any other > methods that suit the hand and possibly because I play with partners who > would be reluctant to bypass 3N at MPs holding AJT,Kxx,xx,Axxxx). > If pard holds AJT,Kxx,xx,Axxxx, he might bid 2NT in place of 2C. Also, why is he not excited about the splinter? 10 working points, an SST of 3, and we must have 25 working points at least, so slam is good if we have the key cards. He has to go beyond 3NT here. What is the point of splintering if you knew your partner could not understand what to do next? I am not familiar with the purpose of the 4H cue bid when every suit is controlled. Are you going to be able to find out if he has the ace of clubs? Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Feb 17 19:16:52 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:16:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070216154145.0308f6c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> <45D586C8.4070806@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070216154145.0308f6c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45D74694.8010206@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] [SNIP] As above. The naive player hasn't read the EBU Orange Book. He doesn't know from the "Rule of 19"; he opens with what he considers an opening bid. If Nigel was fooled into passing opening bids it was *because* he carefully parsed the words of the OB to the letter. If you don't care about the rules, you won't be fooled into doing something wrong by the way in which you choose to interpret them. Nigel offers "some instances" to support his argument, but I see fewer examples than counter-examples among them. [nige1] I gave 5 examples where a player who knows the laws and their *official interpretation* may have an advantage. The statement seems simple and obvious. The examples are simple and obvious. IMO, Eric Landau didn't refute the examples so it seems unfair for him to claim any as *counter-examples*. Eric's main criticisms: [A] My rating of the *legal sophistication* of the players: Eric points out that a "little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". Obviously true. So what? In each case if the player knew the law better he could have been more successful. [B] My alleged "cynical attitude" to players' ethics (countered in another post) {C] My assertion that it pays to resist the temptation to try to correct a faulty claim when you have lost the place. Eric makes a contentious point: [Eric] Given a competent director, a belated attempt to complete a faulty claim will always be futile, and will have no effect whatsoever on the subsequent ruling; a naive player may make the attempt, where a knowledgeable one wouldn't bother, but it will not cost him anything. As to the director awarding a winning line because "it would be irrational for you to miss it", I agree that this is a problem, but has nothing to do with the current discussion. He will be basing his judgment on "class of player", not "class of lawyer" -- he may give me a more favorable ruling than he would to a novice, but that's his judgment of how well we play, not how well we know the rules. [nigel] Eric states that after a faulty claim, I won't harm my prospects by immediately trying to correct it -- even if my attempt is wrong and shows that I haven't yet realised what was going on. Eric implies that my vain efforts will not affect the director's ruling: the director can still rule that failure to find the successful line would be irrational for a player of my calibre (in spite of this clear evidence to the contrary) :) If this is true, it is a small victory for Eric but reinforces my distrust of over-sophisticated laws :( Even if Eric is wrong, however, I still think claim law is too sophisticated and subjective. As suggested earlier in BLML, IMO, claim law should be simplified: (a) Declarer claims by facing his hand. Optionally, you can claim by rapidly facing your cards, in the order in which you intend to play them. To dispute the claim, as defender, you ask declarer to play on. Declarer plays single-dummy but you defend double dummy and can suggest a play to partner. [Some BLMLers demur that this would result in experts claiming so as to get clues from opponents -- for example to find a missing queen). Bizarrely, these same BLMLers accuse *me* of having a cynical attitude to players' ethical standards :) Anyway it works well in on-line play :) And saves a lot of time and trouble :) (b) When you claim as a defender, a similar protocol should be enforced but the legal ramifications are more complex. As a simplification, the draconian old law about the defender's partner's cards becoming penalty cards must be worth reconsideration. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:35:12 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:35:12 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@mail.gmail.com> On 2/11/07, David Grabiner wrote: > The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by > experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to > Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." > > I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this; Here is one: Albequerque 1997 has a nonalerted support redouble (case 23), where the committee says the NOS should have asked if it was a support redouble because they play the same convention. Here are three more: Cases 29, 33, and 36 of Cincinnati 2000, and all deny any adjustment for MI due to "inadequate self protection." I am especially interested in case 36, and I have some questions about it at the end. In case 29, all agree there was MI, and all agree that had there been no MI, E-W would have had no problem. Both sides got the table result (great for N-S). The consensus was that E-W should have known that a possibly short 1D opening must have been limited and Precision without being told so. Well, one knew it was Precision, and one didn't---causing their disaster. But I have heard of just such a system: A 15--17 notrump with 1D-P-1x-P-1NT showing 13-14 and 1C-P-1x-P-1NT showing 11-12. This is not Precision, but it would also have the alert that 1D might have two. In case 33, the committee says that N-S should have known that a hand limited by passing 1NT would never play Lebensohl, so EW's explanation must be disregarded, thus cancelling the MI. (Table result stands for both sides.) As a matter of bridge logic, that pronouncement is really stupid. For example, Lebensohl there can be a great help to distinguish single-suited hands from two-suited hands. Besides, not everyone has carefully discussed whether Lebensohl is still on by a hand that initially passed 1NT. Are NS supposed to learn to disregard all explanations that suggest a convention that the committee will find suboptimal? What if North disregards their explanation but South doesn't, causing a misunderstanding with the continuation? This principle that guided the committee should be tossed into a garbage can. In case 36, West deals and the auction goes 2S-P-3H-all pass. 3H was not alerted, though it should have been, because it was nonforcing. Here the NOS supposedly should have known to protect themselves with a director call at the correct time. This time, the OS does lose their result, but the NOS get the table result due to inadequate protection, even though the panel determined that South would have entered the auction with the correct information. After his final pass, North found out by asking East that 3H was not forcing. The director was called after trick two, which doomed the NOS, for the director did not ask at that time if they would have done anything differently with correct information. Let us look at the crucial decision of when to call the director: After East's 3H call? Cohen suggested South calling the director here if "he sensed a failure to Alert a nonforcing 3H bid." Wolff and Colker say that South calling the director here is a bad idea because it could restrict North's options in the auction and play. After West passed? Director said that since North and South failed to call here, there shall be no adjustment for either side. Gerard said "of course there was no reason to call then, [unless] North was considering balancing." After North's final pass? Panel, and several reviewers said this was NS's last chance to earn an adjustment. Stevenson doubts that this ruling is really legal. When dummy is spread? Endicott said, "The time to call the Director was when dummy hit the deck." After the hand is completed? Maybe N-S cannot tell for sure they were damaged until after the hand is finished. Are you supposed to call every time there is MI, or only when you have reason to believe you might have been damaged? Anyway, can one find any clear ACBL pronouncement of when to call the director when you suspect MI? Does you hand matter for taking action when you suspect MI---i.e., do you use your hand to help determine the probability of MI, but maybe not call if your hand makes MI totally clear? And when do you call when MI is clear but damage is not clear? Where in the book does it say when to call the director as MI gradually becomes more and more likely. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Feb 18 04:53:42 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:53:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@mail.gmail.com> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D7CDC6.8060109@NTLworld.com> [David Grabiner] The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this; [Jeff Fusselman] Here is one: Albequerque 1997 has a nonalerted support redouble (case 23), where the committee says the NOS should have asked if it was a support redouble because they play the same convention. Here are three more: Cases 29, 33, and 36 of Cincinnati 2000, and all deny any adjustment for MI due to "inadequate self protection." I am especially interested in case 36, and I have some questions about it at the end. In case 29, all agree there was MI, and all agree that had there been no MI, E-W would have had no problem. Both sides got the table result (great for N-S). The consensus was that E-W should have known that a possibly short 1D opening must have been limited and Precision without being told so. Well, one knew it was Precision, and one didn't---causing their disaster. But I have heard of just such a system: A 15--17 notrump with 1D-P-1x-P-1NT showing 13-14 and 1C-P-1x-P-1NT showing 11-12. This is not Precision, but it would also have the alert that 1D might have two. In case 33, the committee says that N-S should have known that a hand limited by passing 1NT would never play Lebensohl, so EW's explanation must be disregarded, thus cancelling the MI. (Table result stands for both sides.) As a matter of bridge logic, that pronouncement is really stupid. For example, Lebensohl there can be a great help to distinguish single-suited hands from two-suited hands. Besides, not everyone has carefully discussed whether Lebensohl is still on by a hand that initially passed 1NT. Are NS supposed to learn to disregard all explanations that suggest a convention that the committee will find suboptimal? What if North disregards their explanation but South doesn't, causing a misunderstanding with the continuation? This principle that guided the committee should be tossed into a garbage can. In case 36, West deals and the auction goes 2S-P-3H-all pass. 3H was not alerted, though it should have been, because it was nonforcing. Here the NOS supposedly should have known to protect themselves with a director call at the correct time. This time, the OS does lose their result, but the NOS get the table result due to inadequate protection, even though the panel determined that South would have entered the auction with the correct information. After his final pass, North found out by asking East that 3H was not forcing. The director was called after trick two, which doomed the NOS, for the director did not ask at that time if they would have done anything differently with correct information. Let us look at the crucial decision of when to call the director: After East's 3H call? Cohen suggested South calling the director here if "he sensed a failure to Alert a nonforcing 3H bid." Wolff and Colker say that South calling the director here is a bad idea because it could restrict North's options in the auction and play. After West passed? Director said that since North and South failed to call here, there shall be no adjustment for either side. Gerard said "of course there was no reason to call then, [unless] North was considering balancing." After North's final pass? Panel, and several reviewers said this was NS's last chance to earn an adjustment. Stevenson doubts that this ruling is really legal. When dummy is spread? Endicott said, "The time to call the Director was when dummy hit the deck." After the hand is completed? Maybe N-S cannot tell for sure they were damaged until after the hand is finished. Are you supposed to call every time there is MI, or only when you have reason to believe you might have been damaged? Anyway, can one find any clear ACBL pronouncement of when to call the director when you suspect MI? Does you hand matter for taking action when you suspect MI---i.e., do you use your hand to help determine the probability of MI, but maybe not call if your hand makes MI totally clear? And when do you call when MI is clear but damage is not clear? Where in the book does it say when to call the director as MI gradually becomes more and more likely. [nige1] Thank you for all the examples, Jeff. IMO the WBFLC go overboard in parading their legal brainchild -- which appears to steep extra punishment on the *victims* of an infraction. If opponents may be guilty of a disclosure infraction... [A] You are expected to protect yourself. In many jurisdictions you're impaled on the horns of a dilemma because if, for example, you do ask about a non-alerted bid then (i) Partner must bend over backwards to avoid using the unauthorised information that you engender. (ii) Opponents are under no such restriction. [B] If you hope for eventual redress, you must avoid any action that a director or appeal committee could judge to be "wild or gambling". Given that neither directors nor committees are exactly famous for imaginative bidding judgement, this severely restricts your options for action. [C] The application of 12C3 (where legal) typically leaves the offenders no worse off than had they not broken the law but deprives the victims of anything resembling full redress. Such laws add insult to injury, encourage law-breaking, contribute no value to the game and are completely unnecessary. There sole function appears to be in... (a) Providing job interest for directors and (c) Reducing the flack to which directors are subjected by law-breakers. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 18 17:11:04 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:11:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003001c75377$646039f0$6400a8c0@rota> On 2/11/07, David Grabiner wrote: >> The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by >> experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to >> Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." >> >> I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this. I found one, case 34 from the 1994 World Championships in Albuquerque, without many complicating factors. (I'll comment on Jeery Fusselman's examples in a separate Email. W N E S 1H 2S 3H 5D 6H P P X AP Some previous rulings had said that Lightner doubles were alertable. North said he would run to 6NT if the double had been alerted. 6H went down when the opening spade lead was ruffed; 6NT would have made. The director believed that "all bridge players use this double so it was not necessary to alert it" and let the table result stand. The Committee ruled the appeal without merit. "The Committee was adamant that North-South should have realized the meaning of the double (don't lead a diamond), and that they could possibly have been taking a two-way shot to get a good result. If East made the wrong lead, they would score the slam. If East made the correct lead, they could always maintain to a Committee that the double was not Alerted and they would have run to 6NT if they had been Alerted." (The Committee then made an official ruling that Lightner doubles are not alertable.) The commentators were unanimous in approval of the Committee ruling, and I think the Committee got the key point right here. If North suspected a failure to alert, he could use that failure to get a double shot, and this is an important part of the reason that players need to protect themselves. A player does not need to get a perfectly safe double shot to lose any right for adjustment. (Ton Kooijman mentions in the casebook that a ruling went the other way in the 1989 European Championships in a similar situation.) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 18 18:08:53 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:08:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003901c7537f$7b7a8ed0$6400a8c0@rota> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 2/11/07, David Grabiner wrote: >> The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by >> experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to >> Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." >> >> I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this; > Here is one: Albequerque 1997 has a nonalerted support redouble (case > 23), where the committee says the NOS should have asked if it was a > support redouble because they play the same convention. The Casebook editor quotes what is probably an older version of the same statement: "Adjustments for violations are not automatic. . . an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation." In this case, the auction was (1C)-P-(1S)-X-(XX)-2S-AP. The NOS claimed that the partner of the 2S bidder took 2S as natural, and the Committee also ruled that an experienced player should not take 2S as natural regardless of the meaning of the double, so it's not clear whether failure to protect was the actual reason for the failure to adjust. (The OS was awarded average-minus, which was a mistake; it should have been a PP.) > Here are three more: Cases 29, 33, and 36 of Cincinnati 2000, and all > deny any adjustment for MI due to "inadequate self protection." I am > especially interested in case 36, and I have some questions about it > at the end. > > In case 29, all agree there was MI, and all agree that had there been > no MI, E-W would have had no problem. Both sides got the table result > (great for N-S). The consensus was that E-W should have known that a > possibly short 1D opening must have been limited and Precision without > being told so. Well, one knew it was Precision, and one > didn't---causing their disaster. > But I have heard of just such a system: A 15--17 notrump with > 1D-P-1x-P-1NT showing 13-14 and 1C-P-1x-P-1NT showing 11-12. This is > not Precision, but it would also have the alert that 1D might have > two. Denying the adjustment here is clear. South said that 1D "could be as short as two", and since E-W played different methods over a Precision 1D and over a natural 1D that could be a doubleton, it is the E-W responsibility to get their understandings straight. Under today's rules, there would not even be a N-S infraction; Sould would announce "Could be short", and if it matters to E-W, they would have to ask. > In case 33, the committee says that N-S should have known that a hand > limited by passing 1NT would never play Lebensohl, so EW's explanation > must be disregarded, thus cancelling the MI. There are times that an explanation is clearly incorrect. I have heard a call explained as "weak jump shift" when it was not a jump, and I would expect to lose any adjustment if I didn't follow up on that problem. But there are enough unusual agreements out there, and different variants of the same convention, that players can't be expected to treat every surprising explanation as impossible. > In case 36, West deals and the auction goes 2S-P-3H-all pass. 3H was > not alerted, though it should have been, because it was nonforcing. > Here the NOS supposedly should have known to protect themselves with a > director call at the correct time. This time, the OS does lose their > result, but the NOS get the table result due to inadequate protection, > even though the panel determined that South would have entered the > auction with the correct information. > > After his final pass, North found out by asking East that 3H was not > forcing. The director was called after trick two, which doomed the > NOS, for the director did not ask at that time if they would have done > anything differently with correct information. Let us look at the > crucial decision of when to call the director: > > After East's 3H call? Cohen suggested South calling the director here > if "he sensed a failure to Alert a nonforcing 3H bid." Wolff and > Colker say that South calling the director here is a bad idea because > it could restrict North's options in the auction and play. This was one of the points I made. After (2S)-P-(3H), not alerted, South creates UI if he asks, is told 3H is not alertable, and then passes. South has no reason to suspect anything wrong and has no obligation to protect himself at this point. > After West passed? Director said that since North and South failed to > call here, there shall be no adjustment for either side. Gerard said > "of course there was no reason to call then, [unless] North was > considering balancing." The call is not mandatory here. N/S can suspect MI, but West could have taken a view and passed a forcing bid, or forgotten the agreement himself. North had nothing to say and no need to ask. South could have called the director at this point, but it's not his turn, and he doesn't need to think about the MI immediately. > After North's final pass? Panel, and several reviewers said this was > NS's last chance to earn an adjustment. Stevenson doubts that this > ruling is really legal. E/W should have corrected the MI themselves, with or without North's question, and (in theory) called the TD, which would have solved the problems. Typically, what I do in this situation is to say, "There was a failure to alert; 3H was non-forcing. Please call the TD if you might have bid differently." (95% of the time that partner forgets to alert one of my calls, there is no possible damage.) But the panel is correct that this is the right time to call, and a Flight A pair (this was Flight B) might lose any redress if South knows he has been misinformed, leads, and then claims damage from MI later. > When dummy is spread? Endicott said, "The time to call the Director > was when dummy hit the deck." This makes no sense. If dummy's call had been misexplained, then the TD should be called when dummy is visible. However, it is declarer's call that was misexplained, and South already knows about MI. The actual director call, after trick two, should have had the same rights as a call when dummy went down. It might have taken South some time to realize the damage; if he was allowed to call during trick one, he shouldn't lose any further rights by calling one trick later. > After the hand is completed? Maybe N-S cannot tell for sure they were > damaged until after the hand is finished. Are you supposed to call > every time there is MI, or only when you have reason to believe you > might have been damaged? If the NOS doesn't correct the MI until the end of the hand (either because they are following the Law as defenders, or because they neglected to correct the MI when they should), a call at the end of the hand is always timely. But if the NOS know, or should know, that they have been misinformed, they may lose their rights because of the possibility of two-way shots. It doesn't apply in this case, but I will present a hypothetical example in which the adjustment should be denied because the TD call was too late. South opens 1NT, explained by North as 12-14 but the correct agreement is 15-17, all pass. South corrects the MI at the end of the auction. East is 5=2=4=2, and the E-W agreement is to bid 2D with diamonds and a major over a strong NT (DONT) but 2S with spades and a minor over a weak NT (Cappelletti). East claims that he would not bid 2S and take the risk of getting to 3D over a weak NT but would bid 2D over a strong NT. If the TD is called at the end of the auction, East gets to bid his 2D, and he may get +110 or -200 depending on partner's hand, just as if he had been properly informed. If the TD is called at the end of the hand, after 1NT makes one for -90, East should not now get +110 or -90. > Anyway, can one find any clear ACBL pronouncement of when to call the > director when you suspect MI? Does you hand matter for taking action > when you suspect MI---i.e., do you use your hand to help determine the > probability of MI, but maybe not call if your hand makes MI totally > clear? And when do you call when MI is clear but damage is not clear? The ACBL policy is clear on when you should call the director for UI: when you have reason to believe that an action may be based on UI. If a slow double is pulled, you would probably call as soon as it is pulled. In less clear situations, you might wait until the offender's hand is exposed (as dummy, or at the end of the play), to confirm that there is no LA. There is no explicit rule for MI, but it would be logical to use the same rule: when you have reason to believe that an action (of your side, in this case) may be based on MI. If you know about MI, that is the right time to call the TD. If you only suspect MI, you can wait. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 18 23:33:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:33:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D6CE78.803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>>Nigel seems to live in a world where most bridge players are >>>sharpies and gamesmen, if not outright cheats. I don't. In my >>>world, 99.9% of those who are particularly knowledgeable about >>>the laws use their knowledge far more often to their own >>>disadvantage than to gain an edge. The 0.1% who try to game >>>the rules (use "that in-depth knowledge of the rules to help >>>[them] succeed") are inevitably frustrated by the other 99.9% >>>(with the help of the TDs, of course). Nigel Guthrie: >>Had Eric Landau read any of my previous posts touching on >>"cheating", he would know that he misrepresents me. Richard Hills: Nigel, to put it as politely as possible, "pull the other one, it's got bells on". For years your blml posts have been loaded with innuendoes containing unsubstantiated generalisations about the ethics of most experts. Indeed, another innuendo appears in your very next paragraph below. Nigel Guthrie: >>I live in the real world. As Victor Mollo illustrates in his >>books, the World of Bridge is a microcosm with about the same >>proportion of "goodies" and "baddies"; most of us are in >>between. Many people are tempted to break rules when it is >>profitable or they think they can get away with it. We all >>have friends who break speed limits and marriage vows; or >>cheat on their expenses and taxes :) >> >>[A] If I remember rightly, a BLMLer wrote that he opened >>certain 3 counts in third seat. He did not bother to tell >>opponents because of their "low frequency". Others are happy >>to admit to similar habits. Herman De Wael: >That blml-er wished some years ago to write this on his CC. He >was stopped by his peers because they thought putting it on the >CC meant it was systemic. It isn't. A tendency to go outside the >system must be disclosed, but the definition of what is in- or >outside of the system cannot be that it is disclosed, else >everything is inside the system, and you can no longer disclose >a tendency to go outside it. > >That certain blml-er certainly believes he is acting correctly. Richard Hills: Those who follow the Wayne Burrows/Herman De Wael interpretation of what is "inside" or "outside" the system may believe that they are acting correctly, but in my opinion their belief is wrong. Law 75B: "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)....." Richard Hills: But Herman's main point is valid. No way is Herman violating the "must not infringe a law intentionally" requirement of Law 72B1, since Herman's infringement (if it exists) is due to Herman misguessing the meaning of the ambiguous Laws 40 and 75. Therefore Nigel is incorrectly using the De Wael School as a counter-example to Eric Landau's assessment that 99.9% of bridge players avoid any _intentional_ infractions of Law. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 18 23:53:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D6CE78.803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>[F] When there is evidence that partner has forgotten an >>agreement (for example by alerting or not alerting) then >>you may argue that it is sometimes excusable to misinform >>opponents about your agreement to avoid giving useful >>unauthorised information to partner (I hope I'm not >>misrepresenting your position, Herman). Herman De Wael: >You are not. Last night, my partner did not alert my 2C, >which was check-back. He subsequently bid 2H (my suit) >which, by system, shows a minimum hand. I did not alert, >because I knew that: > >a) he had not intended any indication as to strength (in >fact he was maximum) > >b) I was not going to give him UI. > >Of course I bid as if he was minimum (and he still >transformed 2NT to 4H) and told the opponents before the >lead. But they were never misinformed as to his holdings - >so why should I give him UI and opponents MI at the same >time? Law 75D2: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he **indicate in any manner** that a mistake has been made..." Law 75C: "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement..." Richard Hills: There is an inconsistency between Law 75D2 and Law 75C. The De Wael School assumes that Law 75D2 prevails in the event of any clash between the two; but most of the rest of the world's directors assume that Law 75C prevails. But Herman is idiosyncratically defining misinformation to suit his purposes of justifying his School. As is made clear in the footnote to Law 75, misinformation is giving an incorrect explanation of the partnership agreement. The opponents "have no claim to an accurate description" of the cards held by Herman's partner. Ergo, Herman's actual choice did create MI and was a (what Herman thought was a justifiable) infraction of Law 75C. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Mon Feb 19 00:03:26 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:03:26 -0600 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702181503h2a3145d3j2c928a706affc4ec@mail.gmail.com> > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1D > Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > Dble 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as a splinter > bid, club support and a singleton spade > > You, East, hold: > > Q > AJ > AKT76 > KQ863 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > First a question: Which suit, if any, should North be aching to lead? The answer determines which contract is best for East to choose. I ran this problem through my deal simulator, and my conclusions are that at matchpoints, 6NT is best unless North is likely to lead a heart, in which case 6C is standout. 3NT is terrible, and a 4H cue bid is unwise due to South's ability to double it for a damaging lead. In the simulations, a heart lead often sets 6NT, and occasionally it sets 6C. I have not been able to determine whether asking for aces is wise or not. Maybe it is wise if 6C is your target and unwise if 6NT is your target. At IMPs, 6C seems to be the best contract, with maybe a marginal improvement if you ask for aces. You can easily check my assumptions and conclusions, and I hope someone does. I gave East the hand in question and I made these realistic-to-pessimistic requirements for the West hand: 1. Exactly 11 HCP (no adjustments, so Qx still counts as 2); 2. Exactly three spades, including the SK (Sometimes the SA or J appears too); 3. More clubs than any other suit (Sometimes the 3=3=3=4 shape appears); 4. Fewer than four diamonds. I ran 72 such otherwise random deals through a double-dummy analyser, but I looked at the deals myself as well. The hands that make 6C seem to have remarkably straightforward play. The pdf of the deals and results is available on request. 4% (3/72) of the time, West has two aces and they made 7C all three times. (In my simulations, since West has the SK too, the hands fit very well.) 1% makes 7NT. 1% 6C might go down 2 with perfect defense and a 4-0 trump break. 4% 6C fails on a heart lead. 3% 6C fails due to missing two aces. 22% 6C fails to the DQ or J. 70% 6C makes, even if you do not check for aces. Checking for aces seems to move this to almost 72% and gives you shot at a good 7C. 32% 6NT makes with perfect double-dummy defense---usually a heart lead is required. 59% 6NT makes if the opponents have no particular reason to lead hearts and do not know about immediate ruffs, etc.. Checking for aces seems unwise if it might help South double for a heart lead. This 59% number is based on my estimate of likely leads if North does not think a heart lead is specifically called for, but it has by far the most subjectivity of my percentages. Remember, these numbers are based on 11 HCP, and West might have more. Since West can have more, and because North might not think hearts are important to lead, I can see someone deciding that 6NT is better than 6C at matchpoints. So, should North know that hearts are important to lead? Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 19 00:55:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:55:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D8E771.4040307@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Therefore Nigel is incorrectly using the De Wael School as a counter-example to Eric Landau's assessment that 99.9% of bridge players avoid any _intentional_ infractions of Law. [nigel] As usual Richard misrepresents me. This time he snipped the paragraph, in which I explained that most law-breakers rationalise their actions: even when their action is deliberate, they don't think they're really breaking the law. Then I supplied several examples. My final conclusion was... "Most infractions are inadvertent but even when they are deliberate, the range of rationalisations is limited only by the ingenuity of the human mind; these players are not really "cheats", however, and they would be hurt and offended to be so labelled." Richard apparently agrees that at least one of my examples is apt and demonstrates my thesis. Richard is right that I doubt the accuracy of Eric's estimate that 999 players in 1000 never intentionally break the law. Most people have deliberately broken a law (perhaps a speeding offence or expense fiddle). I doubt that people suddenly become saints as soon as they sit at a bridge table. (Even BLML directors admit to deliberately breaking rules). I won't hazarded a guess at the true figure. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 19 01:01:36 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:01:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <45D6CE78.803@skynet.be> References: <45D331DA.2010902@NTLworld.com> <000001c75162$c34f56b0$5fe7403e@Mildred> <45D586C8.4070806@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070216154145.0308f6c0@pop.starpower.net> <45D65C0A.2080706@NTLworld.com> <45D6CE78.803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45D8E8E0.7050701@NTLworld.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > Indeed - so I ask again - What is The Problem? > (abbreviation spelt out once for the benefit of Jeff [nigel] My problem is not with you Herman. You and I agree that such incidents occur and that the perpetrators may delude themselves but are not necessarily "cheats". It is Eric Landau who thinks I am over-suspicious. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 19 03:09:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:09:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>Nigel, to put it as politely as possible, "pull the other one, >>it's got bells on". For years your blml posts have been loaded >>with innuendoes containing unsubstantiated generalisations [snip] >>Therefore Nigel is incorrectly using the De Wael School as a >>counter-example to Eric Landau's assessment that 99.9% of bridge >>players avoid any _intentional_ infractions of Law. Nigel Guthrie quibbled: >As usual Richard misrepresents me. Richard Hills counter-quibbles: Another unsubstantiated generalisation "as usual" with an associated innuendo implying that I habitually use "straw man" arguments in blml debate. Nigel Guthrie quibbled: >This time he snipped the paragraph, in which I explained that >most law-breakers rationalise their actions: even when their >action is deliberate, they don't think they're really breaking >the law. > >Then I supplied several examples. My final conclusion was... > >"Most infractions are inadvertent but even when they are >deliberate, the range of rationalisations is limited only by the >ingenuity of the human mind; these players are not really >"cheats", however, and they would be hurt and offended to be so >labelled." > >Richard apparently agrees that at least one of my examples is apt >and demonstrates my thesis. Richard Hills counter-quibbles: Now I am being misrepresented. I do not support Nigel's use of the loaded term "rationalise" to describe Herman De Wael. My description of the De Wael School would be "idiosyncratic". (See parallel thread.) Nigel Guthrie quibbled: >Richard is right that I doubt the accuracy of Eric's estimate >that 999 players in 1000 never intentionally break the law. Most >people have deliberately broken a law (perhaps a speeding offence >or expense fiddle). I doubt that people suddenly become saints as >soon as they sit at a bridge table. (Even BLML directors admit to >deliberately breaking rules). I won't hazarded a guess at the true >figure. Richard Hills counter-quibbles: So I was misrepresenting the point of a particular post by Nigel, but not misrepresenting Nigel's beliefs? I note that some years ago Nigel used self-deprecating humour to refer to himself as a "paranoid bunny". I apologise for missing the point of Nigel's previous posting, and in turn will use self-deprecating humour to dub myself a "quibbling straw man". :-) Arguing by analogy always runs the risk of comparing apples with oranges. What gets rewarded is what gets done. An adulterer who cheats on their spouse is unlikely to also cheat at bridge because detection and retribution for cheating at bridge is almost inevitable. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Mon Feb 19 06:29:41 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:29:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D935C5.1060106@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Nigel, to put it as politely as possible, "pull the other one, it's got bells on". For years your blml posts have been loaded with innuendoes containing unsubstantiated generalisations [nige1] Inapt but for BLML, not impolite :) As far as I know neither the WBF nor NBOs methodically poll players or analyse other data on the application of laws. Lacking reliable statisics, BLMLers speak mainly from personal experience and hearsay. I preface my views (innuendos?) with "In my opinion" and I retract and apologise when I make mistakes. I criticise institutions and avoid personal attacks. [Richard H] Another unsubstantiated generalisation "as usual" with an associated innuendo implying that I habitually use "straw man" arguments in blml debate. [nige1] /IMO/ Richard often misrepresent *my* views. Richard can substantiate my statment using your encyclopaediac memory of past discussions. [Richard H ] Now I am being misrepresented. I do not support Nigel's use of the loaded term "rationalise" to describe Herman De Wael. My description of the De Wael School would be "idiosyncratic". (See parallel thread.) [nige1] Fair enough. Sorry. [Richard H] So I was misrepresenting the point of a particular post by Nigel, but not misrepresenting Nigel's beliefs? I note that some years ago Nigel used self-deprecating humour to refer to himself as a "paranoid bunny". I apologise for missing the point of Nigel's previous posting, and in turn will use self-deprecating humour to dub myself a "quibbling straw man". {nige1] I was echoing a BLM view of me. Richard and others have caricatured me as Rabbit, Walrus or Secretary Bird :) Just good humoured banter compared with the gratuitous insolence from a handful of other BLMLers :( Perhaps, it's not surprising that a few directors resent the view of a typical player, which is how I view myself. [Richard H] Arguing by analogy always runs the risk of comparing apples with oranges. What gets rewarded is what gets done. An adulterer who cheats on their spouse is unlikely to also cheat at bridge because detection and retribution for cheating at bridge is almost inevitable. [nigel] Another example of your excellent sense of humour, Richard? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 19 06:40:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:40:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>1. The Australian Bridge Federation has frequently asked >>the WBF Laws Committee such a question. Ed Reppert: >Has the ACBL ever asked? Richard Hills: >>2. Grattan Endicott has previously explained to blml that >>such a question from an NBO often becomes a WBF LC agenda >>item. Ed Reppert: >"Frequent questions" from one NBO is one thing. Have other >NBOs asked such questions? ABCL Laws Commission minutes, Dallas, 1st April 2006: [big snip] 12C2: While the ACBL LC still prefers this law to 12C3 we find several ambiguities in the first sentence that could be clarified: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." i. In a UI case when one player makes UI available and his partner has chosen an illegal logical alternative, is the irregularity in the phrase "had the irregularity not occurred" the act which created the UI, the choosing of the illegal LA, or some combination? We are told that this ambiguity is one that only the ACBL seems to have trouble with, and that to the rest of the world it is clear that the irregularity in question is the act of choosing the illegal LA. If that is the case we would still appreciate a clarification, since we would prefer laws with as little potential for misinterpretation as possible. [big snip] Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 19 07:16:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:16:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D935C5.1060106@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>detection and retribution for cheating at bridge is almost >>inevitable. Nigel Guthrie: >Another example of your excellent sense of humour, Richard? Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), The Jew of Malta: Barnadine: Thou has committed - Barabas: Fornication? But that was in another country; and besides, the wench is dead. L.P Hartley (1895-1972), The Go-Between: The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. Richard Hills: In another foreign country the detection of cheats was inevitable, but retribution for cheating was evitable. As Jeff Rubens and Edgar Kaplan reluctantly chronicled, the policy of the ACBL towards cheating in the early 1970s was to sweep cheating accusations under the rug, instead choosing to sanction those who had committed the lesser impropriety of publicly slandering the cheats. And, as Jeff Rubens has recently noted in a retrospective assessment of the former misguided policy, the problem with sweeping cheating allegations under a rug is in finding a large enough rug. :-( Nowadays the ACBL Board of Directors minutes show a much more sensible policy of expeditious investigation (with natural justice given to alleged cheats). This is obviously preferable to vigilante justice by slander and rumour, since errors of fact or interpretation in a rumour may trash the reputations of wholly ethical players. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 19 07:44:02 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:44:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: EBU casebook 2001, appeal number 1 Tournament Director: Eddie Williams Appeals Committee: Heather Dhondy (Chairman) Alan Kay Brian Callaghan Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1D Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) Dble 3NT Pass 4NT(2) Pass 5D Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo. Not alerted, but intended to be a splinter bid, club support and a singleton spade (2) Simple Blackwood AK732 95432 4 T2 64 Q KQ86 AJ Q3 AKT76 AJ754 KQ863 JT985 T7 J9852 9 Result at table: 6C making by West, NS -920 Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: East intended 3S to be a splinter but partner did not recognise this and bid 3NT. East still wanted to play in clubs even though he knew his partner had taken 3S as natural. North queried why East had gone on after 3NT as that was surely a signoff. He also added that if 3S had been alerted by East he may well have bid 4S or higher Director's ruling: Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3): 20% 6S doubled -3 by N/S, NS -800 +80% 6C making by West, NS -920 Details of ruling: There is misinformation but little damage. Appeal lodged by: Both sides Comments by North-South: Perhaps East was always going to use Blackwood. However he did not use it immediately and the slam was frequently not bid. Had partner alerted and bid 3NT he might have had a very unsuitable hand with wasted values with a danger of having to play in 5C not 3NT at pairs. When partner did not alert he would not expect spade values. Comments by East-West: After my partner's 2C response I was always going to do Blackwood with such a strong hand. I did not take 3NT as a sign off particularly. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Both deposits returned Appeals Committee's comments: We felt that although E was in receipt of unauthorised information, it was normal to bid over 3NT. Although N/S have been deprived of a chance to bid 6S, it wasn't likely to happen in practice and so 20% seems about right. * * * Ron Johnson (casebook commentator): "It seems to me that both the committee and the director were generous to North-South. I don't see anything approaching a 20% chance that North-South would have bid 6S with an alert of 3S. "It would be helpful if the Details of ruling clearly stated that 3S was in fact a splinter. If it is not, there is in my opinion no basis for a score adjustment. Yes, East has unauthorized information (that West thought the call was natural) but that is only a problem if it's used. "I assume that the actual ruling is more along the lines of: "3S is in fact a splinter in the East-West methods and thus there was a failure to alert. North's contention that 3NT is surely a signoff by West misses the point that a signoff is hardly a command to pass. Pass is simply not a logical alternative for East at this point. "Further, the failure to alert hardly damaged North's chance to sacrifice after his partner had doubled 3S. "I would have suggested a ruling of result stands. I would not advocate a procedural penalty for a failure to alert unless this was a regular partnership of a fairly high standard." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Mon Feb 19 09:29:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:29:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D95FFC.7050001@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >> That blml-er wished some years ago to write this on his CC. He >> was stopped by his peers because they thought putting it on the >> CC meant it was systemic. It isn't. A tendency to go outside the >> system must be disclosed, but the definition of what is in- or >> outside of the system cannot be that it is disclosed, else >> everything is inside the system, and you can no longer disclose >> a tendency to go outside it. >> >> That certain blml-er certainly believes he is acting correctly. > > Richard Hills: > > Those who follow the Wayne Burrows/Herman De Wael interpretation > of what is "inside" or "outside" the system may believe that they > are acting correctly, but in my opinion their belief is wrong. > > Law 75B: > > "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long > as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual > violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, > which must be disclosed)....." > Which is what I (try to) do. And I shall always accept an adjustment if it is based on a reasoning like 'if I had known that this player is more likely to psyche than some others, then I would have acted differently'. I will not accept rulings based on illegal system. > Richard Hills: > > But Herman's main point is valid. No way is Herman violating the > "must not infringe a law intentionally" requirement of Law 72B1, > since Herman's infringement (if it exists) is due to Herman > misguessing the meaning of the ambiguous Laws 40 and 75. > No, he is not violating the requirement because he himself cannot give the correct alert - only his partner can, and Herman's partner does not know when Herman decides to psyche. Only the frequency of psyches can be disclosed, and we have done so, on our CC. > Therefore Nigel is incorrectly using the De Wael School as a > counter-example to Eric Landau's assessment that 99.9% of bridge > players avoid any _intentional_ infractions of Law. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 19 09:37:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:37:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D961D7.9050404@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > >>> [F] When there is evidence that partner has forgotten an >>> agreement (for example by alerting or not alerting) then >>> you may argue that it is sometimes excusable to misinform >>> opponents about your agreement to avoid giving useful >>> unauthorised information to partner (I hope I'm not >>> misrepresenting your position, Herman). > > Herman De Wael: > >> You are not. Last night, my partner did not alert my 2C, >> which was check-back. He subsequently bid 2H (my suit) >> which, by system, shows a minimum hand. I did not alert, >> because I knew that: >> >> a) he had not intended any indication as to strength (in >> fact he was maximum) >> >> b) I was not going to give him UI. >> >> Of course I bid as if he was minimum (and he still >> transformed 2NT to 4H) and told the opponents before the >> lead. But they were never misinformed as to his holdings - >> so why should I give him UI and opponents MI at the same >> time? > > Law 75D2: > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation > may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he > **indicate in any manner** that a mistake has been made..." > > Law 75C: > > "...a player shall disclose all special information > conveyed to him through partnership agreement..." > > Richard Hills: > > There is an inconsistency between Law 75D2 and Law 75C. > The De Wael School assumes that Law 75D2 prevails in the > event of any clash between the two; but most of the rest of > the world's directors assume that Law 75C prevails. > > But Herman is idiosyncratically defining misinformation to > suit his purposes of justifying his School. As is made > clear in the footnote to Law 75, misinformation is giving > an incorrect explanation of the partnership agreement. The > opponents "have no claim to an accurate description" of the > cards held by Herman's partner. > > Ergo, Herman's actual choice did create MI and was a (what > Herman thought was a justifiable) infraction of Law 75C. > I know that, and I've never said it was not an infraction. But you need to consider damage as well as MI. Since I have correctly explained what they might expect in his hand, they cannot be damaged. So even if it is an infraction, it is a very mild one. Consider what I did not tell them: I did not tell them my partner was limited to 12 points (in fact he did have 14) How would they have felt if I had told them he had 12 points, they had doubled, it would have made, and I would say "aha, but I did not MI you since this IS our system". I still maintain that I am acting as ethical as I can within the laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 19 13:04:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702171016t4da3ceeew3900e65985cf8a8e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry wrote: > If pard holds AJT,Kxx,xx,Axxxx, he might bid 2NT in place of 2C. He might, but not if he plays 2N as artificial with a D fit or considers the hand a bit too good for a natural 2N. > Also, why is he not excited about the splinter? 10 working points, an > SST of 3, and we must have 25 working points at least, so slam is good > if we have the key cards. He has to go beyond 3NT here. He's a bit excited by the splinter but Dxx worries him. He could choose to cue 4S or ask for keycards but he knows I might hold x,AQx,KJTxx,KQJx so by-passing 3N is not without risks. > What is the point of splintering if you knew your partner could not > understand what to do next? I splinter because pard might have a hand which is easier to value such as Axxx,x,QJx,AJxxx. > I am not familiar with the purpose of the 4H cue bid when every suit > is controlled. Are you going to be able to find out if he has the ace > of clubs? Yes - if he is missing the CA (and since I have CKQ) he will sign off in 4N (as he would if missing the SA). If he cues 4S over 4H I will cue 5D and he will show the HK or bid 5N if he has no HK but has the DQ. I can't guarantee to find the best spot from 4N/6C/7C but 4H seemed like as good a way as any to start looking. Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 14:46:48 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:46:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> On 2/18/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Now I am being misrepresented. I do not support Nigel's use of > the loaded term "rationalise" to describe Herman De Wael. My > description of the De Wael School would be "idiosyncratic". (See > parallel thread.) While I don't agree with most of Nigel's post, I think that he is entirely appropriate to use "loaded" terms to describe Herman's approach towards disclosure. Personally, I'd go far beyond "rationalize". I think that Herman cheats. I don't think that he cheats in an attempt to significantly improve his scores. Rather, I see him more as a modern day Raskolnikov. Herman see's himself as an extraordinary student of the game. He believes that his superior knowledge allows him to decide which regulations he will (and will not) follow. Even so, Raskolnikov committed murder and as for Herman... -------------- We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. - H. L. Mencken From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Feb 19 14:46:55 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:46:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Reading the pause - the "solution" Message-ID: <45D9AA4F.0@t-online.de> Hi all, here the promised "solution" and some further thoughts: You hold: Ax KQx AKJxxx xx Teams, neither vul, Partner deals and opens 1NT (11-14, any 5card-suit acceptable, no 5422 except with both minors). With opps being silent the bidding goes: 1NT 2C 2H (4 or 5 H) 2S 3C (4H, 4D) 3D 3H (3442) after about 90 seconds, the only systemic answers being 3H and 3S, no zoom or something. Essentially a yes/no question. I had no idea what was happening. My partner knew the relay scheme very well, we used to conduct 6 or 7 rounds of bidding in 30 seconds. I suspected a missorting accident. 3S (Min/Max?) 3NT (Minimum) 4H (RKCB for D) 5C (two, no DQ) 5H (Relay) 5NT (CK, no HK) 6C (Any small extra?)6D (no) After the break in tempo the rest was conducted with the usual speed. I explained the bidding: xxx, Axxx, xxxx, AK, no Queens, maybe Jack of spades, certainly not Jack of hearts or diamonds. And no, no idea where the pause came from. Maybe missorting, but no way to tell. Dummy hit with 10xx A9xx 109xx AK exactly the hand as described. Hm, what had happened? Still no idea. The hand was easy, diamonds were friendly, hearts were not. 12 tricks. So, after the round I asked my partner what had happened. "You see, I had a card stuck to another card, so I had 2442 and no system bid. It took me some time to realize what had happened, then I found the missing card...." Is there a moral in this? Probably not, except that certain "unreadable" situations knowledge of the system often tells you what kind of problem is possible and what is not. Here I knew that deliberate violation of our agreements about shape was out of the question, missorting of course cannot ever be ruled out, in which case the total number of red and black cards is probably right, but 4441, 1444, x53x and x35x is still possible. 90 seconds still is a lot of time for that, though. In this hand the opps didn`t ask for a ruling or something (sometimes people do, there having been a break of tempo), they were satisfied to have received correct explanations. They wouldn`t have had a case here, of course. Now, let us say partner had missorted. A heart in with the diamonds. No pause this time. Let us say that I had bid 7, the trumps behave, the 5th heart is established for a discard. 13 tricks (we probably have to manipulate the hand somewhat to make the grand even worse than it is here). So partner missorted (or deliberately gave a wrong answer, or whatever) and meets with some attempt to create a swing from the other side of the table (based on the state of the match, for example). How can anyone expect to be able to judge these cases based on a "rule"? If any "funny business" is going on the director or the comittee will have to delve into it and get to the bottom of the business, and not apply any "rules".... From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 19 15:44:19 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:44:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45D9B7C3.1030402@NTLworld.com> > [Richard Hills] >>> Arguing by analogy always runs the risk of comparing apples with >>> oranges. What gets rewarded is what gets done. An adulterer who >>> cheats on their spouse is unlikely to also cheat at bridge because >>> detection and retribution for cheating at bridge is almost >>> inevitable. [nigel] >> Another example of your excellent sense of humour, Richard? [Richard] > Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), The Jew of Malta: > > Barnadine: Thou has committed - > Barabas: Fornication? But that was in another country; > and besides, the wench is dead. > > L.P Hartley (1895-1972), The Go-Between: > > The past is a foreign country; they do things differently > there. > > Richard Hills: > > In another foreign country the detection of cheats was > inevitable, but retribution for cheating was evitable. As > Jeff Rubens and Edgar Kaplan reluctantly chronicled, the > policy of the ACBL towards cheating in the early 1970s was > to sweep cheating accusations under the rug, instead > choosing to sanction those who had committed the lesser > impropriety of publicly slandering the cheats. > > And, as Jeff Rubens has recently noted in a retrospective > assessment of the former misguided policy, the problem with > sweeping cheating allegations under a rug is in finding a > large enough rug. > > :-( > > Nowadays the ACBL Board of Directors minutes show a much > more sensible policy of expeditious investigation (with > natural justice given to alleged cheats). This is obviously > preferable to vigilante justice by slander and rumour, since > errors of fact or interpretation in a rumour may trash the > reputations of wholly ethical players. [Richard] I disagree with Richard's implication from the analogy between adultery and law-breaking at bridge but most players would agree with Richard's recommendations about dealing with cheats in the future. Pity about the past. I agree that the public slandering of suspected cheats is a grave offence. The main topic that we were discussing wasn't "real" cheats, however: it was players who break the law but justify their actions to themselves -- either by a peculiar interpretation of law -- or by some other plausible argument that makes sense to them. I wonder what percentage of players are in this latter category. One in a thousand? I think not. Again, I guess that there will be no official estimate but it might amuse BLMLers to speculate on: What percentage of infractions... [1] ... Are noticed? [2] ... Have attention drawn to them? [3] ... Result in a director call? [4] ... Are correctly diagnosed by the director? [5] ... Result in a request by the victims to waive any penalty. [6] ... Result in a a reduced profit for the perpetrator? [7] ... Result in any redress to the victims? [8] ... Result in a deterrent penalty for the perpetrator and adequate compensation for the victims? The equity approach seems to mean that [8] is becoming vanishingly small. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 19 15:52:27 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:52:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D9B7C3.1030402@NTLworld.com> References: <45D9B7C3.1030402@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45D9B9AB.6020306@NTLworld.com> Sorry Richard, all. In my previous post I wrongly attributed some of my views to Richard - corrected below. >> [Richard Hills] >>>> Arguing by analogy always runs the risk of comparing apples with >>>> oranges. What gets rewarded is what gets done. An adulterer who >>>> cheats on their spouse is unlikely to also cheat at bridge because >>>> detection and retribution for cheating at bridge is almost >>>> inevitable. > [nigel] >>> Another example of your excellent sense of humour, Richard? > [Richard] >> Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), The Jew of Malta: >> >> Barnadine: Thou has committed - >> Barabas: Fornication? But that was in another country; >> and besides, the wench is dead. >> >> L.P Hartley (1895-1972), The Go-Between: >> >> The past is a foreign country; they do things differently >> there. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In another foreign country the detection of cheats was >> inevitable, but retribution for cheating was evitable. As >> Jeff Rubens and Edgar Kaplan reluctantly chronicled, the >> policy of the ACBL towards cheating in the early 1970s was >> to sweep cheating accusations under the rug, instead >> choosing to sanction those who had committed the lesser >> impropriety of publicly slandering the cheats. >> >> And, as Jeff Rubens has recently noted in a retrospective >> assessment of the former misguided policy, the problem with >> sweeping cheating allegations under a rug is in finding a >> large enough rug. >> >> :-( >> >> Nowadays the ACBL Board of Directors minutes show a much >> more sensible policy of expeditious investigation (with >> natural justice given to alleged cheats). This is obviously >> preferable to vigilante justice by slander and rumour, since >> errors of fact or interpretation in a rumour may trash the >> reputations of wholly ethical players. > [Nigel] > I disagree with Richard's implication from the analogy between adultery > and law-breaking at bridge; but most players would agree with Richard's > recommendations about dealing with cheats in the future. Pity about the > past. > > I agree that the public slandering of suspected cheats is a grave offence. > > The main topic that we were discussing wasn't "real" cheats, however: it > was players who break the law but justify their actions to themselves -- > either by a peculiar interpretation of law -- or by some other > plausible argument that makes sense to them. I wonder what percentage of > players are in this latter category. One in a thousand? I think not. > > Again, I guess that there will be no official estimate but it might > amuse BLMLers to speculate on: > > What percentage of infractions... > > [1] ... Are noticed? > [2] ... Have attention drawn to them? > [3] ... Result in a director call? > [4] ... Are correctly diagnosed by the director? > [5] ... Result in a request by the victims to waive any penalty. > [6] ... Result in a a reduced profit for the perpetrator? > [7] ... Result in any redress to the victims? > [8] ... Result in a deterrent penalty for the perpetrator and adequate > compensation for the victims? > > The equity approach seems to mean that [8] is becoming vanishingly small. > From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Feb 19 16:03:25 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:03:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Yet another Ghestem misbid Message-ID: <001001c75437$1b428ff0$4101a8c0@david> Well this one combines the 2 topics on everyone's hate list, a Ghestem misbid and L25B. The auction starts 1H from W and 3C overcall from N. As the 3C bid hits the table, the bidder states "That is not the bid I should be making - Director please". The director ruled that this was an attempted purposeful correction and the player should complete the correction. 2C was offered as the correction and declined by offender's LHO. Offender then opted to let his original call stand, thereby causing his partner to pass for 1 round. The complete auction was then 1H 3C X P 3N P P P K105 5 64 KJ76543 A74 93 J1082 K976 A1082 KQJ75 AQ 109 QJ862 AQ43 93 82 Q1 At the stage that N has indicated that he wished to change his bid, but has not yet done so, could he elect to remain with his original call and not go through L25B? Q2 What are the UI implications of electing to change to 2C and then letting the call of 3C stand? In particular should S still be bidding as if it showed Spades + Diamonds? Q3 What lead penalties should apply? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 18/02/2007 16:35 From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 19 16:13:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:13:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On 2/18/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Now I am being misrepresented. I do not support Nigel's use of >> the loaded term "rationalise" to describe Herman De Wael. My >> description of the De Wael School would be "idiosyncratic". (See >> parallel thread.) > > While I don't agree with most of Nigel's post, I think that he is > entirely appropriate to use "loaded" terms to describe Herman's > approach towards disclosure. Personally, I'd go far beyond > "rationalize". I think that Herman cheats. > Richard, we've been through this a lot of times. There are two conflicting laws here, and not even the WBFLC wishes to help us out. I believe one thing, you may believe another. But I do not call you a cheat for breaking L75D2. I wish not to be called a cheat for following it. I demand an apology. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 16:58:08 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:58:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> On 2/19/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Richard, we've been through this a lot of times. There are two > conflicting laws here, and not even the WBFLC wishes to help us out. I > believe one thing, you may believe another. > But I do not call you a cheat for breaking L75D2. > I wish not to be called a cheat for following it. > I demand an apology. You're quite right Herman... We've been through this all before. For the moment, I prefer to restrict the discussion to the so-called Herman 1H opening which I consider far more egregious than the De Wael School in general. Its (probably) worth summarizing the debate for the benefit of members of this mailing list who weren't present during the "I did it again" thread back in May, 2005. Anyone wishing to review the complete thread is welcome to consult http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2005-May/thread.html#23416 Herman plays a two-way 1 Heart opening in Third seat. 99.99% of the time, the 1H openings shows a fairly standard 1H opening. However, Herman will also open 1H with appropriate hands holding 0-3 HCP. Herman has stated that he will always open 1H if he is dealt a hand that qualifies for the weak hand type. Herman claims that the weak hand type is so rare that he shouldn't disclose the possibility that he might hold the weak hand type to his opponents. It is right and proper for him to describe the bid as a standard 1H opening. I claim that Herman's third seat 1H opening is a conventional opening bid. The relative frequency of the two hand different hand types does not impact the conventional nature of the bid. Moreover, this conventional opening qualifies as a Brown Sticker Convention and would appear to be illegal in many tournaments that take place in Belgium. I argue that Herman is using selective disclosure to do an end run around the Convention licensing system. I suggested a fairly simple way to resolve this issue. Herman should submit this question to the appropriate authorities in Belgium and allow them to reach a ruling. Herman refused, stating that the authorities would make the wrong ruling. To summarize my position: 1.Herman is making illegal use of Brown Sticker Convention 2.Herman has been informed of this fact 3.Herman refuses to change his behavior or even check with the authorities to make sure that his interpretation is correct Sorry. I'm to about to apologize... From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Feb 19 17:29:56 2007 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:29:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Yet another Ghestem misbid In-Reply-To: <001001c75437$1b428ff0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: The director ruled that this was an attempted purposeful correction and the player should complete the correction. Q1 At the stage that N has indicated that he wished to change his bid, but has not yet done so, could he elect to remain with his original call and not go through L25B? ________________________________________________________________________ IMHO, yes. Law 25B reads: Until LHO calls, a call MAY be substituted.... I see nothing in TFLB about an attempted correction and obligation to complete the correction... Law 25 applies when a call IS changed. "I want to change my call" is UI. If I am wrong, there is a big problem. Many times a player calls the TD saying "May I do this and what are consequences". Then he would have to proceed because he attempted to ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 19 17:39:19 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:39:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've just read the minutes from Dallas. They indicate that the ACBLLC intends to submit some questions for clarifications *in the upcoming new laws* to the drafting committee. I was asking if the ACBLLC had ever asked the WBFLC for clarification of *existing* laws, in aid of making rulings under those laws. Seems to me that's a different kettle of fish. From adam at irvine.com Mon Feb 19 17:51:08 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:51:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:44:02 +1100." Message-ID: <200702191650.IAA17310@mailhub.irvine.com> > EBU casebook 2001, appeal number 1 > > Tournament Director: > Eddie Williams > > Appeals Committee: > Heather Dhondy (Chairman) Alan Kay > Brian Callaghan > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1D > Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > Dble 3NT Pass 4NT(2) > Pass 5D Pass 6C > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Break in tempo. Not alerted, but > intended to be a splinter bid, club > support and a singleton spade > (2) Simple Blackwood > > AK732 > 95432 > 4 > T2 > 64 Q > KQ86 AJ > Q3 AKT76 > AJ754 KQ863 > JT985 > T7 > J9852 > 9 > > Result at table: > 6C making by West, NS -920 [portions of original snipped below] > Director first called: > At end of hand > > North queried why East had gone on after > 3NT as that was surely a signoff. Phbbbbbbt. North needs some bridge lessons. > Director's ruling: > Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3): > 20% 6S doubled -3 by N/S, NS -800 > +80% 6C making by West, NS -920 > > Details of ruling: > There is misinformation but little damage. > > Appeals Committee decision: > Director's ruling upheld > Both deposits returned > > Appeals Committee's comments: > We felt that although E was in receipt of > unauthorised information, it was normal to > bid over 3NT. Although N/S have been > deprived of a chance to bid 6S, it wasn't > likely to happen in practice and so 20% > seems about right. > > Ron Johnson (casebook commentator): > > "It seems to me that both the committee and > the director were generous to North-South. > I don't see anything approaching a 20% > chance that North-South would have bid 6S > with an alert of 3S. This raises an interesting question. Perhaps if E-W were on the same wavelength, there's little chance that N-S would have bid 6S. Obviously, after 1D-2C-3S, if West had interpreted the bid correctly (and alerted it correctly), he wouldn't have bid 3NT. Something like 4NT (Blackwood) seems more likely. So there would have been less room for N-S to show their suit---and they wouldn't have had information about the misunderstanding. The problem here, IMHO, is that, according to what I believe the consensus is, N-S were entitled to the information that 3S was a splinter, but when we decide what would have been a likely probable auction, we still assume that West would have explained the splinter correctly and then forgotten that it was a splinter. It seems likely that, armed with both these pieces of information (that East bid 3S as a splinter, and that West thought East was showing a real suit), North could have figured out that N-S had a big spade fit. And I believe that we are to assume that North was *entitled* to *both* pieces of information. Whether this means that North (or South) would have saved, at this vulnerability, I don't know. A 20% probability doesn't seem too far off to me. I think the director and AC did a good job on this one. > Pass is simply not a logical alternative for East at this point. 100% correct. I still maintain that 3S was not a logical alternative, but on this layout it wouldn't matter since North is always leading a spade. -- Adam From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 19 18:03:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On 2/19/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Richard, we've been through this a lot of times. There are two >> conflicting laws here, and not even the WBFLC wishes to help us out. I >> believe one thing, you may believe another. >> But I do not call you a cheat for breaking L75D2. >> I wish not to be called a cheat for following it. >> I demand an apology. > You're quite right Herman... We've been through this all before. > > For the moment, I prefer to restrict the discussion to the so-called > Herman 1H opening which I consider far more egregious than the De Wael > School in general. > > Its (probably) worth summarizing the debate for the benefit of members > of this mailing list who weren't present during the "I did it again" > thread back in May, 2005. Anyone wishing to review the complete > thread is welcome to consult > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2005-May/thread.html#23416 > > Herman plays a two-way 1 Heart opening in Third seat. 99.99% of the > time, the 1H openings shows a fairly standard 1H opening. However, > Herman will also open 1H with appropriate hands holding 0-3 HCP. > Herman has stated that he will always open 1H if he is dealt a hand > that qualifies for the weak hand type. > > Herman claims that the weak hand type is so rare that he shouldn't > disclose the possibility that he might hold the weak hand type to his > opponents. It is right and proper for him to describe the bid as a > standard 1H opening. > > I claim that Herman's third seat 1H opening is a conventional opening > bid. The relative frequency of the two hand different hand types does > not impact the conventional nature of the bid. Moreover, this > conventional opening qualifies as a Brown Sticker Convention and would > appear to be illegal in many tournaments that take place in Belgium. > I argue that Herman is using selective disclosure to do an end run > around the Convention licensing system. > > I suggested a fairly simple way to resolve this issue. Herman should > submit this question to the appropriate authorities in Belgium and > allow them to reach a ruling. Herman refused, stating that the > authorities would make the wrong ruling. > > To summarize my position: > > 1.Herman is making illegal use of Brown Sticker Convention > 2.Herman has been informed of this fact > 3.Herman refuses to change his behavior or even check with the > authorities to make sure that his interpretation is correct > > Sorry. I'm to about to apologize... > > The problem with this line of reasoning is that it bans all psyches. I am being honest here, which is easy because I only do one kind of psyche. But I am certain that people like John Probst have many situations in which they "always" psyche. John is also honest about that, but there are many others out there who perform a psyche and do not realize that it is a situation that they would repeat the psyche in, if it were to come up again. Now if all we have to go on in order to outlaw this particular type of psyche is the honesty of the psycher, then we are on the wrong path. So it cannot be the statement "which such cards, I will make such-and-such non-systemic action" which makes the action systemic. Rather, it has to be things like relative frequency (99.99% sums it up rather nicely) and ways of catching the psyche (I refuse to play Drury) that determine whether some action is systemic or not. Which of course does nothing in the way of disclosability - my actions must be disclosed, all the more since I am aware of my tendencies. But it does not make them systemic and therefore not brown (and I should think it would make them HUM, not brown - but that's another matter still). BTW, I did not write the demand of an apology on the allegation that I am using HUM, I wrote it on the accusation of me cheating when I do not explain my partner's bid according to system but according to what he meant, in order not to trespass against L75D2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 19 18:07:56 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:07:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another Ghestem misbid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c75448$81510ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Nobody is required to complete his activity after an irregularity until he have been given the complete information on consequences from his subsequent action (or lack of action when that is an option). So an expression like "I (may) wish to change my call" (under L25B) is not binding on the offender. (A request that qualifies under L25A _is_ binding, as the implication is that the first call was never made). Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Laval Dubreuil > Sent: 19. februar 2007 17:30 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another Ghestem misbid > > > The director ruled that this was an attempted purposeful correction and > the player should complete the correction. > > Q1 At the stage that N has indicated that he wished to change his bid, > but has not yet done so, could he elect to remain with his original call > and not go through L25B? > ________________________________________________________________________ > IMHO, yes. > > Law 25B reads: Until LHO calls, a call MAY be substituted.... > I see nothing in TFLB about an attempted correction and obligation > to complete the correction... > Law 25 applies when a call IS changed. > "I want to change my call" is UI. Until they have > > If I am wrong, there is a big problem. Many times a player calls the > TD saying "May I do this and what are consequences". Then he > would have to proceed because he attempted to ? > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 19 19:18:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:18:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker Message-ID: <45D9E9FA.2000309@NTLworld.com> [Spin-off from rules poll thread] Some categories of rule-breaker at Bridge (defining *rules* = *laws* + *regulations etc..*) Those who... 1. Make a mechanical error (slip of the hand). eg Pull a wrong card or wrong bid. 2. Perceive the situation wrongly (slip of the mind). eg Think that they are dealer, or miss-sort their hand. 3. Are ignorant of the rules. eg As a spectator, imagine that it's OK for you to tell the director about an alleged infraction by a player that you suspect of cheating. 4. Misinterpret the rules eg Believe that the law requires you to ignore unauthorised information -- rather than to lean over backwards to avoid suggested logical alternatives. 5. Misinterpret law-makers *intentions*. eg Reading... (i) "If you don't know you mustn't guess" to mean that "you need divulge only those agreements of which you are certain" (ii) "General knowledge and experience" to cover more than the law-makers may have intended. 6. Think that they know the rules but believe rules to be inconsistent and so choose the rule that they prefer. eg When a local regulation seems to conflict with a law (eg psychs). 7. Know the rules and try to follow them but find them impossible to apply. eg Cannot perform the terrifying feats of imagination necessary to expunge from consideration all the unauthorised information available from partner's penalty card and the circumstances when it became established). 8. Know the rules, but judge them too ridiculous to follow. ie They know better. 9. Know the rules, but feel that they must break them to get a fair game. eg Because "everybody else does". 10. Know the rules, but feel justified in breaking them because they estimate the chances of being ruled against as low; and deem that the penalties cannot be intended to deter. ie "Law-makers aren't really serious about enforcing them". 11. Know the rules but adopt a cavalier attitude to rules of any kind. eg At the extreme, some such people might be designated anarchists. 12. Know the rules, accept that rule-breaking is wrong, but do so, anyway, to gain cudos or financial reward. ie True cheats. Examples 3-10 illustrate that law-makers must shoulder some of the blame because they produce fragmented sophisticated subjective rules. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 19:22:29 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:22:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> > The problem with this line of reasoning is that it bans all psyches. I > am being honest here, which is easy because I only do one kind of > psyche. But I am certain that people like John Probst have many > situations in which they "always" psyche. John is also honest about > that, but there are many others out there who perform a psyche and do > not realize that it is a situation that they would repeat the psyche > in, if it were to come up again. Comment 1: I have long maintained that the existing regulations regarding psyches are conceptually flawed. The legal construct that we describe as a "psyche" does not accurately reflect the strategic decisions being made by bridge players. Furthermore, I don't believe that we can resolve these inconsistencies by forcing players to align their intentions/motives with a definition that Dorthey Sims coined 70+ years ago. Rather, I believe that we need to bring the Laws into alignment with the strategies that the players wish to employ. The concept of a "psyche" should be dropped from the Law books and replaced with more accurate definitions based on multi-meaning bids and mixed strategies. Once we have defined appropriate vocabulary to frame the problem we might actually be able to have some intelligent discussions. Comment 2: Regardless of my thoughts regarding re-writing TFLB, looking at the regulations as they currently stand the Herman 1H opening does not qualify as a psyche. This is a systemic opening bid. You've openly stated that your partner's alert your third seat pass as " too much for a psyche". Admittedly, you claim that you don't have any systemic follow-ups, however, where does it say that one needs to be playing a well designed system? Comment 3: I agree with your general theme... Its a piss poor state of affairs when the legal system ends up punishing people for being honest in describing their methods while rewarding those who lie. However, I would claim that the appropriate way to deal with this issue is to attempt to eliminate those parts of the regulatory structure that reward this type of behavior. Case in point: Here in ACBL land, we seem to have wrapped ourselves into knots over certain parts of the convention licensing system. The GCC bans players from playing a Muiderberg 2S opening where 2S promises a weak hand with 5+ Spades and a 4+ Card minor. Muiderberg is an unlicensed convention. However, players are allowed to play a weak 2S opening that promises 5+ Spades but denies (5332 / 6322 / 6331 / 7321 shape) or a side four card major. The two opening bids are identical. They promise the exact same set of hands. The only difference is the vocabulary used to describe them. I would argue that correct way to address this problem is to design convention regulations based on the set of hands show by the bid and NOT the written/verbal description. In much the same manner, if you believe that banning the Herman 1H opening will also ban all sorts of other psyches, the appropriate course of action is to deal with the issue directly and openly, not to carve out 1001 special exceptions. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 20 01:15:08 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:15:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au><2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com><45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com><45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c75484$670f9840$4104e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I claim that Herman's third seat 1H opening is a conventional opening > bid. The relative frequency of the two hand different hand types does > not impact the conventional nature of the bid. Moreover, this > conventional opening qualifies as a Brown Sticker Convention ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 2: Regardless of my thoughts regarding re-writing TFLB, > looking at the regulations as they currently stand the Herman 1H > opening does not qualify as a psyche. This is a systemic opening bid. > You've openly stated that your partner's alert your third seat pass > as " too much for a psyche". Admittedly, you claim that you don't > have any systemic follow-ups, however, where does it say that one > needs to be playing a well designed system? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- +=+ I agree that the bid is systemic. The method may be regulated under Law 40D. I disagree with the Brown Sticker classification. Under the WBF Systems Policy the bid is HUM, qualifying as such under clause 2.2.2. - the author says he will always open 1H in 3rd seat with 0-3 HCP so that 'Pass' here always shows at least 4 HCP. The EBL Systems Policy contains an identical provision. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 20 04:20:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:20:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Broken the second rule of war [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D6BFA6.7070507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus (blml posting): >>This deal illustrates the danger in any "Rule of Coincidence": Mere >>coincidence could lead to automatic rulings, but you have to get to >>the bottom of the case anyway to determine whether there was (in >>this case) misinformation and resulting damage. [snip] >>This often puts you in a difficult position regarding explanations, >>since you want to disclose every aspect of the bidding without >>giving the show away by explaining things the opps are not entitled >>to be told. [snip] >>So telling them what the system is is the way to go, letting them >>fend for themselves and letting the TD sort it out if need be. I >>wonder what Herman has to say about this. I am fairly confident >>that he recognized the deal too, having been a commentator in this >>casebook. This case has some aspects touching the dWs. Herman De Wael (casebook commentator): >Two separate cases. I don't think the 3H misbid is in need of a >ruling. > >As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't believe >this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ this tactic >should inform opponents of the possibility. Of course, that is >difficult in an actual case, but at least a general mention on the >convention card should draw the attention to it. Richard Hills: Yes, the 3H misbid did not cause damage, since South found the only opening lead which could defeat the contract and the misbidding dummy became visible after the opening lead. But suppose this hypothetical scenario existed: a misbid by West is a 20% chance when the opponents are silent with an assumed eleven or twelve card fit, but is a mere 2% chance when the opponents are silent with an assumed fit of ten cards or fewer. With such exotic hypothetical partnership experience, what must East disclose? (If I was East I would pre-alert the possibility of an error before the round started, but I would join Matthias in "telling the system" during the auction, since "the opps are not entitled to be told" that the questioner in a relay auction can see a heart void in their own hand.) As for Herman's second point, I agree that stating "asking for the king of spades" instead of "initially asking for the king of spades" was implicit misinformation, since the normal expectation is that a person using an asking bid about a specific card in a non-relay system (as, for example, in the Culbertson System) would not employ that asking bid when already holding that card. Of course, in the primitive stone-age Symmetric Relay system that I use (system notes emailed on request) there is no capacity to vary the relay to ask for specific cards, so I describe all of my pard's relays with the uniform explanation in deadpan tones, "Relay, asking me to describe my hand further." When playing against inexperienced opponents who have never met a relay system before, my repeated deadpan words sometimes cause them to break out into fits of giggles, creating a sociable atmosphere at the table. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 20 06:05:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:05:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >In case 33, the committee says that N-S should have known that a >hand limited by passing 1NT would never play Lebensohl, W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), H.M.S. Pinafore: What never? No, never! What, never? Hardly ever! Jerry Fusselman: >so EW's explanation must be disregarded, thus cancelling the MI. >(Table result stands for both sides.) [snip] >This principle that guided the committee should be tossed into a >garbage can. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Caesar and Cleopatra: Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. Richard Hills: Yes, those Appeals Committee members were indeed barbarians. Cincinnati 2000 casebook panellist Jeffrey Polisner: "Why should North have to waste brain cells to figure out that she was not given correct information......" Cincinnati 2000 casebook panellist Barry Rigal: ".....It is absurd to my mind to clear up a possible accident by E/W so as to position yourself better for the Committee; nothing happened at the table that made North aware of the accident until it was too late." Cincinnati 2000 casebook panellist David Stevenson: ".....it is hardly her responsibility to ask further questions to find out whether she has been misinformed. Furthermore, bridge logic in these complex positions often differs from pair to pair and I expect many pairs do play this as Lebensohl. "There was MI, there was damage, and there should have been an adjustment." Cincinnati 2000 casebook editor Rich Colker: "Bridge players experience mental aberrations at the table all the time. We have seen many examples in these pages of a player interpreting his partner's call as something which makes no sense in the context of the auction. When the opponents are experienced players (as North was here), they are obligated not to simply take the explanation at face value but to probe the auction further to protect themselves. ..... "I am not claiming that North had to be omniscient here. My argument is that East's explanation of 2NT as Lebensohl is illogical on the face of it and is prima facie evidence that this was not E/W's agreement, as West stated at the hearing. Since there was no MI (the 2NT bid logically should have been both minors, as West explained at the table; East simply misbid and should have bid 3C) the table result should stand. The illogic of the 2NT bid was compelling evidence....." Richard Hills: So there is compelling evidence that I am illogical. :-) In my partnership I have a specific agreement to use lebensohl as a passed hand, thus distinguishing between maximum passed hand values (a direct 3D) and minimum competitive values (3D via 2NT). If pard has a maximum 1NT opening with a good diamond fit, pard is permitted to convert my direct 3D to 3NT. And even if an opponent gives an explanation stating that they play a truly meritless agreement (as, for example, the notorious Hoffmeister Notrump convention), opponents are entitled to adopt - and do adopt - truly meritless agreements. It seems to me that West should have explained East's 2NT as "no agreement" or "undiscussed". It seems to me that Rich Colker is verging upon membership of the De Wael School by arguing that _mutual_ partnership agreements can be created by a _unilateral_ interpretation of "bridge logic". :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 20 11:07:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Herman claims that the weak hand type is so rare that he shouldn't > disclose the possibility that he might hold the weak hand type to his > opponents. In most competitions it isn't Herman's role to disclose the possibility. The responsibility for disclosure rests with a partner of Herman's who is aware of that possibility. Insofar as I am aware Herman recommends such disclosure. > I claim that Herman's third seat 1H opening is a conventional opening > bid. But it isn't. It's an habitual psych which, were Herman using a WBF CC (and playing with a familiar partner), would appear under the relevant section of the CC: The policy states "Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event." It's disclosable, it's not Brown Sticker. Indeed the DeWael 1H might almost be a poster child for a disclosable psyching habit. BTW Herman, I've played a fair amount with Probst and I'm not aware of any situations in which he *always* psychs. I'm aware of a number of situations in which he has a tendency to psych and duly disclose those situations as mandated by the SO for the given event. There are also a few sequences where we have incorporated the "psych" into our agreements (rendering it a regulated convention and not a psych any more). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 20 11:07:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker In-Reply-To: <45D9E9FA.2000309@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > 3. Are ignorant of the rules. eg As a spectator, imagine that it's > OK for you to tell the director about an alleged infraction by a > player that you suspect of cheating. Why do you say this sort of thing Nigel? The laws forbid the spectator to draw the attention of the players (or captains) to any irregularity. The law does not forbid a player from raising concerns privately with the TD. If you tell any TD in the UK (and probably elsewhere) you have seen something that you are worried may have been cheating he will ask you what you saw. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM! Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 20 12:38:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:38:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> Hello Richard, Well thought out post of yours. Deserves a well thought out answer. richard willey wrote: >> The problem with this line of reasoning is that it bans all psyches. I >> am being honest here, which is easy because I only do one kind of >> psyche. But I am certain that people like John Probst have many >> situations in which they "always" psyche. John is also honest about >> that, but there are many others out there who perform a psyche and do >> not realize that it is a situation that they would repeat the psyche >> in, if it were to come up again. > > > > Comment 1: I have long maintained that the existing regulations > regarding psyches are conceptually flawed. The legal construct that > we describe as a "psyche" does not accurately reflect the strategic > decisions being made by bridge players. Furthermore, I don't believe > that we can resolve these inconsistencies by forcing players to align > their intentions/motives with a definition that Dorthey Sims coined > 70+ years ago. Rather, I believe that we need to bring the Laws into > alignment with the strategies that the players wish to employ. The > concept of a "psyche" should be dropped from the Law books and > replaced with more accurate definitions based on multi-meaning bids > and mixed strategies. Once we have defined appropriate vocabulary to > frame the problem we might actually be able to have some intelligent > discussions. > I don't believe that we need to write down a definition af a psyche to handle the problems. We all know what psyches are, and we think we know the same things. > Comment 2: Regardless of my thoughts regarding re-writing TFLB, > looking at the regulations as they currently stand the Herman 1H > opening does not qualify as a psyche. This is a systemic opening bid. > You've openly stated that your partner's alert your third seat pass > as " too much for a psyche". Admittedly, you claim that you don't > have any systemic follow-ups, however, where does it say that one > needs to be playing a well designed system? > The alert of a pass is a joke. And my comment remains. I am the honest one here, every other psyche out there will probably qualify in some way as well. > Comment 3: I agree with your general theme... Its a piss poor state > of affairs when the legal system ends up punishing people for being > honest in describing their methods while rewarding those who lie. > However, I would claim that the appropriate way to deal with this > issue is to attempt to eliminate those parts of the regulatory > structure that reward this type of behavior. > Reward what kind? Shutting up? Yes, exactly. By not ruling against people who are being honest, we do not reward the shutting up. > Case in point: Here in ACBL land, we seem to have wrapped ourselves > into knots over certain parts of the convention licensing system. The > GCC bans players from playing a Muiderberg 2S opening where 2S > promises a weak hand with 5+ Spades and a 4+ Card minor. Muiderberg > is an unlicensed convention. However, players are allowed to play a > weak 2S opening that promises 5+ Spades but denies (5332 / 6322 / 6331 > / 7321 shape) or a side four card major. The two opening bids are > identical. They promise the exact same set of hands. The only > difference is the vocabulary used to describe them. I would argue > that correct way to address this problem is to design convention > regulations based on the set of hands show by the bid and NOT the > written/verbal description. > > In much the same manner, if you believe that banning the Herman 1H > opening will also ban all sorts of other psyches, the appropriate > course of action is to deal with the issue directly and openly, not to > carve out 1001 special exceptions. > Indeed. And is there any reason to ban the Herman 1H? So why are you trying to read something into a regulation that we don't need? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 14:36:55 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:36:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> <45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> > I don't believe that we need to write down a definition af a psyche to > handle the problems. We all know what psyches are, and we think we > know the same things. This strikes me as ludicrous. The core of our argument boils down to whether your 1H opening represents a psyche or a systemic bid. No one seems able to agree about this basic point: Grattan says that it appears to be systemic Probst says that he's not sure Tim agrees with you While the majority of the list is too sensible to post to this thread, I suspect that their opinions are also divided. To me, this suggests that the existing definition is flawed in some way. Moreover, if the members of this list can't agree on this type of issue, what hope do we have of getting consistent answers from the TDs who administer local tournaments? >And is there any reason to ban the Herman 1H? So why are you trying to read something >into a regulation that we don't need? I am much more concerned with first principles than your desire to open 1H on a 2 count every other year. As I noted in an earlier example, one of my primary concerns is that that convention licensing structures should be based on the set of hands shown by a bid and not the specific verbiage than one uses to describe this. I offered the analogy of trying to play a Muiderberg 2S opening in the ACBL and claimed that it was inconsistent to ban the opening if it were described in one manner but allow the opening if it were described in another. In much the same fashion: You claim that the Herman 1H opening should be allowed because you chose to describe it as a psyche. I claim that the Herman 1H opening should be described as systemic (and therefore, it falls afoul of certain portions of the convention licensing structure). I would prefer to see the regulations brought into alignment: The Herman 1H opening should be sanctioned regardless of how one describes it or it should be banned regardless of how one describes it. (For what its worth, I think that you should be allow to use this opening). However, I'm much less concerned with your ability to use this opening than I am about the WAY in which you protect your right to play the Herman 1H opening. 1. You deliberately refuse to disclose your methods to the opponents 2. You deliberately refuse to bring your method to the attention of the local regulatory authorities From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 20 15:36:55 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:36:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003501c754fc$91e08250$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard willey > > I don't believe that we need to write down a definition af a psyche to > > handle the problems. We all know what psyches are, and we think we > > know the same things. > > This strikes me as ludicrous. The core of our argument boils down to > whether your 1H opening represents a psyche or a systemic bid. No one > seems able to agree about this basic point: > > Grattan says that it appears to be systemic > Probst says that he's not sure > Tim agrees with you Frankly I do not understand this discussion: It is a privilege to have a call classified (accepted) as a psyche. The main condition (very simplified) is that the call shall come as surprising to partner at least as much as it surprising to opponents. The bonus of having a call classified as a psyche is that it is not regulated by law in any way. (Its use can to some degree be limited by regulations). If it is the experience that a particular player (always, frequently, regularly, sometimes - have your own choice) in third hand with less than say 4HCP opens in for instance 1H then he shall not be granted the privilege of having that bid classified as a psyche, it is part of his system. And by the way, if this experience is not disclosed to opponents in a proper manner then the partnership has a concealed partnership understanding with all its consequences. It is as simple as that. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 20 16:22:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c75484$670f9840$4104e150@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I agree that the bid is systemic. The method may be regulated > under Law 40D. I disagree with the Brown Sticker classification. > Under the WBF Systems Policy the bid is HUM, qualifying as such under > clause 2.2.2. - the author says he will always open 1H in 3rd seat > with 0-3 HCP so that 'Pass' here always shows at least 4 HCP. Perhaps I have misremembered - I thought it was 0-3hcp *and* short hearts - thus a pass *doesn't* promise any values at all. Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 20 17:13:42 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:13:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com> > [Nigel] > >> 3. Are ignorant of the rules. eg As a spectator, imagine that it's >> OK for you to tell the director about an alleged infraction by a >> player that you suspect of cheating. > [Tim West-Meads] > Why do you say this sort of thing Nigel? The laws forbid the spectator > to draw the attention of the players (or captains) to any irregularity. > The law does not forbid a player from raising concerns privately with > the TD. If you tell any TD in the UK (and probably elsewhere) you have > seen something that you are worried may have been cheating he will ask > you what you saw. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM! [Nige2] Laws 75-76 is clear: Spectators are never allowed to broach any factual or legal matter with the director. During the round, a spectator may not converse with a player. Directors, players and spectators retain their roles when they encounter each other in the loo or anywhere else. It seems that you may tell the director you are worried about something only if it is has nothing to do with facts or laws. [TFLB L76B] A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Feb 20 18:03:10 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:03:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker In-Reply-To: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com> References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> Nigel schrieb: >> [Nigel] >> >> >>> 3. Are ignorant of the rules. eg As a spectator, imagine that it's >>> OK for you to tell the director about an alleged infraction by a >>> player that you suspect of cheating. >>> >> [Tim West-Meads] >> Why do you say this sort of thing Nigel? The laws forbid the spectator >> to draw the attention of the players (or captains) to any irregularity. >> The law does not forbid a player from raising concerns privately with >> the TD. If you tell any TD in the UK (and probably elsewhere) you have >> seen something that you are worried may have been cheating he will ask >> you what you saw. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM! >> > > [Nige2] > Laws 75-76 is clear: Spectators are never allowed to broach any factual > or legal matter with the director. During the round, a spectator may > not converse with a player. Directors, players and spectators retain > their roles when they encounter each other in the loo or anywhere else. > It seems that you may tell the director you are worried about something > only if it is has nothing to do with facts or laws. > > [TFLB L76B] > A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor > speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. > > > You do not remain a spectator for the rest of your life, do you? Even if you remain a spectator while recycling used drinks (which is not clear to me, but let us say so for arguments sake), there comes the time when the segment or the mach or the tournament ends, and without doubt you are no longer a spectator, a player, a director. So anyone is free to talk to anyone else, even if that would have violated a law while the tournament was in progress. And even if you did: Law 76 is about not giving someone an advantage or disadvantage because some kibitzer couldn`t keep his mouth shut, it is not about cheating. So what`s the problem with telling a director that you think someone cheats? Do you want to tell me that cheating may never be uncovered by a spectator? Be serious. Any TD will do whatever his SO calls for, and no comittee or governing body will say otherwise. I do not care for anything that can be read into the laws if you are willing to bend the language far enough. I care about what the rules are intended for, and I maintain that this intention can be determined with a little bit of common sense in at least 99% of cases, and the rest can be seen when one applies some logic. We all wish for clearer wording of TFLB, but we can manage quite well with what we have. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 20 18:03:51 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:03:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45DB29F7.7090608@NTLworld.com> wrote: > [Grattan] > >> +=+ I agree that the bid is systemic. The method may be regulated >> under Law 40D. I disagree with the Brown Sticker classification. >> Under the WBF Systems Policy the bid is HUM, qualifying as such under >> clause 2.2.2. - the author says he will always open 1H in 3rd seat >> with 0-3 HCP so that 'Pass' here always shows at least 4 HCP. >> > [Tim West-Meads] > Perhaps I have misremembered - I thought it was 0-3hcp *and* short hearts > - thus a pass *doesn't* promise any values at all. > [nige1] Herman's bid is still systemic because partner is more likely to recognize it than opponents. Some time ago, I suggested an even more convoluted treatment... On the first round, with a poor hand, "psych" a if you have four deuces; "psych" b if you have four treys; etc .... On the nth round, with a poor hand, "psych" x if you have 2345 of clubs; "psych" y if you have 2345 of diamonds. And so on, for various specific sets of cards. Advantages of such a "pysch" protocol are that: (i) "Psychs" are unpredictable. (ii) "Psychs" are extremely rare. (iii) For example, if parter holds a deuce (say), then he knows that bid (a) is *not* a psych. Unfortunately, as Grattan points out, these are all systemic bids not psychs From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 20 18:54:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:54:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <003901c7537f$7b7a8ed0$6400a8c0@rota> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@mail.gmail.com> <003901c7537f$7b7a8ed0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070220093455.02e7d240@pop.starpower.net> At 12:08 PM 2/18/07, David wrote: >Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Here is one: Albequerque 1997 has a nonalerted support redouble (case > > 23), where the committee says the NOS should have asked if it was a > > support redouble because they play the same convention. > >The Casebook editor quotes what is probably an older version of the same >statement: >"Adjustments for violations are not automatic. . . an opponent who >actually >knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly >informed, may >not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without >clarifying the situation." > >In this case, the auction was (1C)-P-(1S)-X-(XX)-2S-AP. The NOS claimed >that the partner of the 2S bidder took 2S as natural, and the >Committee also >ruled that an experienced player should not take 2S as natural >regardless of >the meaning of the double, so it's not clear whether failure to >protect was >the actual reason for the failure to adjust. (The OS was awarded >average-minus, which was a mistake; it should have been a PP.) > > > Here are three more: Cases 29, 33, and 36 of Cincinnati 2000, and all > > deny any adjustment for MI due to "inadequate self protection." I am > > especially interested in case 36, and I have some questions about it > > at the end. > > > > In case 29, all agree there was MI, and all agree that had there been > > no MI, E-W would have had no problem. Both sides got the table result > > (great for N-S). The consensus was that E-W should have known that a > > possibly short 1D opening must have been limited and Precision without > > being told so. Well, one knew it was Precision, and one > > didn't---causing their disaster. > > > But I have heard of just such a system: A 15--17 notrump with > > 1D-P-1x-P-1NT showing 13-14 and 1C-P-1x-P-1NT showing 11-12. This is > > not Precision, but it would also have the alert that 1D might have > > two. > >Denying the adjustment here is clear. South said that 1D "could be as >short >as two", and since E-W played different methods over a Precision 1D >and over >a natural 1D that could be a doubleton, it is the E-W responsibility >to get >their understandings straight. > >Under today's rules, there would not even be a N-S infraction; Sould >would >announce "Could be short", and if it matters to E-W, they would have >to ask. > > > In case 33, the committee says that N-S should have known that a hand > > limited by passing 1NT would never play Lebensohl, so EW's explanation > > must be disregarded, thus cancelling the MI. > >There are times that an explanation is clearly incorrect. I have heard a >call explained as "weak jump shift" when it was not a jump, and I would >expect to lose any adjustment if I didn't follow up on that >problem. But >there are enough unusual agreements out there, and different variants >of the >same convention, that players can't be expected to treat every surprising >explanation as impossible. > > > In case 36, West deals and the auction goes 2S-P-3H-all pass. 3H was > > not alerted, though it should have been, because it was nonforcing. > > Here the NOS supposedly should have known to protect themselves with a > > director call at the correct time. This time, the OS does lose their > > result, but the NOS get the table result due to inadequate protection, > > even though the panel determined that South would have entered the > > auction with the correct information. > > > > After his final pass, North found out by asking East that 3H was not > > forcing. The director was called after trick two, which doomed the > > NOS, for the director did not ask at that time if they would have done > > anything differently with correct information. Let us look at the > > crucial decision of when to call the director: > > > > After East's 3H call? Cohen suggested South calling the director here > > if "he sensed a failure to Alert a nonforcing 3H bid." Wolff and > > Colker say that South calling the director here is a bad idea because > > it could restrict North's options in the auction and play. > >This was one of the points I made. After (2S)-P-(3H), not alerted, South >creates UI if he asks, is told 3H is not alertable, and then >passes. South >has no reason to suspect anything wrong and has no obligation to protect >himself at this point. > > > After West passed? Director said that since North and South failed to > > call here, there shall be no adjustment for either side. Gerard said > > "of course there was no reason to call then, [unless] North was > > considering balancing." > >The call is not mandatory here. N/S can suspect MI, but West could have >taken a view and passed a forcing bid, or forgotten the agreement >himself. >North had nothing to say and no need to ask. South could have called the >director at this point, but it's not his turn, and he doesn't need to >think >about the MI immediately. > > > After North's final pass? Panel, and several reviewers said this was > > NS's last chance to earn an adjustment. Stevenson doubts that this > > ruling is really legal. > >E/W should have corrected the MI themselves, with or without North's >question, and (in theory) called the TD, which would have solved the >problems. Typically, what I do in this situation is to say, "There was a >failure to alert; 3H was non-forcing. Please call the TD if you might >have >bid differently." (95% of the time that partner forgets to alert one >of my >calls, there is no possible damage.) I believe David's analysis to this point to be entirely correct. >But the panel is correct that this is the right time to call, and a >Flight A >pair (this was Flight B) might lose any redress if South knows he has >been >misinformed, leads, and then claims damage from MI later. This is the right time to call *if* E-W did indeed properly correct the MI themselves. But if they didn't, there is nothing to trigger N-S's presumption that anything is amiss, so there is no reason for them to call at this point. If they have been presumed to this point that East has chosen to pass a forcing bid, the lack of a correction only reinforces this. It must be OK for them to call at some later time, such as... > > When dummy is spread? Endicott said, "The time to call the Director > > was when dummy hit the deck." > >This makes no sense. If dummy's call had been misexplained, then the TD >should be called when dummy is visible. However, it is declarer's >call that >was misexplained, and South already knows about MI. Sure it does. West has passed a bid which N-S were presuming to be forcing. It is when the dummy hits that they can, for the first time, determine that West's hand is inconsistent with having done so. That provides them with their first actionable indication that something *must* have gone amiss, hence that there may have been an irregularity, and so "puts the ball in their court". It becomes incumbent upon them to find out at this point what has been going on, either by calling the TD, or by quizzing the opponents (it is still possible at this point, for example, that West has simply forgotten and misbid), then calling the TD if (when, in this case) the MI comes to light. >The actual director call, after trick two, should have had the same >rights >as a call when dummy went down. It might have taken South some time to >realize the damage; if he was allowed to call during trick one, he >shouldn't >lose any further rights by calling one trick later. David's analysis of the "double shot" problem (below) suggests that N-S's right to an adjustment may be compromised at the point where it becomes obvious to them that an adjustment would be likely to produce a better result for their side than is about to be obtained at the table. That could happen as early as trick two, but normally wouldn't. > > After the hand is completed? Maybe N-S cannot tell for sure they were > > damaged until after the hand is finished. Are you supposed to call > > every time there is MI, or only when you have reason to believe you > > might have been damaged? > >If the NOS doesn't correct the MI until the end of the hand (either >because >they are following the Law as defenders, or because they neglected to >correct the MI when they should), a call at the end of the hand is always >timely. > >But if the NOS know, or should know, that they have been misinformed, >they >may lose their rights because of the possibility of two-way shots. It >doesn't apply in this case, but I will present a hypothetical example in >which the adjustment should be denied because the TD call was too late. > >South opens 1NT, explained by North as 12-14 but the correct agreement is >15-17, all pass. South corrects the MI at the end of the >auction. East is >5=2=4=2, and the E-W agreement is to bid 2D with diamonds and a major >over a >strong NT (DONT) but 2S with spades and a minor over a weak NT >(Cappelletti). East claims that he would not bid 2S and take the risk of >getting to 3D over a weak NT but would bid 2D over a strong NT. If >the TD >is called at the end of the auction, East gets to bid his 2D, and he >may get >+110 or -200 depending on partner's hand, just as if he had been properly >informed. If the TD is called at the end of the hand, after 1NT makes >one >for -90, East should not now get +110 or -90. When "South corrects the MI at the end of the auction", the TD must be called (L9B1). ISTM that when he is called only at the end of the play, TFLB allows the TD to use his discretion. He retains the power to adjust the score under L21B3/L40C. But he also has the power to "take away" that adjustment by applying L12A1 in favor of the original OS to redress the damage done to them by the original NOS's violation of L9B1 (which "do[es] not provide indemnity"). David makes a good argument in favor of the latter, but I don't see that the law mandates it. In any case, it would not be denying the original NOS their rights "because of the possibility of two-way shots", which has no basis in the law, but because of the commission of a specific irregularity, subsequent to the MI violation, which damaged the original OS. So it is available to the TD as an option only in those cases (such as David's example) in which calling the TD at the proper time could have affected the action at the table, thus creating "damage" from the failure to do so. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 20 20:09:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:09:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: <200702191650.IAA17310@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200702191650.IAA17310@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070220133608.030ca390@pop.starpower.net> At 11:51 AM 2/19/07, Adam wrote: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > > --- --- --- 1D > > Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) > > Dble 3NT Pass 4NT(2) > > Pass 5D Pass 6C > > Pass Pass Pass > > > > (1) Break in tempo. Not alerted, but > > intended to be a splinter bid, club > > support and a singleton spade > > (2) Simple Blackwood > > > > AK732 > > 95432 > > 4 > > T2 > > 64 Q > > KQ86 AJ > > Q3 AKT76 > > AJ754 KQ863 > > JT985 > > T7 > > J9852 > > 9 > > > > Result at table: > > 6C making by West, NS -920 > >[portions of original snipped below] > > > Director first called: > > At end of hand > > > > North queried why East had gone on after > > 3NT as that was surely a signoff. > >Phbbbbbbt. North needs some bridge lessons. > > > Director's ruling: > > Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3): > > 20% 6S doubled -3 by N/S, NS -800 > > +80% 6C making by West, NS -920 > > > > Details of ruling: > > There is misinformation but little damage. > > > > Appeals Committee decision: > > Director's ruling upheld > > Both deposits returned > > > > Appeals Committee's comments: > > We felt that although E was in receipt of > > unauthorised information, it was normal to > > bid over 3NT. Although N/S have been > > deprived of a chance to bid 6S, it wasn't > > likely to happen in practice and so 20% > > seems about right. > > > > Ron Johnson (casebook commentator): > > > > "It seems to me that both the committee and > > the director were generous to North-South. > > I don't see anything approaching a 20% > > chance that North-South would have bid 6S > > with an alert of 3S. > >This raises an interesting question. Perhaps if E-W were on the same >wavelength, there's little chance that N-S would have bid 6S. >Obviously, after 1D-2C-3S, if West had interpreted the bid correctly >(and alerted it correctly), he wouldn't have bid 3NT. Something like >4NT (Blackwood) seems more likely. So there would have been less room >for N-S to show their suit---and they wouldn't have had information >about the misunderstanding. > >The problem here, IMHO, is that, according to what I believe the >consensus is, N-S were entitled to the information that 3S was a >splinter, but when we decide what would have been a likely probable >auction, we still assume that West would have explained the splinter >correctly and then forgotten that it was a splinter. It seems likely >that, armed with both these pieces of information (that East bid 3S as >a splinter, and that West thought East was showing a real suit), North >could have figured out that N-S had a big spade fit. And I believe >that we are to assume that North was *entitled* to *both* pieces of >information. What are these "*both* pieces of information"? The first is that "3S was a splinter"; clearly North is entitled to know this. The second is that "when we decide what would have been a likely probably auction, we still assume that West would have... forgotten that it was a splinter". How can a possible future hypothetical presumption which would be made after the fact by a potential adjudicator (Adam's "we") turn into a "piece of information" to which North is entitled now? ISTM that North's is *entitled* to know only the auction and the agreed meaning of each of E-W's calls. He is, obviously, permitted to draw the inference that West has forgotten the meaning of 3S and is bidding consistently with having done so, but surely that is an inference taken at his own risk; he has no right to require West to confirm or deny having forgotten. With a SW-NE screen on the table, North would know that 3S was a splinter, but would have no clue that West had forgotten. The lack of a screen may affect what North may be able to observe, and consequently affect the inferences he might be able to derive (at his own risk) from his observations (here noticing that West failed to alert), but shouldn't have an effect on what information he is legally entitled to or what information should be presumed in adjudication to have, hypothetically, been available to him. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 20 20:52:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:52:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll In-Reply-To: <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070220141750.031c7d70@pop.starpower.net> At 12:03 PM 2/19/07, Herman wrote: >richard willey wrote: > > > Herman plays a two-way 1 Heart opening in Third seat. 99.99% of the > > time, the 1H openings shows a fairly standard 1H opening. However, > > Herman will also open 1H with appropriate hands holding 0-3 HCP. > > Herman has stated that he will always open 1H if he is dealt a hand > > that qualifies for the weak hand type. > > > > Herman claims that the weak hand type is so rare that he shouldn't > > disclose the possibility that he might hold the weak hand type to his > > opponents. It is right and proper for him to describe the bid as a > > standard 1H opening. > > > > I claim that Herman's third seat 1H opening is a conventional opening > > bid. The relative frequency of the two hand different hand types does > > not impact the conventional nature of the bid. Moreover, this > > conventional opening qualifies as a Brown Sticker Convention and would > > appear to be illegal in many tournaments that take place in Belgium. > > I argue that Herman is using selective disclosure to do an end run > > around the Convention licensing system. > >The problem with this line of reasoning is that it bans all psyches. I >am being honest here, which is easy because I only do one kind of >psyche. But I am certain that people like John Probst have many >situations in which they "always" psyche. John is also honest about >that, but there are many others out there who perform a psyche and do >not realize that it is a situation that they would repeat the psyche >in, if it were to come up again. > >Now if all we have to go on in order to outlaw this particular type of >psyche is the honesty of the psycher, then we are on the wrong path. > >So it cannot be the statement "which such cards, I will make >such-and-such non-systemic action" which makes the action systemic. Sure it can, and it does. If you take "such-and-such" action, and your partner knows that you may hold "such cards" for it, it is an agreement, thus by definition "systemic". This doesn't ban all psyches, but it does (or at least can be, and has been, interpreted to) ban the repetition of an essentially similar psych in an essentially similar situation without disclosure (or ban it outright if it would consitute an illegal agreement). [The ACBL has gone way overboard here, treating all psychs by a partnership as if they were "similar psychs in similar situations" -- the Oakie "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule -- but I consider that as absurd as Herman obviously does.] And since the legality of the putative psych may depend on whether or not it has been previously perpetrated with the same partner, it may indeed be the case that, for lack of a record of the partnership's past actions, "all we have to go on... is the honesty of they psycher." There's nothing new in that. >Rather, it has to be things like relative frequency (99.99% sums it up >rather nicely) and ways of catching the psyche (I refuse to play >Drury) that determine whether some action is systemic or not. As Richard says, "the relative frequency of the two different hand types does not impact the conventional nature of the bid". I have very specific agreements with my partners as to the nature of my conventional 4NT bids, by which 4NT (if conventional) will be RKCB 99.99% at least of the time and old-fashioned four-ace Blackwood less than 0.01% of the time. That doesn't make the latter a psych, or not a convention, or not part of my system. Herman's 0-3 HCP 1H openings are no different. And while I am somewhat sympathetic to Herman's view that whether or not the partnership has "ways of catching the psych" should affect its legality, TPTB have quite clearly stated otherwise: your opponents are entitled to base their actions on whatever you know about partner's tendencies whether or not that information can (or does) affect yours. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 20 20:55:44 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:55:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com> <45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> Message-ID: There you go again, Mathias! Trying to inject "common sense" into this thread. If we do that, it goes away, and then what is left for us to posture over? The English language? Most cheats that I have encountered over these many years were first suspected and brought to light by ex-spectators, discussions after the game, party room reviews of spectators, etc., and the like. To read the law and twist the words to defend a ludicrous interpretation is probably what the games of BLML are mostly about. There's a world of difference between alleging that the words used in the laws could be misinterpreted (in this case it would need someone without any knowledge of the game of bridge), and taking a stance that is silly. I used to get all excited up over this kind of sophistic reasoning, but I've mellowed and found it better for my blood pressure to just laugh. It's gratifying to find comments like yours and Tim's -- there's still hope for the game. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker > Nigel schrieb: > >> [Nigel] > >> > >> > >>> 3. Are ignorant of the rules. eg As a spectator, imagine that it's > >>> OK for you to tell the director about an alleged infraction by a > >>> player that you suspect of cheating. > >>> > >> [Tim West-Meads] > >> Why do you say this sort of thing Nigel? The laws forbid the spectator > >> to draw the attention of the players (or captains) to any irregularity. > >> The law does not forbid a player from raising concerns privately with > >> the TD. If you tell any TD in the UK (and probably elsewhere) you have > >> seen something that you are worried may have been cheating he will ask > >> you what you saw. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM! > >> > > > > [Nige2] > > Laws 75-76 is clear: Spectators are never allowed to broach any factual > > or legal matter with the director. During the round, a spectator may > > not converse with a player. Directors, players and spectators retain > > their roles when they encounter each other in the loo or anywhere else. > > It seems that you may tell the director you are worried about something > > only if it is has nothing to do with facts or laws. > > > > [TFLB L76B] > > A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor > > speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. > > > > > > > > You do not remain a spectator for the rest of your life, do you? Even if > you remain a spectator while recycling used drinks (which is not clear > to me, but let us say so for arguments sake), there comes the time when > the segment or the mach or the tournament ends, and without doubt you > are no longer a spectator, a player, a director. So anyone is free to > talk to anyone else, even if that would have violated a law while the > tournament was in progress. And even if you did: Law 76 is about not > giving someone an advantage or disadvantage because some kibitzer > couldn`t keep his mouth shut, it is not about cheating. So what`s the > problem with telling a director that you think someone cheats? Do you > want to tell me that cheating may never be uncovered by a spectator? Be > serious. Any TD will do whatever his SO calls for, and no comittee or > governing body will say otherwise. > I do not care for anything that can be read into the laws if you are > willing to bend the language far enough. I care about what the rules are > intended for, and I maintain that this intention can be determined with > a little bit of common sense in at least 99% of cases, and the rest can > be seen when one applies some logic. > We all wish for clearer wording of TFLB, but we can manage quite well > with what we have. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Feb 20 20:58:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:58:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D9B9AB.6020306@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: [big snip] >What percentage of infractions... [big snip] >[5] ... Result in a request by the victims to waive any >penalty. [big snip] Richard Hills replies: I am a beneficiary, not a "victim", when I choose to accept an opponent's insufficient bid in order to gain more bidding space for my side. As, for example, in the October 2006 thread "Insufficient rebid", when pard opened 1NT, RHO undercalled 1H, and I responded 1S. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 20 21:25:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:25:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Shape of Things to Come [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: None You, East, hold: 82 AKJT KQ5 A853 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2S Pass Pass ? (1) 15-17 (2) Alerted and explained as both majors You, East, now resort your hand to find: 8 AKJT KQ5 A8532 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 20 21:30:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:30:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: [big snip] >Where in the book does it say when to call the director >as MI gradually becomes more and more likely? Law 11A: The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 20 21:59:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:59:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D961D7.9050404@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Last night, my partner did not alert my 2C, which was check-back. >He subsequently bid 2H (my suit) which, by system, shows a minimum >hand. I did not alert, [snip] >Consider what I did not tell them: I did not tell them my partner >was limited to 12 points (in fact he did have 14). How would they >have felt if I had told them he had 12 points, they had doubled, >it would have made, and I would say "aha, but I did not MI you >since this IS our system". I still maintain that I am acting as >ethical as I can within the laws. Richard Hills: I do not disagree that Herman is acting within his idiosyncratic assessment of ethics. I merely dispute Herman's assertion that his actions are consistent with Law and the Lawful Belgian alert regulation (which presumably required that the systemic 2H should have been alerted). Law 80 gives the Belgian National Bridge Organisation the power to create an alert regulation. Law 81 gives the Director the power to interpret Law and regulation. Law 72A1 requires players (even Herman De Wael) to play "in strict accordance with the Laws". And, most importantly, Law 72A6 states: "The responsibility for penalising irregularities and redressing damage rests solely upon the Director and these Laws, not upon the players themselves." So even if the De Wael School interpretation is right, a De Wael School at-the-table action is wrong, since Herman is unilaterally infracting Law 72A6 by usurping the Law interpretation role which properly belongs to the Director and the Belgian NBO. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 20 22:32:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:32:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABCL Laws Commission minutes, Dallas, 1st April 2006: [big snip] >>We are told that this ambiguity is one that only the ACBL >>seems to have trouble with, and that to the rest of the >>world it is clear that the irregularity in question is the >>act of choosing the illegal LA. If that is the case we would >>still appreciate a clarification, since we would prefer laws >>with as little potential for misinterpretation as possible. [big snip] Ed Reppert: >I've just read the minutes from Dallas. They indicate that the >ACBLLC intends to submit some questions for clarifications *in >the upcoming new laws* to the drafting committee. I was asking >if the ACBLLC had ever asked the WBFLC for clarification of >*existing* laws, in aid of making rulings under those laws. >Seems to me that's a different kettle of fish. Richard Hills: Maybe so, but at least the fish is the same even if the kettle is different. I find it tremendously encouraging that the ACBL Laws Commission is avoiding the parochial "not invented here" trap, so is willing to consider adopting the Rest-of-the-world interpretation of Law 16. I also find it tremendously encouraging that the ACBL LC has a goal that the new Lawbook should have "as little potential for misinterpretation as possible". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 20 23:12:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:12:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder (Kojak): >.....Most cheats that I have encountered over these many years >were first suspected and brought to light by ex-spectators, >discussions after the game, party room reviews of spectators, >etc., and the like >..... >taking a stance that is silly..... Richard Hills: Indeed. I agree that one of Nigel's apparent points over his recent series of postings - that the current Lawbook encourages and rewards cheating - is just silly. And another of Nigel's apparent points - that cheating is difficult to detect - is even sillier. (Advance apologies to Nigel if I have again misinterpreted a nuance in the tenor of his postings.) There is no purpose in cheating unless the cheater wants a better-than-normal result. But given the statistical nature of bridge, and the fact that bridge experts and weather forecasters are unique in their ability to accurately predict outcomes, a cheat who consistently gains better-than-normal results for no readily apparent reason will be noticed. A case in point was the 1980s scandal involving the ACBL expert partnership Cokin-Sion. They consistently gained better-than- normal results on the most difficult aspect of bridge, the opening lead. This inexplicable outcome caused Cokin-Sion to be closely observed by spectators, and eventually a kibitzer noticed a correlation between the suit of the opening lead and the orientation of the pencil of the opening leader's partner. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Tue Feb 20 23:45:32 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:45:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au><2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com><45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com><45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com><45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005301c75541$16972d70$cace403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > This strikes me as ludicrous. The core of our argument > boils down to whether your 1H opening represents a > psyche or a systemic bid. No one seems able to agree > about this basic point: > > Grattan says that it appears to be systemic < +=+ I believe I said it *is* sytemic. I am, at least, in no doubt about it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 20 23:32:05 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:32:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005101c75541$143bff60$cace403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan wrote: >> +=+ I agree that the bid is systemic. The method may be regulated >> under Law 40D. I disagree with the Brown Sticker classification. >> Under the WBF Systems Policy the bid is HUM, qualifying as such under >> clause 2.2.2. - the author says he will always open 1H in 3rd seat >> with 0-3 HCP so that 'Pass' here always shows at least 4 HCP. > > Perhaps I have misremembered - I thought it was 0-3hcp *and* > short hearts - thus a pass *doesn't* promise any values at all. > > Tim > +=+ I was relying upon an earlier statement in this thread. However the method is HUM even, Tim, if your recollection is correct. If it is the case that with short Hearts a 1H bid is always made on 0-3 HCP and a Pass will be made with short Hearts and 4 HCP, the System Policy identifies as HUM when as a matter of partnership agreement "an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than Pass". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 20 23:39:33 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:39:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au><2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com><45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com><45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070220141750.031c7d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005201c75541$15687170$cace403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll . > > And while I am somewhat sympathetic to Herman's view that whether or > not the partnership has "ways of catching the psych" should affect its > legality, TPTB have quite clearly stated otherwise: your opponents are > entitled to base their actions on whatever you know about partner's > tendencies whether or not that information can (or does) affect yours. > +=+It is an important requirement to inform opponents since they are entitled to the information in choosing their subsequent action. That applies however infrequently the situation is likely to occur. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 21 00:12:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070220133608.030ca390@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >>The problem here, IMHO, is that, according to what I believe the >>consensus is, N-S were entitled to the information that 3S was a >>splinter, but when we decide what would have been a likely probable >>auction, we still assume that West would have explained the splinter >>correctly and then forgotten that it was a splinter. It seems >>likely that, armed with both these pieces of information (that East >>bid 3S as a splinter, and that West thought East was showing a real >>suit), North could have figured out that N-S had a big spade fit. >>And I believe that we are to assume that North was *entitled* to >>*both* pieces of information. Eric Landau: [snip] >With a SW-NE screen on the table, North would know that 3S was a >splinter, but would have no clue that West had forgotten. [snip] Richard Hills: What Adam calls a "consensus" is the Ton Kooijman interpretation of this interaction between the MI / UI laws. But Grattan Endicott has a different interpretation, which is equivalent to the hypothetical "SW-NE screen" posited by Eric. I was originally a supporter of the De Kooijman School, but a careful analysis of the Law 75 footnote and the Law 40E2 footnote have caused me to convert to become an Acolyte of the De Endicott School. Under both the De Endicott School and the De Kooijman School, West is required to describe East's 3S as a splinter, in accordance with the agreed partnership system (Law 75 footnote), but has no right to then remember the agreed partnership system (Law 40E2 footnote). ".....we still assume that West would have explained the splinter correctly and then forgotten that it was a splinter....." The divergence in interpretation occurs with West's 3NT rebid. Ton Kooijman argues that North-South are entitled to know that West's 3NT was probably a misbid, based on the incorrect assumption the East's 3S was natural, since North-South have authorised information about West's probable error due to West's failure to alert. Grattan Endicott argues that North-South have no entitlement to know that West lacks their promised spade stopper, on the grounds that since the infraction was failure to alert, rectification of that infraction via an adjusted score means that for the purposes of the adjusted score North-South no longer have knowledge of the (now hypothetically non-existent) failure to alert. This difference affects the actual Appeals Committee's decision to award North-South 20% of a vul-against-not sacrifice at the six level. The 20% benefit to the non-offending side is reasonable if the De Kooijman School is correct. But if the De Endicott School is correct, so that North-South have no entitlement to know that West has misbid their promised spade stopper, then North choosing to save in 6S when West holds QJx in spades is not a logical alternative. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 21 00:46:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:46:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0702181503h2a3145d3j2c928a706affc4ec@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >I ran this problem through my deal simulator, and my conclusions >are that at matchpoints, 6NT is best unless North is likely to >lead a heart, in which case 6C is standout. >..... >I was hoping that this example might show the value of using a >computer to help in the appeals process. Have I succeeded? Richard Hills: In my opinion a deal simulator is helpful but not sufficient. Consider these two possible layouts, which are consistent with the authorised information from the auction. WEST EAST AKx Q T9x AJ QJx AKT76 JT9x KQ863 or WEST EAST KJx Q T9x AJ QJx AKT76 AT9x KQ863 6C is vastly superior to 6NT, since the bidding (North's initial takeout double) means that it is likely that North holds all three of the significant honours. Given that North would be on lead against 6NT, the king of hearts is likely to hit the table at the speed of light. But (without bad breaks) 6C is cold on both of the above layouts on any lead. Another factor to be taken into account is the risk-benefit ratio. If either of the two layouts above existed, at other tables West may elect to bid a natural and invitational 2NT in response to 1D, rather than 2C. If so, the field may stop in the matchpoint madness contract of 3NT, so there is no need to risk a bottom by failing in 6NT if bidding the safer contract of 6C will garner most of the matchpoints anyway. Finally, even if a deal simulator proves that it is "logical" in the long run to bid 6NT, then that is irrelevant. As has been extensively discussed on a recent thread, the term "logical alternative" is a misnomer. What is relevant is calls that peers would consider, not calls which Deep Thought would adopt. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 21 01:47:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:47:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>I don't believe that we need to write down a definition of a >>>psyche to handle the problems. We all know what psyches are, and >>>we think we know the same things. Tim West-Meads: >>It's an habitual psych which, were Herman using a WBF CC (and >>playing with a familiar partner), would appear under the relevant >>section of the CC: The policy states >> >>"Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross >>violations of the normal meanings of calls....." Richard Hills: And therein lies the problem. Because "we all know what psyches are", then even administrators writing regulations can include a logical fallacy (contradiction in terms) in such documents. Stating that there can be a partnership understanding to grossly violate ("psyche") a partnership understanding is, in my opinion, equivalent to the logical fallacy that an irresistible force can meet an immovable body. Sven Pran: >Frankly I do not understand this discussion: > >It is a privilege to have a call classified (accepted) as a psyche. >The main condition (very simplified) is that the call shall come as >surprising to partner at least as much as it is surprising to >opponents. Richard Hills: Indeed. Every so often blml debates on psyches are muddled by "we all know what psyches are", so posters often talk at cross-purposes. The problem is that the popular conception of "psyche" amalgamates three different legal categories: (a) the "true psyche", which is consistent with Sven Pran's main condition, (b) the "revealed partnership understanding" pseudo-psyche a la John (MadDog) Probst and Tim West-Meads, which is not an infraction of Law 40B, but may be an illegal two-way convention under a Law 40D regulation, and (c) the "concealed partnership understanding" pseudo-psyche a la an undisclosed agreement to always open 1H in third seat with 0-3 hcp, which is both an infraction of Law 40B and usually an impermissible HUM method under a Law 40D regulation. As TD I would rule "no infraction" after (a), possibly adjust the score but eschew a procedural penalty after (b), and possibly adjust the score but definitely take disciplinary action after (c). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 21 03:19:35 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:19:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker In-Reply-To: <45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com> <45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> Message-ID: <45DBAC37.7060909@NTLworld.com> [Matthias Berghaus] You do not remain a spectator for the rest of your life, do you? Even if you remain a spectator while recycling used drinks (which is not clear to me, but let us say so for arguments sake), there comes the time when the segment or the mach or the tournament ends, and without doubt you are no longer a spectator, a player, a director. So anyone is free to talk to anyone else, even if that would have violated a law while the tournament was in progress. And even if you did: Law 76 is about not giving someone an advantage or disadvantage because some kibitzer couldn`t keep his mouth shut, it is not about cheating. So what`s the problem with telling a director that you think someone cheats? Do you want to tell me that cheating may never be uncovered by a spectator? Be serious. Any TD will do whatever his SO calls for, and no comittee or governing body will say otherwise. I do not care for anything that can be read into the laws if you are willing to bend the language far enough. I care about what the rules are intended for, and I maintain that this intention can be determined with a little bit of common sense in at least 99% of cases, and the rest can be seen when one applies some logic. We all wish for clearer wording of TFLB, but we can manage quite well with what we have. [TFLB L76B] A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. [nige1] I confess I read this to mean what it says. If I misinterpret the law-maker's intentions, I'm delighted. My mistake illustrates how easy the laws are to misinterpret even when you do your best to understand them. Nevertheless, I feel that law-makers should change the law rather than expect us to stretch language. Mathias (and others) say that cheating is a kind of irregularity to which law 76B does not apply, I worry that {a] if the spectator waits until after the match has ended, that that may be too late to stop a cheating team from winning. (b) The problem with immediately reporting the infraction is that most law-breakers are *not* cheats. Its often hard to distinguish cheating from ordinary law-breaking unless you are a mind-reader. When people become emotionally involved, they may interpret an infraction as cheating (even in BLML). A previous example from BLML still haunts me. Apparently a man was being loudly abnoxious to his opponents. A player at a neighbouring table complained to the director "It's none of my business but can't you do something about that?" "You are right --- it is none of your business!" replied the director and walked away. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 21 03:53:50 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:53:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45DBB43E.90003@NTLworld.com> [Kojak] > .....Most cheats that I have encountered over these many years > were first suspected and brought to light by ex-spectators, > discussions after the game, party room reviews of spectators, > etc., and the like > ..... > taking a stance that is silly..... > > [Richard Hills] > Indeed. I agree that one of Nigel's apparent points over his > recent series of postings - that the current Lawbook encourages > and rewards cheating - is just silly. And another of Nigel's > apparent points - that cheating is difficult to detect - is > even sillier. > > (Advance apologies to Nigel if I have again misinterpreted a > nuance in the tenor of his postings.) [nige1] I wrote about law-breakers who rationalise their infractions through ignorance or a mistaken view of the law. Again and again, I explained that most were *not* cheats. But you are well aware of that, Richard :) No Problem :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 21 04:12:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:12:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker In-Reply-To: References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com> <45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> Message-ID: <45DBB8A2.6030703@NTLworld.com> [WILLIAM SCHODER] There you go again, Mathias! Trying to inject "common sense" into this thread. If we do that, it goes away, and then what is left for us to posture over?... [nigel] I am sure you'll find something :) [Kojak] ... The English language? Most cheats that I have encountered over these many years were first suspected and brought to light by ex-spectators, discussions after the game, party room reviews of spectators, etc., and the like. To read the law and twist the words to defend a ludicrous interpretation is probably what the games of BLML are mostly about. There's a world of difference between alleging that the words used in the laws could be misinterpreted (in this case it would need someone without any knowledge of the game of bridge), and taking a stance that is silly. I used to get all excited up over this kind of sophistic reasoning, but I've mellowed and found it better for my blood pressure to just laugh. It's gratifying to find comments like yours and Tim's -- there's still hope for the game. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 21 04:13:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:13:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >While the majority of the list is too sensible to >post to this thread, I suspect that their opinions >are also divided. To me, this suggests that the >existing definition is flawed in some way. Moreover, >if the members of this list can't agree on this type >of issue, what hope do we have of getting consistent >answers from the TDs who administer local tournaments? Grattan Endicott, "Marvin French's ... part one" thread: [snip] >> In a game where language is often a term of >>the art, or jargon as you might say, it is desirable >>to be as clear as possible about the meaning of >>the language in which the rules are written. In >>drafting the next code of laws considerable >>attention has been given to this objective but, >>despite much consultation, it would be rash in the >>extreme to suggest that there will be no problem >>of this category when it is activated. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: And also to be as clear as possible when discussing what should be as clear as possible? :-) David Burn, chair and scribe of an appeals committee (EBU casebook 2001, appeal number five): >>>Appeals Committee's comments: >>> >>>Whereas East's argument that he would not double if >>>South had two suits whereas he would if South had one >>>has some validity, we were not convinced that >>>(a) East's double and >>>(b) West's pass >>>were not a function of their methods rather than of >>>the misinformation. >>> >>>This is Grattanese for which I apologise but it has >>>been a long day. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 21 04:43:33 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:43:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007b01c7556a$768cc5e0$6400a8c0@rota> Richard Hills writes: > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > [big snip] > >>Where in the book does it say when to call the director >>as MI gradually becomes more and more likely? > > Law 11A: > > The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if > either member of the non-offending side takes any action > before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when > the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent > action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. In the example I gave in another post (MI corrected after the final pass, TD not called), the NOS could have reopened the auction, and accepted the consequences, good or bad. By not reopening the auction and calling the TD later, the NOS avoided the risk of reopening the auction. (If the reopened auction would be bad for the NOS, they wouldn't call the TD at all.) The TD could deny such an adjustment even though the exact wording of L11A (which is not exclusive) did not apply. The NOS gained because their own actions changed the penalty to their advantage; they were entitled to redress under L21A, and by delaying the TD call, they caused L21C to apply instead. But this is a specific MI situation. Usually, when MI causes damage, L21C already applies at the point of the MI, and delaying the TD call will not affect the penalty. (It may affect the credibility of the NOS; if a member of the NOS says, "I would have doubled the contract had I been correctly informed," the TD is less likely to believe him if the call comes late, after a close contract goes down one trick.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 21 05:14:02 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:14:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DBB43E.90003@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I wrote about law-breakers who rationalise their infractions >through ignorance or a mistaken view of the law. Again and >again, I explained that most were *not* cheats. Richard Hills: And again and again you used the loaded terms "perpetrator" and "victims" in what was supposed to be a survey of blml opinion. :-) The classic BBC TV sitcom Yes Prime Minister, "The Grand Design": Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?" Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be." Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one." Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?" Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result." Bernard Woolley: "How?" Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?" Bernard Woolley: "Yes." Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 21 09:14:14 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:14:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007b01c7556a$768cc5e0$6400a8c0@rota> References: <007b01c7556a$768cc5e0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: On 21/02/07, David Grabiner wrote: > Richard Hills writes: > > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > > > [big snip] > > > >>Where in the book does it say when to call the director > >>as MI gradually becomes more and more likely? > > > > Law 11A: > > > > The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if > > either member of the non-offending side takes any action > > before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when > > the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent > > action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. > > In the example I gave in another post (MI corrected after the final pass, TD > not called), the NOS could have reopened the auction, and accepted the > consequences, good or bad. This is not correct. Even after having the auction reopened, the NOS might still be awarded an adjusted score. You can't cancel several rounds of bidding. And in many cases the MI occured so early in the auction that reopening it might not be adequate compensation for the NOS. Thus, after reopening the auction the TD must be ready to assign an adjusted score afterwards. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran >By not reopening the auction and calling the TD > later, the NOS avoided the risk of reopening the auction. (If the reopened > auction would be bad for the NOS, they wouldn't call the TD at all.) > > The TD could deny such an adjustment even though the exact wording of L11A > (which is not exclusive) did not apply. The NOS gained because their own > actions changed the penalty to their advantage; they were entitled to > redress under L21A, and by delaying the TD call, they caused L21C to apply > instead. > > But this is a specific MI situation. Usually, when MI causes damage, L21C > already applies at the point of the MI, and delaying the TD call will not > affect the penalty. (It may affect the credibility of the NOS; if a member > of the NOS says, "I would have doubled the contract had I been correctly > informed," the TD is less likely to believe him if the call comes late, > after a close contract goes down one trick.) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 21 09:24:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:24:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45DC01DA.8070104@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Grattan wrote: >> +=+ I agree that the bid is systemic. The method may be regulated >> under Law 40D. I disagree with the Brown Sticker classification. >> Under the WBF Systems Policy the bid is HUM, qualifying as such under >> clause 2.2.2. - the author says he will always open 1H in 3rd seat >> with 0-3 HCP so that 'Pass' here always shows at least 4 HCP. > > Perhaps I have misremembered - I thought it was 0-3hcp *and* short hearts > - thus a pass *doesn't* promise any values at all. > Indeed the "always" is a bit of a misnomer. I will always consider it and often do it - but not to such extent that pass promises 4 points. But I don't believe that should matter, because if it did, all I would have to do is keep quiet about the "always" and simply state "often". Something which ought to be banned should not be able to be allowed that simply. I think you all need to take a step back. Why are certain methods deemed HUM? Does this fall in the same category? Should we then not try to establish what makes the difference? Rather than try and find that it falls within some interpretation of the written text? > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 21 09:26:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:26:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DB29F7.7090608@NTLworld.com> References: <45DB29F7.7090608@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45DC0248.2050108@skynet.be> Nigel wrote: > > Herman's bid is still systemic because partner is more likely to > recognize it than opponents. > No he's not. I've done it with nothing but different partners in the past. Every one of them has told me "don't do that again with me". Some of my opponents alert my third round passes, though ... Besides, something is not systemic because partner knows about it - or John and Tim play nothing but systemic psyches ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 21 09:29:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:29:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> <45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45DC0302.4070207@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > 1. You deliberately refuse to disclose your methods to the opponents > 2. You deliberately refuse to bring your method to the attention of > the local regulatory authorities > Ehm - come again? Have I not often enough told my story about how I wanted to put this on my CC - and they wouldn't allow me? Apart from that - you wrote a number of good points - see my next post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 21 08:23:46 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:23:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com><45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000801c75592$36297020$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "BLML" ; "Matthias Berghaus" Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker > To read the law and twist the words to defend a > ludicrous interpretation is probably what the > games of BLML are mostly about. There's a world > of difference between alleging that the words used > in the laws could be misinterpreted (in this case it > would need someone without any knowledge of > the game of bridge), and taking a stance that is silly. < +=+ It seems to me that to comply with the law the individual should divest himself of the status of 'spectator' before engaging in discussion on such a matter. I believe the principle that spectators have no standing to intervene in the game is well supported. However, there is a requirement to define when a spectator ceases to be a spectator and this extends to those privileged to view electronic transmissions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 21 08:30:30 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:30:30 -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: <000901c75592$38360900$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" 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. > +=+ Certainly the Director should consult. Beyond that his correct procedure is to make a ruling and refer it subsequently to the TAC. Crucially, beyond that he has the Law 81C9 power to take a matter to the national authority. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 21 08:39:45 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:39:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000a01c75592$3939e470$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills: > > I do not disagree that Herman is acting within his idiosyncratic > assessment of ethics. I merely dispute Herman's assertion that > his actions are consistent with Law and the Lawful Belgian alert > regulation (which presumably required that the systemic 2H should > have been alerted). > +=+ :-) who is this 'Lawful Belgian' ? +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 21 08:44:21 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:44:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000b01c75592$3b630600$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > David Burn, chair and scribe of an appeals committee > (EBU casebook 2001, appeal number five): > > >>>Appeals Committee's comments: > >>> > >>>Whereas East's argument that he would not double if > >>>South had two suits whereas he would if South had one > >>>has some validity, we were not convinced that > >>>(a) East's double and > >>>(b) West's pass > >>>were not a function of their methods rather than of > >>>the misinformation. > >>> > >>>This is Grattanese for which I apologise but it has > >>>been a long day. > +=+ "A prophet is not without honour save in his own country". There will be just a few who will know in their hearts how hard I have tried for simplification of language in the next code of laws. Beyond that I am greatly encouraged by the intention to produce an appendix of illustrations of the new laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 21 09:37:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:37:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> <45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45DC04E3.30104@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: >> I don't believe that we need to write down a definition af a psyche to >> handle the problems. We all know what psyches are, and we think we >> know the same things. > > This strikes me as ludicrous. The core of our argument boils down to > whether your 1H opening represents a psyche or a systemic bid. No one > seems able to agree about this basic point: > > Grattan says that it appears to be systemic > Probst says that he's not sure > Tim agrees with you > > While the majority of the list is too sensible to post to this thread, > I suspect that their opinions are also divided. To me, this suggests > that the existing definition is flawed in some way. Moreover, if the > members of this list can't agree on this type of issue, what hope do > we have of getting consistent answers from the TDs who administer > local tournaments? > >> And is there any reason to ban the Herman 1H? So why are you trying > to read something >> into a regulation that we don't need? > > I am much more concerned with first principles than your desire to > open 1H on a 2 count every other year. As I noted in an earlier > example, one of my primary concerns is that that convention licensing > structures should be based on the set of hands shown by a bid and not > the specific verbiage than one uses to describe this. I offered the > analogy of trying to play a Muiderberg 2S opening in the ACBL and > claimed that it was inconsistent to ban the opening if it were > described in one manner but allow the opening if it were described in > another. In much the same fashion: You claim that the Herman 1H > opening should be allowed because you chose to describe it as a > psyche. I claim that the Herman 1H opening should be described as > systemic (and therefore, it falls afoul of certain portions of the > convention licensing structure). > > I would prefer to see the regulations brought into alignment: The > Herman 1H opening should be sanctioned regardless of how one describes > it or it should be banned regardless of how one describes it. (For > what its worth, I think that you should be allow to use this opening). > However, I'm much less concerned with your ability to use this > opening than I am about the WAY in which you protect your right to > play the Herman 1H opening. > I believe that this is true - but then we fall foul to certain other problems. As it stands, Grattan believes the bid is systemic because it is "always" done. I think that is far too difficult a criterium to be able to catch any but my own psyche - no one else will be so silly as to continue to tell about his own psyching tendencies. OTOH, some people might really try to play this as a system - they open short hearts in third seat and they agree a method with partner to stay out of too high a contract. They then say it's done just the once, and who can say it isn't? Which is why I believe that the systemic handling of a certain bid makes the bid systemic, not the frequency. Compare it to your Muiderberg example. If you play that 2S shows from a 5 card, but not a 5332, and you have a bid of 2NT on which partner must name a 4-card suit, then you are playing that it shows 54.. But if you play that it's a 5-card suit (even with the additional knowledge that it's not 5332) without an asking bid, then you can easily say that it's not 54.. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 21 09:42:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:42:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005301c75541$16972d70$cace403e@Mildred> References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au><2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com><45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com><45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com><45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> <005301c75541$16972d70$cace403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <45DC05F4.40108@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ I believe I said it *is* sytemic. I am, at least, in no > doubt about it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > OK Grattan, and now for the difficult question. Suppose you don't know me, and you come to my table as director, and I have just done this, and I say it's a psyche. You may pose me a few questions, and I will truthfully answer that I performed the same psyche last year as well, with a different partner. On what basis are you going to rule systemic bid? Are you going to ask me if I remember holding 3P in third hand with short hearts in the meantime and did I also open 1H then? I can be very persuasive when I answer "I must have done, but I don't remember". All I am saying is that the only reason you call this systemic is because I tell you it is. And the only reason why I tell it is because I will free up all others into being able to reveal more, without running afoul of regulation which were not designed to deal with psyches (in fact they explicitily tell us they don't). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 21 09:59:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:59:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45DC09DA.1050509@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Last night, my partner did not alert my 2C, which was check-back. >> He subsequently bid 2H (my suit) which, by system, shows a minimum >> hand. I did not alert, > > [snip] > >> Consider what I did not tell them: I did not tell them my partner >> was limited to 12 points (in fact he did have 14). How would they >> have felt if I had told them he had 12 points, they had doubled, >> it would have made, and I would say "aha, but I did not MI you >> since this IS our system". I still maintain that I am acting as >> ethical as I can within the laws. > > Richard Hills: > > I do not disagree that Herman is acting within his idiosyncratic > assessment of ethics. I merely dispute Herman's assertion that > his actions are consistent with Law and the Lawful Belgian alert > regulation (which presumably required that the systemic 2H should > have been alerted). > > Law 80 gives the Belgian National Bridge Organisation the power to > create an alert regulation. Law 81 gives the Director the power to > interpret Law and regulation. Law 72A1 requires players (even > Herman De Wael) to play "in strict accordance with the Laws". > > And, most importantly, Law 72A6 states: > > "The responsibility for penalising irregularities and redressing > damage rests solely upon the Director and these Laws, not upon the > players themselves." > > So even if the De Wael School interpretation is right, a De Wael > School at-the-table action is wrong, since Herman is unilaterally > infracting Law 72A6 by usurping the Law interpretation role which > properly belongs to the Director and the Belgian NBO. > I know - and there is no need to hammer on about the MI. But the fact remains that your proposed actions (alerting, explaineing, whatever) ar all in direct conflict with the clear obligation stated in L75D2 "not indicate, in any manner, that a mistake has been made". When at last you will realize that there is a huge dilemma here, maybe we can go on to trying to figure out which of the two laws has precedence? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 16 19:10:31 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:10:31 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Splinter_of_the_Mind=27?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_Eye____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070216091214.02b8c820@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45D5F396.000001.90853@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Eric Landau Date : 02/16/07 16:22:57 A : Bridge Laws Discussion List Sujet : Re: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] At 09:47 PM 2/15/07, richard.hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: East >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- --- 1D >Pass 2C Dble 3S(1) >Dble 3NT Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as a splinter >bid, club support and a singleton spade > >You, East, hold: > >Q >AJ >AKT76 >KQ863 > >What call do you make? I do bid. The most important part, as I guess that's a tempo question. I'd say 4C is the easiest way to hear about any good news (DQ or HK). In principle, partner shan't hold the SA (no redouble), which limits our ambitions to a small slam. > What other calls do you consider making? 4D is allowable, but I fail to see the advantage over 4C. 4NT (natural, but with BW positives) if partner could have bid 2C with spread honors, like KJx - KJx - Qx - Jxxxx (perhaps 2NT would have been conventional - or forcing). 6C if he couldn't. NB : it also depends from what a pass of 3SX would have meant. I'd say it's semi-positive (Kxx - Kxx - xx - AJxxx), in which case 3NT is quite negative and 4NT feels better. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070216/5008d24d/attachment-0001.html -------------- 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/20070216/5008d24d/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/20070216/5008d24d/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Sat Feb 17 11:09:07 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:09:07 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Slightly_offtopic=3A_Reading_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?the_pause?= References: <45D6C2E7.4070105@t-online.de> Message-ID: <45D6D442.000001.30583@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Ax KQx AKJxxx xx Teams, neither vul, Partner deals and opens 1NT (11-14, any 5card-suit acceptable, no 5422 except with both minors). With opps being silent the bidding goes: 1NT 2C 2H (4 or 5 H) 2S 3C (4H, 4D) 3D 3H (3442) after about 90 seconds, the only systemic answers being 3H and 3S, no zoom or something. Essentially a yes/no question. Your own bids were relays, 2S being GF. What do you make of the situation? If you were willing to use UI, what information can you extract from this? # AG : Facing the standard partner : he doesn't recall whether you bid natural tripletons") as here, or "natural shortnesses"). Information : perhaps he has the other doubleton, or perhaps 2452 (an awkward pattern in many systems) ; if that's the case, I'd suggest using step 3 for 5422's next time. # Facing YT : I just saw I missorted my hand, and want to make the less dommageable description (trying to figure what your purposes mght be). Little UI, because you don't know whether my pattern is "better" or "worse" for your purposes. [Yes, that's the most probable explanation. Last tuesday, I led my fifth best club, which happened to be the spade three, and the right lead, and then some, as it induced declarer to misread my pattern. Call me rabbit. We lost heavily anyway, as rabbits often do.] And what do you tell opps if they ask about the pause? (This is a club game, so you try to be helpful.... # The pause not being a systemic message (I hope so !), I don't know how to explain it to them. Partner, however, might accept to do so before the lead. Now, if you want me to be helpful, I'd stand up and answer "please ask him while I'm away from the table". Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070217/f3645456/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/20070217/f3645456/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/20070217/f3645456/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Sat Feb 17 12:28:12 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:28:12 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Rule_reform_poll?= References: <45D6CE78.803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45D6E6CB.000001.07173@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > [D] Many are economical with the truth because of sympathetic concern > that "too many much information may exhaust the opponents' attention > span and confuse them". A peculiar claim when it takes seconds to inform > opponents what partner's calls have told you about his hand: shape, > strength, controls, stops, and so on. > And they are wrong - WTP? AG : seems like one can be wrong whatever one does. We were fired by one of Belgium's best players because we took steps to specify that the principle "we do never open 1D on balanced hands" suffered one exception : 3352 pattern. He was adamant in stating that such small specifications were destroying the smoothness of the game. I wonder what he would have said if we didn't specify that and partner precisely happened to hold 3352. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070217/57ff467d/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/20070217/57ff467d/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/20070217/57ff467d/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 19 15:35:38 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:35:38 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Wael_School_=28was_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=2E=2E=2Epoll=29____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <45D961D7.9050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45D9B5B9.000004.28175@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 19/02/2007 11:10:14 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > There is an inconsistency between Law 75D2 and Law 75C. > The De Wael School assumes that Law 75D2 prevails in the > event of any clash between the two; but most of the rest of > the world's directors assume that Law 75C prevails. Herman : I know that, and I've never said it was not an infraction. But you need to consider damage as well as MI. Since I have correctly explained what they might expect in his hand, they cannot be damaged. So even if it is an infraction, it is a very mild one. AG : Non-bridge jurisprudency has it that, when you have only two possible courses of action, and both of them are infractions, then none is. Couldn't it be one of those cases ? As long as there is no item in TFLB that defines precedence between L75C and L75D. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070219/48ae6b67/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/20070219/48ae6b67/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/20070219/48ae6b67/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 19 16:48:33 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:48:33 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Yet_another_Ghestem_misbid?= References: <001001c75437$1b428ff0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <45D9C6CF.000007.28175@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- 2C was offered as the correction and declined by offender's LHO. Offender then opted to let his original call stand, thereby causing his partner to pass for 1 round. # Strange procedure. Why did the TD compel the defendent to compound the offense ? The complete auction was then 1H 3C X P 3N P P P K105 5 64 KJ76543 A74 93 J1082 K976 A1082 KQJ75 AQ 109 QJ862 AQ43 93 82 Q1 At the stage that N has indicated that he wished to change his bid, but has not yet done so, could he elect to remain with his original call and not go through L25B? # Yes, but look at the amount of UI. Nothing short of 4S would be admissible from South (although I could have bid 4C "cue", absent UI, because I smelled the rat). Q2 What are the UI implications of electing to change to 2C and then letting the call of 3C stand? In particular should S still be bidding as if it showed Spades + Diamonds? # A bit more than absent the intended corection, which is why the TD is partly guilty and could think about using L82. Absent that, North's remark could be taken as showing another two-suiter, or whatever. But the remark above still holds. However, UI aside, I'd apply L23 and L72B1, as North could have known his revealing the mistake (an infraction to L73B1) and the ensuing penalty (forced pass) could probably help his side. Q3 What lead penalties should apply? If the attempted correction is allowed, none. If 3C is enforced, as it is an artificial call in their system, apply L26B *if* South is on lead, which he isn't. But I'd anyway correct to 4SX minus whatever according to L72B1 AND tell them a second Ghestem mistake would compel them to ditch that part of their system. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070219/ae9367d5/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/20070219/ae9367d5/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/20070219/ae9367d5/attachment-0001.gif From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 19 18:52:28 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:52:28 -0600 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye In-Reply-To: <200702191650.IAA17310@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200702191650.IAA17310@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702190952je6b76b3sa314aeb030c553d5@mail.gmail.com> But Adam, why do you rule out 6NT as an LA? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070219/601957fb/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 21 15:19:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:19:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Shape of Things to Come In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070221091759.02bb25a0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:25 PM 2/20/07, richard.hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: West >Vul: None > >You, East, hold: > >82 >AKJT >KQ5 >A853 > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) >Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass >2S Pass Pass ? > >(1) 15-17 >(2) Alerted and explained as both majors > >You, East, now resort your hand to find: > >8 >AKJT >KQ5 >A8532 > >What call do you make? Double. >What other calls do you consider making? Pass (but not for long). Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 21 15:01:22 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:01:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45DC01DA.8070104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c755c0$eaa608a0$620be150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Indeed the "always" is a bit of a misnomer. I will always consider it > and often do it - but not to such extent that pass promises 4 points. > But I don't believe that should matter, because if it did, < +=+ Even at that the agreement is still HUM since, at times, 1H "may be weaker than Pass". So it does not matter, as Herman opines. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 21 11:34:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:34 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Stating that there can be a partnership understanding to grossly > violate ("psyche") a partnership understanding is, in my opinion, > equivalent to the logical fallacy that an irresistible force can > meet an immovable body. So we should be grateful that the laws say no such thing. The laws recognise the possibility of an awareness developing through experience that partner will occasionally violate agreements with certain hand types in certain sequences. The laws require disclosure of such awareness without deeming there to be an agreement (implicit or explicit). Of course the laws do not forbid us from judging that an agreement (which may be illegal) *does* exist - but the threshold of evidence to make such a judgement goes beyond "you know partner tries it on occasionally" - we need (a little) evidence that a call has been "based on" such an understanding rather than merely being aware. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 21 11:34:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:34 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c75541$143bff60$cace403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I was relying upon an earlier statement in this thread. However > the method is HUM even, Tim, if your recollection is correct. No Grattan, that applies to the systemic meaning. I'd agree with you that if a 3rd seat 1H opening includes all 0-3pt hands a 3rd seat pass does indeed promise values. It's the value-promising pass that makes the system HUM - not the occasional deviant 1H opening. There is agreement (implicit or explicit) as to the 1H bid - it's simply an occasional habit of which Herman's partner may be aware - and which must be properly disclosed if he is so aware. > Policy identifies as HUM when as a matter of partnership agreement > "an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than Pass". Oh well, I play HUMs all the time then. I'll sometimes open a hand like AKJT,x,xxx,xxxxx with 1S and sometimes pass on xx,KQx,KQx,Qxxxx. (I consider the first hand "weaker" than the second - albeit not by much). Tim From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Feb 21 13:43:51 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:43:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Shape of Things to Come [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45DC3E87.1020803@t-online.de> Richard, you read too many casebooks :-) richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: None > > You, East, hold: > > 82 > AKJT > KQ5 > A853 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) > Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass > 2S Pass Pass ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Alerted and explained as both majors > > You, East, now resort your hand to find: > > 8 > AKJT > KQ5 > A8532 > > What call do you make? > 3 clubs > What other calls do you consider making? > Pass and double (provided that X ist take-out, of course. Without a clear agreement to that effect X is out....). Pass may well be my bid of choice if this is not my day or if I feel that I just have to avoid going for a number to be in contention. It also depends on my opinion of the abilities of my opps as declarer and defender. Best regards Matthias > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 > > 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. DIAC 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 Wed Feb 21 14:56:08 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:56:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com><45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> <000801c75592$36297020$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: I find that often it is necessary for the TD to "divest" the individual from spectator status. "See me after the game" usually works though there is resistance to being putt off when one who feels strongly about something at the moment. I also find that there are TDs who would rather not hear anything that might give them the need to be complete TDs. In the case cited about Cokin-Sion a TD even went so far as to find an ex-spectator after the game. Grattan is right in taking this opportunity on BLML to give the TDs a reminder about the constraints on spectators during the game. The reason for the Law is to isolate the bidding and play to only the active players and preclude any interference at the table by extraneous personnel or information. The hazy area not yet addressed to my satisfaction is when we broadcast to thousands of people and make visual records during a match. Maybe golf should take up our principle -- then Curtis Strange would not have been penalized for kneeling on a towel to keep his pants clean when it was called in by a television viewer not even at the tournament who was a "spectator". However, in the past we have used recorded televised evidence to establish facts. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ***************************** > "The best words in the best order" > ~ S T Coleridge. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "BLML" ; > "Matthias Berghaus" > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker > > > > To read the law and twist the words to defend a > > ludicrous interpretation is probably what the > > games of BLML are mostly about. There's a world > > of difference between alleging that the words used > > in the laws could be misinterpreted (in this case it > > would need someone without any knowledge of > > the game of bridge), and taking a stance that is silly. > < > +=+ It seems to me that to comply with the law the > individual should divest himself of the status of > 'spectator' before engaging in discussion on such a > matter. I believe the principle that spectators have > no standing to intervene in the game is well supported. > However, there is a requirement to define when a > spectator ceases to be a spectator and this extends > to those privileged to view electronic transmissions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 21 15:00:03 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:00:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DC05F4.40108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c755c0$959f5f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > OK Grattan, and now for the difficult question. > Suppose you don't know me, and you come to my table as director, and I > have just done this, and I say it's a psyche. > > You may pose me a few questions, and I will truthfully answer that I > performed the same psyche last year as well, with a different partner. > > On what basis are you going to rule systemic bid? I haven't seen any comment to this question, and as I consider it very relevant I shall offer my answer: If your partner with his subsequent actions appears to be aware that your opening bid in third hand could be made on a virtually valueless hand I shall probably NOT grant you the privilege of having your opening bid treated as a psyche but rule that it is systemic. And if you then try to convince me that this is the first time for several years you present such a lousy opening bid and that therefore it is a genuine psyche I shall seriously (without saying so in plain words) suspect you of lying to me. (I consider you to be "betrayed" by your partner.) On the contrary if your partner takes the relevant actions over your opening bid with his say 11 HCP including an apparently good fit I shall have no problem accepting your psyche as such whichever way it works. Is this a clarifying answer to your question? Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 21 11:22:28 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:22:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DC04E3.30104@skynet.be> References: <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au> <2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com> <45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com> <45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com> <45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070221112135.02819d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:37 21/02/2007 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Compare it to your Muiderberg example. If you play that 2S shows from >a 5 card, but not a 5332, and you have a bid of 2NT on which partner >must name a 4-card suit, then you are playing that it shows 54. Not really. "from a 5-card" means it might be a 6-card 1-suiter, too. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 21 11:34:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:34 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker In-Reply-To: <45DBAC37.7060909@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > [TFLB L76B] > A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor > speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the > Director. Spectator to TD: I saw something earlier which really worried me, may I talk to you about it? - At this point no attention has been drawn to anything. TD to Spectator: Of course, what did you see? - At this point the spectator is speaking "by request of the Director." How can the scenario above be illegal? > Nevertheless, I feel that law-makers should change the law rather > than expect us to stretch language. Doubtless they could make an improvement, in this as in many other cases - but in reality all they would be doing is clarifying the etiquette. Neither players nor spectators should be going to a TD and saying "I think X is cheating". It is sufficient that the TD be approached, he will find out exactly what was seen and he (perhaps in consultation) will determine whether the situation should be investigated as possible cheating. > Mathias (and others) say that cheating is a kind of irregularity to > which law 76B does not apply, I worry that {a] if the spectator waits > until after the match has ended, that that may be too late to stop a > cheating team from winning. And it often will be too late - the nature of cheating is such that a single reported cases provides insufficient evidence for conviction. TDs need to be aware of incidents in order to build a case of a period of time. It's not an issue on which one can risk a wrongful conviction. > A previous example from BLML still haunts me. Apparently a man was > being loudly abnoxious to his opponents. A player at a neighbouring > table complained to the director "It's none of my business but can't > you do something about that?" "You are right --- it is none of your > business!" replied the director and walked away. But that's just bad directing. The laws are crystal on the issue (L74a1/2 apply). Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 21 11:18:15 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:18:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070220133608.030ca390@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070221111639.02809080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:12 21/02/2007 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >This difference affects the actual Appeals Committee's decision to >award North-South 20% of a vul-against-not sacrifice at the six >level. The 20% benefit to the non-offending side is reasonable if >the De Kooijman School is correct. But if the De Endicott School is >correct, so that North-South have no entitlement to know that West >has misbid their promised spade stopper, then North choosing to save >in 6S when West holds QJx in spades is not a logical alternative. BTA this doesn't take into account the fact that South might have acted differently, if told 3S was a splinter. This comes before the 3NT bid. Who knows what the contract would have been, had South jumped on the occasion and bid 4S ? Best regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 21 17:02:59 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:02:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45D8E771.4040307@immi.gov.au><2da24b8e0702190546j275c2718p62299dab18fb9106@mail.gmail.com><45D9BEB0.5060600@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702190758h2d6699bck4086688b251179a2@mail.gmail.com><45D9D856.5010406@skynet.be><2da24b8e0702191022gb6d2786id90178dfe96aa2a2@mail.gmail.com><45DADDBE.2010508@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0702200536i458de0e2kced4a83b18e39576@mail.gmail.com><005301c75541$16972d70$cace403e@Mildred> <45DC05F4.40108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c755da$b320a100$8a9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > +=+ I believe I said it *is* sytemic. I am, at least, in no > > doubt about it. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > OK Grattan, and now for the difficult question. > Suppose you don't know me, and you come to my table as director, and I > have just done this, and I say it's a psyche. > > You may pose me a few questions, and I will truthfully answer that I > performed the same psyche last year as well, with a different partner. > > On what basis are you going to rule systemic bid? > +=+ It could be on the basis of your honest answer to the question whether this is a part of your system. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 21 17:56:46 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:56:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com><45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> <000801c75592$36297020$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000101c755da$b40ef8a0$8a9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "BLML" ; "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker > > The hazy area not yet addressed to my satisfaction > is when we broadcast to thousands of people and > make visual records during a match. Maybe golf > should take up our principle -- then Curtis Strange > would not have been penalized for kneeling on a > towel to keep his pants clean when it was called > in by a television viewer not even at the tournament > who was a "spectator". > +=+ Being a zealous venerer of the impractical my belief is that in an ideal world anyone who has gained knowledge as a spectator should not make available that knowledge to the participants until it can no longer affect the result. I believe that, in a moral sense, the spectator remains an onlooker in that regard until the dust has settled. In "another place" it is argued that the detail of restrictions upon the actions of spectators should be matters of regulation. That in itself seems reasonable, given the immense variety of circumstances in which spectators are tolerated, allowed, even welcomed. However, my desire would be to state an overriding principle that limits the extent of rectification when attention is first drawn to an irregularity by a spectator or 'has-been' spectator. I do contend that the game is for the players and not for the gallery. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Feb 21 20:28:09 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:28:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening Message-ID: <45DC9D49.2020709@aol.com> Is it a psyche or systemic? I don't understand the problem. If you have discussed it in advance with your partner and he is aware of your proclivity, then it is systemic. If he has no idea what you are doing and is quite surprised it is a psyche. If (the latter case) it happens twice with the same partner (even after the first time) and he remembers the first time it is then an undisclosed understanding. Or am I missing something? Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 21 21:30:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:30:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DC0248.2050108@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>Some of my opponents alert my third round >>passes, though ... >> >>Besides, something is not systemic because >>partner knows about it 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. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Thu Feb 22 12:56:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003501c754fc$91e08250$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > It is a privilege to have a call classified (accepted) as a psyche. No it isn't. It as a matter of objective assessment as to whether a particular call, by a particular player, in a particular partnership is a psych or is *based* on a partnership understanding. > The main condition (very simplified) is that the call shall come as > surprising to partner at least as much as it surprising to > opponents. That's not a simplification - it is bogus drivel. How can the calibre and experience of opponents affect whether a bid is a psych. A bid isn't "psychic" if you play against the totally unsurprised Zia and "systemic" if you play against the perpetually surprised Mrs Guggenheim. Besides, opps may be unfamiliar - one has no idea what will/won't surprise them. If a player claims a bid is a psych we look for *evidence* that the bid may be systemic. Sometimes we find such evidence in the bidding of psycher's partner. Sometimes we find such evidence through questions asked and answered. The mere awareness (on behalf of the partner) of an occasional habit is insufficient (of itself) to rule that the bid is systemic. Such awareness, in conjunction with a psych-protecting systemic agreement such as Drury, *would* be sufficient evidence. > And by the way, if this experience is not disclosed to opponents in a > proper manner then the partnership has a concealed partnership > understanding with all its consequences. Which is why the WBF CC (for example) requires the disclosure of known psychic habits on the CC. Other SOs require different forms of disclosure (the default being answering questions fully as required by law). If, as TD, one concludes that a bid was indeed a psych but a known habit was improperly disclosed it is an MI case. Disclosing a psychic habit as non systemic has two consequences: a) (from WBF psychic bidding policy) Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. (ie they are not classified or regulated as BS/HUM). b) The partner of psycher is forbidden from *acting* on the awareness of a possible psych until it has been exposed (otherwise his actions will provide evidence that the soi-disant psych *is* based on the PU). > It is as simple as that. It is indeed simple. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 22 21:35:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:35:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DC09DA.1050509@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >When at last you will realize that there is a huge dilemma >here, maybe we can go on to trying to figure out which of >the two laws has precedence? Law 75C: ".....a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement....." Law 75D2: ".....nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made....." Australian Constitution, section 92: "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free....." Richard Hills: Section 92 of the Aussie Constitution was inserted to get rid of the internal tariffs which the six Aussie colonies had imposed on each other before Federation in 1901. But for its first eight decades of existence, the Commonwealth of Australia could not fully exercise the powers specifically granted to it elsewhere in the Constitution (section 51). This was because the De Wael School justices of the Aussie High Court interpreted the section 92 phrase "absolutely free" out of context to rule that absolutely anything the Federal Government did which might impinge on interstate trade was unconstitutional. Nowadays the High Court sensibly limits its interpretation of "absolutely free" to the originally intended meaning of "absolutely no customs duties". Likewise, Herman's hangup with "indicate in any manner" can be resolved if Law 75C and Law 75D2 are placed in the context of Law 20F1: ".....replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)." Since "normally" you are prohibited from explaining your own calls, Law 75D2 is a supplementary Law to Law 20F1, defining a circumstance when "normally" does not apply. So, in my opinion, the Law 75C / 75D2 paradox is resolved by using the Law 20F1 context. Pard does their own thing explaining and alerting your calls, and you do your own thing explaining and alerting pard's calls. If your explanation and alert of pard's calls is inconsistent with a previous alert or explanation by pard, tant pis. Since, according to the De Hills School, Law 75D2 is merely supplementary to Law 20F1, Richard Hills chooses to always obey Law 75C when asked a direct question and/or obey the Aussie alert regulation when under a direct obligation to alert. There is a second, more powerful, argument in favour of the De Hills School over the De Wael School. When answering a direct question from an opponent, Richard Hills always tells the truth as he sees it. When answering a direct question from an opponent, Herman De Wael sometimes lies in order to avoid giving UI to his partner. When choosing how to interpret the Lawbook when two Laws paradoxically conflict, I prefer choosing Truth, Justice and the Law 75C Way. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 cibor at poczta.fm Fri Feb 23 22:46:03 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:46:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to see an alert Message-ID: <004c01c75794$0567bf10$e2561d53@k827b8a5159344> Hi gang, I am looking for a description of a case when someone alerted a bid (his own, but I'm not 100% sure, probably screens were used) and later on an opponent claimed not having seen the alert. Normally it is the responsibility of the alerting player to make sure that your screenmate has seen the alert but this time the alerting player claims he was unable to do that as he has a serious illness that makes it impossible for him to turn his head. Yes, I know how it sounds, but a fellow TD insists he recalls a similar case from a casebook and says that the ruling was quite unexpected. Unfortunately he doesn't know anything beyond that. I did some searching, found only Joanna Stansby's case in Vancouver (http://www.bridgefederation.ch/99vanapp.html) although the illness was not mentioned in the write-up (only in David Stevenson's post about this case on rec.games.brudge). Nothing else. Does anyone recall any case like that? Any details would be greatly appreciated. Even a link to a similar case would be great. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tez tak potrafisz? - zobacz >> http://link.interia.pl/f19ec From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Sun Feb 25 07:22:19 2007 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:22:19 +0300 Subject: [blml] test In-Reply-To: <000b01c75592$3b630600$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000b01c75592$3b630600$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <12288451015.20070225092219@yandex.ru> test From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Feb 26 00:28:06 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:28:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] test Message-ID: <00ba01c75934$9abe4240$e2561d53@k827b8a5159344> Please do not reply KC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 26 08:40:46 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:40:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to see alert Message-ID: <45E28EFE.2040100@skynet.be> Conrad Ciborowski writes to tell me that his posts don't reach blml (maybe you must make sure you send them from the address you subscribed with, Conrad) and asks me to tell you about something he discovered: erman, For whatever reason my posts don't reach the BLML so I'm sending a private e-mail. You were on both appeals committees: this one http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/bridge/laws/appeals/generali99/appeal9&10.html and this one http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf (please check appeal #10). These rulings are vastly incosistent. In the first case North-South were guilty of not alerting their opening bid in a proper way and putting information about Namyats in the right section of their CC. And yet 1. They were penalized (ie. they received the most unfavorable adjusted score possible). 2. The deposit was forfeited. 3. They were suspended for one match. In the second ruling the AC ruled that South had not done enough to protect himself, case closed. Even if one agrees with this rather curious assumption why was the OS allowed to keep its good score? Their gain was a direct result of their infranction so at least a split score would be in order. Not to mention that these two rulings are wildly inconsistent. Could you also post this message on BLML, please? And could you shed some light on these two rulings, please? Best regards, Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 05:16:33 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:16:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert In-Reply-To: <45D7CDC6.8060109@NTLworld.com> References: <009d01c74e56$1c522d10$6400a8c0@rota> <2b1e598b0702171835x5b43c95aub5b0edbc3af5851c@mail.gmail.com> <45D7CDC6.8060109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0702172016r1238aaecg55cdd79dc348c42e@mail.gmail.com> Hi Nigel, I think I forgot to sign my name. As you and others sometimes somehow seem to know, my parents at first were going to name me Jeff, but they decided the elided f's probabaly weren't a good idea, so they named me Jerry instead. No worries. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070217/51bc1374/attachment-0001.htm From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 20 14:54:02 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:54:02 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Broken_the_second_rule_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?of_war____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <45DAFD79.000001.66805@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Herman De Wael (casebook commentator): >As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't believe >this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ this tactic >should inform opponents of the possibility. Of course, that is >difficult in an actual case, but at least a general mention on the >convention card should draw the attention to it. And there is the opposite case. On pair of friends of mine had the following sequence : 1C* 2C** 4D*** * near-force ; either natural or 15-21 NT ** 10+ HCP, (4)5+ clubs *** exclusion Roman BW, which was made on : KQxx - KQx - Ax - AQ10x 4D doesn't necessarily imply a Diamond void, because 4NT would have been natural (20-21, probably a doubleton club). Now, does the fact that 4D usually shows a void mean that *this* exclusion BW should be explained as more than just an asking bid ? IMOBO, the answer is no ; else, you should alert a BW 4NT when it is possible that partner have a small doubleton, because "it usually ain't so". Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070220/ad6bd678/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/20070220/ad6bd678/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/20070220/ad6bd678/attachment-0001.gif From henk at ripe.net Mon Feb 26 11:27:10 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:27:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] test In-Reply-To: <00ba01c75934$9abe4240$e2561d53@k827b8a5159344> References: <00ba01c75934$9abe4240$e2561d53@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <45E2B5FE.5090600@ripe.net> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Please do not reply :-) Sorry folks, I was out of town for a few days without Internet access. In the meantime, one of the processes doing the BLML list crashed and wasn't properly restarted. All mail was queued though and should appear in the next hours. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 26 12:33:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:33:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c755c0$959f5f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c755c0$959f5f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45E2C56C.7020108@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> OK Grattan, and now for the difficult question. >> Suppose you don't know me, and you come to my table as director, and I >> have just done this, and I say it's a psyche. >> >> You may pose me a few questions, and I will truthfully answer that I >> performed the same psyche last year as well, with a different partner. >> >> On what basis are you going to rule systemic bid? > > I haven't seen any comment to this question, and as I consider it very > relevant I shall offer my answer: > > If your partner with his subsequent actions appears to be aware that your > opening bid in third hand could be made on a virtually valueless hand I > shall probably NOT grant you the privilege of having your opening bid > treated as a psyche but rule that it is systemic. > > And if you then try to convince me that this is the first time for several > years you present such a lousy opening bid and that therefore it is a > genuine psyche I shall seriously (without saying so in plain words) suspect > you of lying to me. (I consider you to be "betrayed" by your partner.) > > On the contrary if your partner takes the relevant actions over your opening > bid with his say 11 HCP including an apparently good fit I shall have no > problem accepting your psyche as such whichever way it works. > > Is this a clarifying answer to your question? > Yes it is. But it raises another question entirely. Are someone's actions no longer classed as psyches if the person is known as a frequent psycher? Zia, for example? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 26 12:35:25 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:35:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Silence Message-ID: <000b01c7599a$6af0a560$4e9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +=+ No traffic on blml since 21 February? Has the system collapsed? +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 26 12:35:25 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:35:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Silence Message-ID: <000b01c7599a$6af0a560$4e9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +=+ No traffic on blml since 21 February? Has the system collapsed? +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 26 14:26:29 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:26:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45E2C56C.7020108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003801c759a9$b98402d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > Is this a clarifying answer to your question? > > > > Yes it is. > But it raises another question entirely. > Are someone's actions no longer classed as psyches if the person is > known as a frequent psycher? Zia, for example? In principle I would rule Yes, depending upon his partner's (re)actions. If partnership experience includes information that one player frequently deviates from their published agreements with his calls so that his partner is prepared for it and caters for it with his own calls then such calls have become part of their (possibly concealed) partnership understandings. And a comment to Tim: I don't care about the experience of their opponents, what I do care about is whether the "psyche" catches partner off guard or not. If not (because of the partnership experience) I shall not grant that call the privilege of being classified as a psyche. Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 26 14:56:10 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:56:10 +0800 Subject: [blml] Inaccurate Convention Card Message-ID: <2a1c3a560702260556p53325f60yfcd9301637df8081@mail.gmail.com> At the recent Gold Coast Congress (Australia) I declared 3NT on the lead of the heart jack. I cannot remember the rest of the hand and do not have any hand records with me while I am in transit. My heart suit was: K876 (dummy) A10x (hand) The opponents had been silent after I opened 1NT and my partner bid Stayman: 1NT 2C 2S 3NT I glanced at my opponent's convention card and noticed that "underlead honours" was checked and proceeded to win the heart ace and immediately run the 10 which lost to the queen. It turned out that "underlead honours" was an error and "overlead all" was also checked but I had not noticed this - why would I look when underlead was also checked - they can't play both methods. The director and the appeal committee agreed that the convention card was in error but did not adjust my score saying that I should have found out more about the opponents methods. Presumably by asking questions or reading more of their card. This seems wrong to me. Am I really supposed to assume anything I hear or read in explanation is wrong and look elsewhere in case there is a contradiction? Wayne From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 26 15:00:25 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:00:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >>When at last you will realize that there is a huge dilemma >>here, maybe we can go on to trying to figure out which of >>the two laws has precedence? > > Law 75C: > > ".....a player shall disclose all special information > conveyed to him through partnership agreement....." > > Law 75D2: > > ".....nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has > been made....." > > Australian Constitution, section 92: > > "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, > commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by > means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be > absolutely free....." > > Richard Hills: > > Section 92 of the Aussie Constitution was inserted to get > rid of the internal tariffs which the six Aussie colonies > had imposed on each other before Federation in 1901. > > But for its first eight decades of existence, the > Commonwealth of Australia could not fully exercise the > powers specifically granted to it elsewhere in the > Constitution (section 51). > This was because the De Wael > School justices of the Aussie High Court interpreted the > section 92 phrase "absolutely free" out of context to > rule that absolutely anything the Federal Government did > which might impinge on interstate trade was unconstitutional. I should think that a readily apparent 'solution' would have been to amend [replace the passage] the Constitution to reflect what had been intended when the original had been agreed, But, as I suspect, the 'agreement' to the original was probably predicated on the belief of one side that the court would uphold the interpretation of duties permitted, kept quiet their plan, and got it into the Constitution by so bamboozling the other side. If indeed it ws intended 'no duties between states' then the voters ought to readily approve such an amendment. > Nowadays the High Court sensibly limits its interpretation of > "absolutely free" to the originally intended meaning of > "absolutely no customs duties". > > Likewise, Herman's hangup with "indicate in any manner" can > be resolved if Law 75C and Law 75D2 are placed in the context > of Law 20F1: > > ".....replies should normally be given by the partner of a > player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)." > > Since "normally" you are prohibited from explaining your own > calls, Law 75D2 is a supplementary Law to Law 20F1, defining > a circumstance when "normally" does not apply. > > So, in my opinion, the Law 75C / 75D2 paradox is resolved by > using the Law 20F1 context. Not withstanding the meaning of the passages of law. it was my understanding that the words of each passage stand independent of the rest, and are applied so without regard to context [as has been demonstrated by the rebuttal of my assertions that context is relevent]. regards roger pewick >Pard does their own thing > explaining and alerting your calls, and you do your own thing > explaining and alerting pard's calls. If your explanation > and alert of pard's calls is inconsistent with a previous > alert or explanation by pard, tant pis. Since, according to > the De Hills School, Law 75D2 is merely supplementary to Law > 20F1, Richard Hills chooses to always obey Law 75C when asked > a direct question and/or obey the Aussie alert regulation > when under a direct obligation to alert. > There is a second, more powerful, argument in favour of the > De Hills School over the De Wael School. When answering a > direct question from an opponent, Richard Hills always tells > the truth as he sees it. When answering a direct question > from an opponent, Herman De Wael sometimes lies in order to > avoid giving UI to his partner. When choosing how to > interpret the Lawbook when two Laws paradoxically conflict, > I prefer choosing Truth, Justice and the Law 75C Way. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 26 15:13:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:13:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45E2EB1C.1090200@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > There is a second, more powerful, argument in favour of the > De Hills School over the De Wael School. When answering a > direct question from an opponent, Richard Hills always tells > the truth as he sees it. When answering a direct question > from an opponent, Herman De Wael sometimes lies in order to > avoid giving UI to his partner. When choosing how to > interpret the Lawbook when two Laws paradoxically conflict, > I prefer choosing Truth, Justice and the Law 75C Way. > When interpreting L75D2, I prefer to do this the way it is written. When interpreting L75D2, Richard interprets "not in any manner" as "I choose to inform my partner when I wish". Just face it Richard, one of two laws is going to get broken. I chose mine, you chose yours. Let's leave it at that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 26 15:14:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:14:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45DC01DA.8070104@skynet.be> <000001c755c0$eaa608a0$620be150@Mildred> Message-ID: <002e01c759b0$65612550$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ref the Herman Heart > > >> >> Indeed the "always" is a bit of a misnomer. I will always consider it >> and often do it - but not to such extent that pass promises 4 points. >> But I don't believe that should matter, because if it did, Ah if you don't always do it, it is no lnger a HUM. IMO, John > < > +=+ Even at that the agreement is still HUM since, at times, 1H "may > be weaker than Pass". So it does not matter, as Herman opines. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 26 15:19:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:19:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <45DC9D49.2020709@aol.com> References: <45DC9D49.2020709@aol.com> Message-ID: <45E2EC7D.2070205@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Is it a psyche or systemic? I don't understand the problem. If you have > discussed it in advance with your partner and he is aware of your > proclivity, then it is systemic. If he has no idea what you are doing > and is quite surprised it is a psyche. If (the latter case) it happens > twice with the same partner (even after the first time) and he remembers > the first time it is then an undisclosed understanding. Or am I missing > something? Ciao, JE > Jeff apparently belongs to the one-time-in-a-lifetime-psych faction. How can the mere occurence of a psyche ban someone from psyching again? How can I know whether my partner is going to remember me doing it before? That cannot make my psyche illegal, can it? As to undisclosed - that is a different question altogether. Psyching tendencies must be disclosed, but a mention on a CC should be enough. And is such disclosure is lacking, we are in MI territory, not in any form of forbidden system. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 26 15:19:37 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:19:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] References: Message-ID: <003b01c759b1$257952e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] > Richard wrote: >> >> Stating that there can be a partnership understanding to grossly >> violate ("psyche") a partnership understanding is, in my opinion, >> equivalent to the logical fallacy that an irresistible force can >> meet an immovable body. > > So we should be grateful that the laws say no such thing. The laws > recognise the possibility of an awareness developing through experience > that partner will occasionally violate agreements with certain hand > types in certain sequences. The laws require disclosure of such > awareness without deeming there to be an agreement (implicit or explicit). > Of course the laws do not forbid us from judging that an agreement > (which may be illegal) *does* exist - but the threshold of evidence to > make such a judgement goes beyond "you know partner tries it on > occasionally" - we need (a little) evidence that a call has been "based > on" such an understanding rather than merely being aware. If Tim or Damian ever picked off one of my more frequent psyche types and catered for it, we'd probably have to stop playing together. It is for this reason I keep the frequency fairly low. At the moment they indulge in BDSM techniques to try to stop me doing it, but I survive the punishment, mostly > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 26 16:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003801c759a9$b98402d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > In principle I would rule Yes, depending upon his partner's > (re)actions. > > If partnership experience includes information that one player > frequently deviates from their published agreements with his calls > so that his partner is prepared for it and caters for it with his > own calls then such calls have become part of their (possibly > concealed) partnership understandings. Well yes. But you have added the proviso about "and caters for it". If partner starts *catering* we have evidence that take it out of the category of "psych" and into the category of "system". > And a comment to Tim: I don't care about the experience of their > opponents, Then why write (as you did) that the surprise level of opponents is relevant? All you do is perpetuate the myth that opponents matter. > what I do care about is whether the "psyche" catches partner off > guard or not. If not (because of the partnership experience) I shall > not grant that call the privilege of being classified as a psyche. Why are you now being inconsistent with what you wrote earlier? We shouldn't care whether the psych catches partner off-guard if the auction provides no evidence of fielding. Simple example: P-(1D)-1N-(X)-P-(P)-2H-(P)-4H-... The 4H bidder has an 8 count with Hxx in hearts. He describes partner as having systemically shown a 15-17/18 count with a stop in D, 5H and a weak doubleton (or singleton) somewhere. If he has partnership experience that 1N is occasionally psyched with a weak hand and 6+ card H suit that is disclosable but doesn't make it part of the systemic meaning. A pass (instead of 4H) would provide clear evidence of a systemic agreement. A 3H/3D bid would cause some need for further investigation. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 26 16:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <45E2EC7D.2070205@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > As to undisclosed - that is a different question altogether. Psyching > tendencies must be disclosed, but a mention on a CC should be enough. That's "known psyching tendencies" BTW. *HOW* such tendencies should be disclosed is purely a matter of SO regulation. WBF/EBL require prior disclosure on the CC (a good choice IMO). EBU forbids disclosure on the CC but allows voluntary alerts when a psych becomes likely (rather less good, IMO). Albeit, regardless of specific SO regulation, L75c *always* requires disclosure in answer to questions. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 26 17:24:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:24:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Inaccurate Convention Card In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560702260556p53325f60yfcd9301637df8081@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560702260556p53325f60yfcd9301637df8081@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45E309C5.8010203@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > This seems wrong to me. Am I really supposed to assume anything I > hear or read in explanation is wrong and look elsewhere in case there > is a contradiction? If the contradiction is glaringly obvious (I would imagine these two checkboxes are close to each other) then it would amount to a 100% line to do whatever you want, and then point to the CC and ask for a rectification. So yes, you would be supposed to see the contradiction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Feb 26 17:34:45 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:34:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to see an alert In-Reply-To: <004c01c75794$0567bf10$e2561d53@k827b8a5159344> References: <004c01c75794$0567bf10$e2561d53@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <45E30C25.6080405@meteo.fr> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > Hi gang, > > I am looking for a description of a case when someone alerted > a bid (his own, but I'm not 100% sure, probably screens were used) > and later on an opponent claimed not having seen the alert. > Normally it is the responsibility of the alerting player to make sure > that your screenmate has seen the alert but this time > the alerting player claims he was unable to do that as > he has a serious illness that makes it impossible > for him to turn his head. > > Yes, I know how it sounds, but a fellow TD insists > he recalls a similar case from a casebook > and says that the ruling was quite unexpected. > Unfortunately he doesn't know anything beyond that. > I did some searching, found only Joanna Stansby's case in Vancouver > (http://www.bridgefederation.ch/99vanapp.html) > although the illness was not mentioned in > the write-up (only in David Stevenson's post > about this case on rec.games.brudge). > Nothing else. > > Does anyone recall any case like that? Any > details would be greatly appreciated. > Even a link to a similar case would be great. i know a similar case in the french premier ligue, on 7/10/06. it appeared in the french bridge mailing list (17/10/06; thread "arbitrage epilogue) but i can't acceed to the archives which should be at: http://www.sm.u-bordeaux2.fr/~corsini/Bridge/ it was described (sorry, in french!) as: > Un petit test pour les arbitres et pour les autres : match par 4 avec > > ?crans, vous (arbitre) etes appele a la fin de la sequence: > > > > S donneur, NS vuln?rable > > > > N E | S O > > | - - > > 1P 2T | 3T* 3K > > - 4K | - 4C > > X 5K | X fin > > > > Ouest vous a appele : 3T m'a ete alerte par S comme Texas K, mais j'ai > > l'impression que mon partenaire n'a pas ete alerte. > > > > Nord : j'ai bien alerte 3T, en sortant le carton et en le secouant > > quelques secondes au-dessus de l'etui, mais on ne m'a rien demande. > > > > Est : je n'ai pas vu d'alerte. > > > > Vous constatez que Sud a effectivement des K, et que le contrat est > > desatreux pour EO. Quelle est votre decision? > > AV1094 AR732 2 D7 RD2 76 D10854 6 53 D1087 1052 ARV984 853 V9 ARV964 63 a 5Kx, ca avait fait 1400 NS. la commission a confirme la decision de l'arbitre d'ajuster le score a 100 EO, une egalite avec l'autre salle (-1 a 4P). une presentation erronee du verdict (annulation de la donne!) a ajoute un peu de confusion puisqu'evidemment, pour une donne qui a ete reellement jouee aux 2 tables, la L12C2 ne permet d'accorder qu'une marque ajustee de remplacement (ou L12C3 une moyenne de plusieurs marques). jpr > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 26 17:53:00 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:53:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004101c759c6$931bae50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .............. > Then why write (as you did) that the surprise level of opponents is > relevant? All you do is perpetuate the myth that opponents matter. The "popular" way of describing a legal psyche is that partner shall become at least as surprised as opponents. This does not imply any measurement of opponent's surprise. It is a statement to the general effect that opponents shall have access to all (relevant) knowledge that partner has on calls and playing agreements whether these are explicit or implicit. And that is the fundamental rule on how players in the game of bridge shall be able to play a fair game. A proper psyche should always come as a big surprise to opponents. Unless is comes as an equally big surprise to partner that partnership is not playing a fair game. Regards Sven From tkooij at tiscali.nl Mon Feb 26 17:53:34 2007 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:53:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <45E2EC7D.2070205@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman de Wael says: Psyching tendencies must be disclosed, but a mention on a CC should be enough. ton: I am not so sure Herman understands the merits of a psyche. Nothing about psyches can nor should be said on a CC. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 26 19:29:57 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:29:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Categories of rule-breaker In-Reply-To: References: <45DB1E36.4040000@NTLworld.com><45DB29CE.3050605@t-online.de> <000801c75592$36297020$dec587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45E32725.3060109@NTLworld.com> [Gratton Endicott] >>> +=+ It seems to me that to comply with the law the >>> individual should divest himself of the status of >>> 'spectator' before engaging in discussion on such a >>> matter. I believe the principle that spectators have >>> no standing to intervene in the game is well supported. >>> However, there is a requirement to define when a >>> spectator ceases to be a spectator and this extends >>> to those privileged to view electronic transmissions. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> In an earlier post, Grattan said that the laws provide on mechanism for the director to divest himself of his director role while looking after a game. If a spectator is to assume a new role, surely the laws should tell us when and how? In my view (at the very least) the director should be allowed to recategorise a spectator as an official observer. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 26 20:58:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:58 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <200702261748.l1QHlxBG029757@mta02.mx.cix.co.uk> Message-ID: Ton wrote: >> Psyching tendencies must be disclosed, but a mention on a CC should be >> enough. > I am not so sure Herman understands the merits of a psyche. Nothing > about psyches can nor should be said on a CC. Ton, may I refer you to the bottom right of the official WBF CC as available on their website (attempted diagram below): ---------------- |IMPORTANT NOTES THAT DON'T FIT ELSEWHERE | |-------------- |Psychics: |--------------- Disclosure on the CC is *compulsory* in WBF events. I understand that Herman's complaint (in part) is that the Belgian Federation (like the EBU) forbids disclosure on the CC (from your statement I assume the Dutch impose similar restrictions on disclosure). We must be extremely careful when we say things about CCs/alerts/disclosure since requirements vary hugely by SO. (The only problem with the WBF box is it is way too small!) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 26 22:27:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004101c759c6$931bae50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > The "popular" way of describing a legal psyche is that partner shall > become at least as surprised as opponents. This does not imply any > measurement of opponent's surprise. Of course it does (how can you compare partner's surprise to opps' surprise if you don't measure opps' surprise). That's WHY it's garbage. "Popular" isn't the same as "accurate" or "helpful". > It is a statement to the general effect that opponents > shall have access to all (relevant) knowledge that partner has on > calls and playing agreements whether these are explicit or implicit. No it isn't. A statement to that general effect is found in 75c without any need for paraphrasing (and additional includes a requirement to disclose relevant experience). It is the remit of SOs to define additional procedures for disclosure beyond that. > And that is the fundamental rule on how players in the game of bridge > shall be able to play a fair game. Which is why we have L75c (+ CC regs etc). > A proper psyche should always come as a big surprise to opponents. Why? Am I under some obligation to be a surprised opponent when my unknown LHO opens 2D in 3rd seat at favourable? He might have been dealt a 2D bid, he might have pysched. Neither will surprise ME. It *might* surprise somebody else but *I* know the position favours unorthodox actions. It might even surprise my wife (probably not - I've been training her) - but if it does that will teach her to ASK opponents about their bidding. If they don't disclose properly (and *thus* put her at a disadvantage) THEN we deal with the MI. > Unless is comes as an equally big surprise to partner that > partnership is not playing a fair game. If the partnership discloses "properly" there's nothing unfair about it. If the SO definition of "properly" is to forbid prior disclosure on the CC that is NOT the partnership's responsibility. Mind you, I sometimes worry that people out there are playing some kindergarten game that only vaguely resembles bridge. One can't *rely* on players to disclose their partner's psyching habits for the simple reason that they may not know (even with a reasonably regular pard like Probst the only reason I am aware of *some* of his habits is that we both post here, very few of them have been revealed at the table). Diagnosing, and dealing with, psychs is something one learns to do (if one is any sort of player) while "surprise" is the mark of the (perpetual) beginner. That doesn't mean that I never get *fooled* by psychs - but "big surprise", puurrrlease! I'm not quite a wet-behind-the-ears beginner (albeit a partner [good player] did manage a new one on me the other day when he overcalled 1H in second seat at unfavourable on a KQx suit in a weak but defensive hand). Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Feb 26 22:32:18 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:32:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening References: <5gm9t1$163dl2b@hrndva-mx-05.mgw.rr.com> Message-ID: <007501c759ed$9b2409e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "ton kooijman" > Herman de Wael says: > > Psyching tendencies must be disclosed, but a mention on a CC should be > enough. > > ton: > I am not so sure Herman understands the merits of a psyche. Nothing about > psyches can nor should be said on a CC. > Psyching is part of the game, recognized by the Laws. If a pair never psychs, opponents should be told that in advance. I don't want to know how often they psych, only if they have an implicit agreement never to do it. It isn't fair that I should infer an opponent must have psyched when their partner knows that isn't possible. This is a *special* partnership agreement and L75 says it should be disclosed, I don't care how. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 26 23:27:22 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:27:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening References: <45E2A41E004A90EF@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000201c759f5$a0981710$66d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Herman's 1H opening > Herman de Wael says: > > Psyching tendencies must be disclosed, but a mention on > a CC should be enough. > > ton: > I am not so sure Herman understands the merits of a > psyche. Nothing about psyches can nor should be said > on a CC. > +=+ Whilst I believe ton expresses a desirable principle, it raises a question concerning the space on the official EBL CC designated 'Psychics' - openings ............... - other..................... The EBL Systems Regulations require the completion of the CC in accordance with the WBF Guide to Completion of the WBF CC. This repeats the disclosure statements in the WBF Appendix 4. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 26 23:45:23 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:45:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <007501c759ed$9b2409e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c759f7$cd888960$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French ............ > Psyching is part of the game, recognized by the Laws. If a > pair never psychs, opponents should be told that in advance. > I don't want to know how often they psych, only if they have > an implicit agreement never to do it. It isn't fair that I > should infer an opponent must have psyched when their > partner knows that isn't possible. If a player states that he "never psyches" he is lying about something he cannot possibly know ("only God knows the future"). If he states that he has never until this day psyched that can be a perfectly correct statement. A psyche is by definition "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". "Misstatement" relative to what? We all know: Relative to his agreements. So if a player declares that he will psyche in a particular position with a probability of say 10% then his "psyche" according to this statement is no longer a "psyche", it is a call that conforms with his declared agreements. Such agreements can for instance include: In the third seat my opening bid of 1H usually shows at least 5 Hearts and between 12 and 19 HCP, but there is a ten percent probability that I shall open 1H on a hand that contains less than 5 HCP and any distribution. This 1H opening bid in the third position is no longer a "psyche" because it is no longer a gross misstatement, it is according to his agreements. However this opening bid makes his entire system HUM for the following two reasons: "His 1H opening bid can be weaker than a pass in the same position" and "his 1H opening bid can show or contain a weak hand" (A weak hand is by definition a hand with less than 8 HCP). Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 27 00:55:57 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:55:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations Message-ID: <45E3738D.807@aol.com> Here are somemore abbreviations which have appeared in the past week or so but are not on the blml list: ISTM IMOBO BDSM BTA And, incidentally, what does SEC (unofficial) mean? Why is it placed after the communication title? And, I think (am unsure) that it is sometimes some other term as "unofficial". This was probably explained at one time or another so older, veteran, blmlers can probably supply me with an explanation. And, an afterthought. When talking about blml/blmlers; how is it pronounced? Billmill? Bullmull? Bllmll? blml? Bellmell? Blemle? Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 27 02:19:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:19:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (earlier posting): [big snip] >>Likewise, Herman's hangup with "indicate in any manner" can >>be resolved if Law 75C and Law 75D2 are placed in the context >>of Law 20F1: >> >>".....replies should normally be given by the partner of a >>player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)." >> >>Since "normally" you are prohibited from explaining your own >>calls, Law 75D2 is a supplementary Law to Law 20F1, defining >>a circumstance when "normally" does not apply. >> >>So, in my opinion, the Law 75C / 75D2 paradox is resolved by >>using the Law 20F1 context. Roger Pewick: >Not withstanding the meaning of the passages of law, it was my >understanding that the words of each passage stand independent >of the rest, and are applied so without regard to context [as >has been demonstrated by the rebuttal of my assertions that >context is relevant]. Richard Hills (current posting): Umm. Yes the 1997 Lawbook is poorly and ambiguously written, and yes the Lawbook itself does not contain internal rules for its interpretation, and yes Edgar Kaplan allegedly said, "If you do not like what a Law says, search for another one". But..... There are two sensible rules for resolving paradoxes in the Lawbook. Kojak's First Rule states that, "A specific Law is an over-riding exception to a more general Law." And for special cases where Kojak's First Rule does not apply, such as the conflict between the two equally specific Laws 75C and 75D2, then there is Kojak's Second Rule, which states that, "When in doubt deciding which tree of a Law to obey, a ruling should be consistent with the overall forest of the Lawbook." Richard Hills (earlier posting): >>There is a second, more powerful, argument in favour of the >>De Hills School over the De Wael School. When answering a >>direct question from an opponent, Richard Hills always tells >>the truth as he sees it. When answering a direct question >>from an opponent, Herman De Wael sometimes lies in order to >>avoid giving UI to his partner. When choosing how to >>interpret the Lawbook when two Laws paradoxically conflict, >>I prefer choosing Truth, Justice and the Law 75C Way. Herman De Wael: >When interpreting L75D2, I prefer to do this the way it is >written. > >When interpreting L75D2, Richard interprets "not in any >manner" as "I choose to inform my partner when I wish". Richard Hills (current posting): A "straw man" argument, misstating my position for the purposes of drama and poetic license. I interpret "not in any manner" in accordance with its originally intended meaning "don't make faces when pard misexplains". Likewise, "when I wish" does not have the same meaning as "when required by Law 75C to disclose our partnership agreement". Herman De Wael: >Just face it Richard, one of two laws is going to get broken. >I chose mine, you chose yours. Let's leave it at that. Richard Hills (current posting): In my opinion I never deliberately break any of the Laws. No, it is only by a sea-lawyer non-contextual trees-not-forest De Wael School interpretation that Herman has chosen one of two equally illegal interpretations of Law. Even if Herman argues that Kojak's First Rule applies to the De Wael School, by hypothetically choosing to argue that Law 75D is a more specific Law than Law 75C, this hypothetical argument would fail, since a deliberately false De Wael School explanation is a clear infraction of Law 75D1 (which requires the Director to be summoned immediately when a player realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete). And I do not resile from my opinion that Herman's ethics are idiosyncratic, since by his own admission his choice to adopt the De Wael School is optional, and the deliberate falsehoods which are a consequence of the De Wael School are contrary to the generally accepted nature of the game of bridge. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 27 04:15:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:15:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Shape of Things to Come [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45DC3E87.1020803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: >Richard, you read too many casebooks :-) Richard Hills: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: West >>Vul: None >> >>You, East, hold: >> >>82 >>AKJT >>KQ5 >>A853 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >>--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) >>Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass >>2S Pass Pass ? >> >>(1) 15-17 >>(2) Alerted and explained as both majors >> >>You, East, now resort your hand to find: >> >>8 >>AKJT >>KQ5 >>A8532 >> >>What call do you make? Matthias Berghaus: >3 clubs Richard Hills: >>What other calls do you consider making? Matthias Berghaus: >Pass and double (provided that X is take-out, of course. Without a >clear agreement to that effect X is out....). Pass may well be my >bid of choice if this is not my day or if I feel that I just have >to avoid going for a number to be in contention. It also depends on >my opinion of the abilities of my opps as declarer and defender. Richard Hills: Yes, I do read too many casebooks, as this problem comes from Case One in the meretriciously misleading casebook "Appeals Committee Decisions from the 1994 NEC World Championships in Albuquerque: Heading Toward Equity and Justice". * * * Matchpoint pairs Q7432 Dlr: West 98432 Vul: None A9 7 KT6 8 Q5 KT6 J763 KQ5 JT64 A8532 AJ95 76 T842 KQ9 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2S Pass(3) Pass 3C(4) Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) 15-17 (2) Alerted and explained as both majors (3) Break in tempo (4) South called the Director Result: 3C doubled made three, +470 for East-West. Director's Ruling: Since the hesitation had been established and since there was a potential exchange of unauthorized information, pass by East could have been a logical alternative. The Director ruled in favour of the non-offending side, cancelled South's double, and returned the contract to 2S, +110 for North-South. * * * Richard Hills: The appeals committee illegally split the score to give East-West +470 and North-South +110. In effect the appeals committee was saying that East passing 2S was simultaneously a logical alternative and also not a logical alternative. This illegal decision by the appeals committee was not a fluke. In many of the Albuquerque cases the appeals committee chose bizarre and sometimes illegal rulings. Furthermore, the "expert" casebook commentators (with the honourable exception of Ton Kooijman) also frequently failed to come to grips with what was required by Law. Of course, it is rather unfair to criticise the appeals committees and casebook commentators, since in 1994 the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees did not exist. And, indeed, the ridiculous rulings and clueless commentary revealed in the 1994 casebook may have partly prompted the creation of the Code of Practice. Jose Damiani (WBF President): >>>It has become widely apparent that there are inconsistencies in >>>the handling of appeals at the various levels of our game. This >>>has concerned the World Bridge Federation and, after much effort >>>and sober discussion on the part of a number of leading >>>personalities, the Federation has now produced its first Code of >>>Practice for Appeals Committees. [snip] >>>The time and energies devoted by the authors to this determined >>>effort to raise the standards of appeal committee work deserve a >>>generous response from players, [snip] Richard Hills: Off-topic note. In blml discussion about psyching there has _not_ been a universally "generous response from players". Some blml sea-lawyers choose to ignore or twist the Code of Practice page 8 analysis defining the difference between legal and illegal psyching. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 27 04:59:38 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:59:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills (earlier posting): > > [big snip] > >>>Likewise, Herman's hangup with "indicate in any manner" can >>>be resolved if Law 75C and Law 75D2 are placed in the context >>>of Law 20F1: >>> >>>".....replies should normally be given by the partner of a >>>player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)." >>> >>>Since "normally" you are prohibited from explaining your own >>>calls, Law 75D2 is a supplementary Law to Law 20F1, defining >>>a circumstance when "normally" does not apply. >>> >>>So, in my opinion, the Law 75C / 75D2 paradox is resolved by >>>using the Law 20F1 context. > > Roger Pewick: > >>Not withstanding the meaning of the passages of law, it was my >>understanding that the words of each passage stand independent >>of the rest, and are applied so without regard to context [as >>has been demonstrated by the rebuttal of my assertions that >>context is relevant]. > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > Umm. Yes the 1997 Lawbook is poorly and ambiguously written, > and yes the Lawbook itself does not contain internal rules for > its interpretation, and yes Edgar Kaplan allegedly said, "If > you do not like what a Law says, search for another one". > > But..... > > There are two sensible rules for resolving paradoxes in the > Lawbook. Kojak's First Rule states that, "A specific Law is an > over-riding exception to a more general Law." And for special > cases where Kojak's First Rule does not apply, such as the > conflict between the two equally specific Laws 75C and 75D2, > then there is Kojak's Second Rule, which states that, "When in > doubt deciding which tree of a Law to obey, a ruling should be > consistent with the overall forest of the Lawbook." It has become difficult to grasp the direction of thinking in this thread. I leave with this posit- Say that situation X exists. And passage A of the Law requires that when situation X exists that the player is to be hung by the ankles; while in addition there is passage B that requires that when situation X exists that the player is to be hung by an ankle and a wrist. As such I read that the law requires that when situation X exists then in order to satisfy the law then the player must be hung by both ankles and that the player must be hung by an ankle and a wrist. And for the sake of hypothesis, consider additionally that there is passage C that requires when situation X exists then the player is to not be hung [set free]. As for satisfying the law under that premise- it is a foolish man that allows himself to be the judge. > Richard Hills (earlier posting): > >>>There is a second, more powerful, argument in favour of the >>>De Hills School over the De Wael School. When answering a >>>direct question from an opponent, Richard Hills always tells >>>the truth as he sees it. When answering a direct question >>>from an opponent, Herman De Wael sometimes lies in order to >>>avoid giving UI to his partner. When choosing how to >>>interpret the Lawbook when two Laws paradoxically conflict, >>>I prefer choosing Truth, Justice and the Law 75C Way. > > Herman De Wael: > >>When interpreting L75D2, I prefer to do this the way it is >>written. >> >>When interpreting L75D2, Richard interprets "not in any >>manner" as "I choose to inform my partner when I wish". > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > A "straw man" argument, misstating my position for the purposes > of drama and poetic license. I interpret "not in any manner" > in accordance with its originally intended meaning "don't make > faces when pard misexplains". Likewise, "when I wish" does > not have the same meaning as "when required by Law 75C to > disclose our partnership agreement". > > Herman De Wael: > >>Just face it Richard, one of two laws is going to get broken. >>I chose mine, you chose yours. Let's leave it at that. > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > In my opinion I never deliberately break any of the Laws. > > No, it is only by a sea-lawyer non-contextual trees-not-forest > De Wael School interpretation that Herman has chosen one of two > equally illegal interpretations of Law. Even if Herman argues > that Kojak's First Rule applies to the De Wael School, by > hypothetically choosing to argue that Law 75D is a more > specific Law than Law 75C, this hypothetical argument would > fail, since a deliberately false De Wael School explanation is > a clear infraction of Law 75D1 (which requires the Director to > be summoned immediately when a player realises that his own > explanation was erroneous or incomplete). > > And I do not resile from my opinion that Herman's ethics are > idiosyncratic, since by his own admission his choice to adopt > the De Wael School is optional, and the deliberate falsehoods > which are a consequence of the De Wael School are contrary to > the generally accepted nature of the game of bridge. I am interested in having an enumeration as to what is the generally accepted nature of the game of bridge. regards roger pewick > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 27 05:03:30 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:03:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <000201c759f7$cd888960$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c759f7$cd888960$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45E3AD92.4020905@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] > If a player states that he "never psyches" he is lying about something he > cannot possibly know ("only God knows the future"). If he states that he has > never until this day psyched that can be a perfectly correct statement. > > A psyche is by definition "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour > strength or suit length". > > "Misstatement" relative to what? We all know: Relative to his agreements. > > So if a player declares that he will psyche in a particular position with a > probability of say 10% then his "psyche" according to this statement is no > longer a "psyche", it is a call that conforms with his declared agreements. > > Such agreements can for instance include: In the third seat my opening bid > of 1H usually shows at least 5 Hearts and between 12 and 19 HCP, but there > is a ten percent probability that I shall open 1H on a hand that contains > less than 5 HCP and any distribution. > > This 1H opening bid in the third position is no longer a "psyche" because it > is no longer a gross misstatement, it is according to his agreements. > However this opening bid makes his entire system HUM for the following two > reasons: "His 1H opening bid can be weaker than a pass in the same position" > and "his 1H opening bid can show or contain a weak hand" (A weak hand is by > definition a hand with less than 8 HCP). > [nige1] IMO Sven is on the button about psychs. As soon as your deviation is more likely to be expected by partner than opponents, you are no longer psyching. There remain legal problems however... [A] Psychs are *gross* deviations. The vast majority of undisclosed agreements are about *minor* deviations. An extremely common example; You declare your 1N as 12-14 but, non-vulnerable, you often open on 11 or even a good 10. [B] There is no obvious legal mechanism for declaring *probabilistic* systemic agreements i.e. In this context, most of the time we call X with this hand but occasionally we call Y just to keep opponents guessing. (For the sake of argument assume that neither X nor Y on such a hand is a HUM). This form of Poker bluff is in accord with basic games-theory, and it seems to be perfectly legal but how do you disclose it? (i) For example, at teams, first in hand, not-vulnerable, we normally keep our 2S openers up to strength: 6-9 HCP, 6 card suit and 2 top honours. We agree that 10% of the time that we pick up 0-9 HCP and any five spades we also open 2S (the remaining 90% of the time we would pass the latter hand-type). (ii) Extending the previous example, we might agree to modify the percentages according to other conditions. For example, the quality of opponents or the state of the match. Again there seems no obvious mechanism for disclosure. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 27 05:03:53 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:03:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <000201c759f7$cd888960$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c759f7$cd888960$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45E3ADA9.5010606@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] > If a player states that he "never psyches" he is lying about something he > cannot possibly know ("only God knows the future"). If he states that he has > never until this day psyched that can be a perfectly correct statement. > > A psyche is by definition "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour > strength or suit length". > > "Misstatement" relative to what? We all know: Relative to his agreements. > > So if a player declares that he will psyche in a particular position with a > probability of say 10% then his "psyche" according to this statement is no > longer a "psyche", it is a call that conforms with his declared agreements. > > Such agreements can for instance include: In the third seat my opening bid > of 1H usually shows at least 5 Hearts and between 12 and 19 HCP, but there > is a ten percent probability that I shall open 1H on a hand that contains > less than 5 HCP and any distribution. > > This 1H opening bid in the third position is no longer a "psyche" because it > is no longer a gross misstatement, it is according to his agreements. > However this opening bid makes his entire system HUM for the following two > reasons: "His 1H opening bid can be weaker than a pass in the same position" > and "his 1H opening bid can show or contain a weak hand" (A weak hand is by > definition a hand with less than 8 HCP). > [nige1] IMO Sven is on the button about psychs. As soon as your deviation is more likely to be expected by partner than opponents, you are no longer psyching. There remain legal problems however... [A] Psychs are *gross* deviations. The vast majority of undisclosed agreements are about *minor* deviations. An extremely common example; You declare your 1N as 12-14 but, non-vulnerable, you often open on 11 or even a good 10. [B] There is no obvious legal mechanism for declaring *probabilistic* systemic agreements i.e. In this context, most of the time we call X with this hand but occasionally we call Y just to keep opponents guessing. (For the sake of argument assume that neither X nor Y on such a hand is a HUM). This form of Poker bluff is in accord with basic games-theory, and it seems to be perfectly legal but how do you disclose it? (i) For example, at teams, first in hand, not-vulnerable, we normally keep our 2S openers up to strength: 6-9 HCP, 6 card suit and 2 top honours. We agree that 10% of the time that we pick up 0-9 HCP and any five spades we also open 2S (the remaining 90% of the time we would pass the latter hand-type). (ii) Extending the previous example, we might agree to modify the percentages according to other conditions. For example, the quality of opponents or the state of the match. Again there seems no obvious mechanism for disclosure. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 27 05:08:46 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:08:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Inaccurate Convention Card In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560702260556p53325f60yfcd9301637df8081@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560702260556p53325f60yfcd9301637df8081@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45E3AECE.8070908@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] > At the recent Gold Coast Congress (Australia) I declared 3NT on the > lead of the heart jack. > > I cannot remember the rest of the hand and do not have any hand > records with me while I am in transit. My heart suit was: > > K876 (dummy) > > A10x (hand) > > The opponents had been silent after I opened 1NT and my partner bid Stayman: > > 1NT 2C > 2S 3NT > > I glanced at my opponent's convention card and noticed that "underlead > honours" was checked and proceeded to win the heart ace and > immediately run the 10 which lost to the queen. > > It turned out that "underlead honours" was an error and "overlead all" > was also checked but I had not noticed this - why would I look when > underlead was also checked - they can't play both methods. > > The director and the appeal committee agreed that the convention card > was in error but did not adjust my score saying that I should have > found out more about the opponents methods. Presumably by asking > questions or reading more of their card. > > This seems wrong to me. Am I really supposed to assume anything I > hear or read in explanation is wrong and look elsewhere in case there > is a contradiction? > [nige1] Wayne was done over by your opponents, the director, and the committee -- but especially -- by the law-makers. As I've previously argued, the rule about having to protect yourself against opponent's infractions is unjustifiable. A director may rule harassment if you insist that opponents confirm what is on their convention card. Anyway, such questions provide useful information to defenders -- information which they are authorised to use! When you suspect opponents of misinformation, it seems insane for the law to insist that you metaphorically expose your hand. Were opponents allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains? That would be the last straw. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 27 06:07:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:07:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45E3738D.807@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Here are some more abbreviations which have appeared in the past week >or so but are not on the blml list: > >ISTM >IMOBO >BDSM >BTA Richard Hills: See this website -> http://www.acronymfinder.com/ ISTM = It Seems To Me IMOBO = In My Obviously Biased Opinion BDSM = Big Dumb Stupid Man BTA = But Then Again TLA = Three Letter Acronym Sure using jargon acronyms saves a few keystrokes, and has the added bonus of baffling the uninitiated, but In My Obviously Biased Opinion is an infraction of blml netiquette, since blml is a forum for the discussion of bridge laws, not a forum for internet geekiness. But Then Again using a blml thread to ask questions about internet geeks' jargon is also contrary to the purpose of blml, so It Seems To Me that those questions could be resolved in future by consulting the acronymfinder.com website. :-) Jeff Easterson: >And, incidentally, what does SEC (unofficial) mean? Why is it >placed after the communication title? Richard Hills: It means that I am a dinosaur. I have never sent a text message, because I have never owned a mobile phone. Nor do I have a home computer. So [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] means that blml emails from me have a Security classification of Unofficial, with the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC, pronounced "dye-ac") bearing zero official responsibility for their content. Jeff Easterson: >And, an afterthought. When talking about blml/blmlers; how is it >pronounced? Billmill? Bullmull? Bllmll? blml? Bellmell? Blemle? >Ciao, JE BLMLER = Blithering Lunaticly Mediocre Lazy Egotistic Recusant So therefore the preferred pronunciation of "blmler" is "blitherer". :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 27 06:15:29 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:15:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Inaccurate Convention Card References: <2a1c3a560702260556p53325f60yfcd9301637df8081@mail.gmail.com> <45E3AECE.8070908@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <014501c75a2e$4ed2c5e0$6400a8c0@rota> "Nigel" writes: > [Wayne Burrows] >> At the recent Gold Coast Congress (Australia) I declared 3NT on the >> lead of the heart jack. >> >> I cannot remember the rest of the hand and do not have any hand >> records with me while I am in transit. My heart suit was: >> >> K876 (dummy) >> >> A10x (hand) >> >> The opponents had been silent after I opened 1NT and my partner bid >> Stayman: >> >> 1NT 2C >> 2S 3NT >> >> I glanced at my opponent's convention card and noticed that "underlead >> honours" was checked and proceeded to win the heart ace and >> immediately run the 10 which lost to the queen. >> >> It turned out that "underlead honours" was an error and "overlead all" >> was also checked but I had not noticed this - why would I look when >> underlead was also checked - they can't play both methods. >> >> The director and the appeal committee agreed that the convention card >> was in error but did not adjust my score saying that I should have >> found out more about the opponents methods. Presumably by asking >> questions or reading more of their card. >> >> This seems wrong to me. Am I really supposed to assume anything I >> hear or read in explanation is wrong and look elsewhere in case there >> is a contradiction? >> > [nige1] > Wayne was done over by your opponents, the director, and the committee > -- but especially -- by the law-makers. As I've previously argued, the > rule about having to protect yourself against opponent's infractions is > unjustifiable. A director may rule harassment if you insist that > opponents confirm what is on their convention card. Anyway, such > questions provide useful information to defenders -- information which > they are authorised to use! When you suspect opponents of > misinformation, it seems insane for the law to insist that you > metaphorically expose your hand. Were opponents allowed to keep their > ill-gotten gains? That would be the last straw. You are expected to protect yourself against infractions when you know, or should know, that something is wrong. If a bid is alerted and explained as "weak jump shift" but it isn't a jump, you cannot claim that you believed the MI. If you check a convention card and find xxxxX and fourth-best leads both marked, you can see the contradiction and have to ask whether they opponents lead fourth or third-and-fifth. If a card has both 2NT showing 12-14 and Jacoby marked, and you saw both, you need to ask. But you have to actually know. If you check for one box, find it marked, and don't see the contradictory box, you have no reason to suspect anything wrong. And if an agreement needs to be marked in two places but is marked in only one, you may believe either one. This is a common problem in the ACBL; players mark their lead agreements in writing or by checking boxes, but don't circle the card to lead. I have seen players who circle the A in AKx, but who leave other honor leads unmarked and just write "Coded 10 and 9". If you look at such a card and see nothing circled in KJTx or KT9x, you are entitled to protection when the ten is led and you play the leader for KT9x. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 27 06:31:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:31:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: [big snip] >>the deliberate falsehoods which are a >>consequence of the De Wael School are >>contrary to the generally accepted nature of >>the game of bridge. Roger Pewick asked: >I am interested in having an enumeration as >to what is the generally accepted nature of >the game of bridge. Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: >>>...if you read the laws all together the >>>indisputable intent in this matter may be >>>inferred... Grattan Endicott, 15th March 2006: >>>...What the WBFLC established - even as >>>long ago as under the chairmanship of Ed >>>Theus - is that, except it be so specified, >>>no one law is subject to another... Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 26 19:23:49 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:23:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] failure to see an alert Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070226192036.0214b840@pop.ulb.ac.be> From Konrad : > Normally it is the responsibility of the alerting player to make sure > that your screenmate has seen the alert but this time > the alerting player claims he was unable to do that as > he has a serious illness that makes it impossible > for him to turn his head. Would it be beyond all possible agreement to have a player suffering from such a disease (or just plain stiff neck) to tell his opponent : "please alert by waiving the card such-and-such and I'll acknowledge by doing this-and-this, so if I don't it means I didn't see" ? Would any TD disallow the player to look for such an agreement ? The player with the illness can surely envision the problem ; this is not like unexpected problems caused by improbable outside circumstances (as in : what do yo dou when a kibitzer turns your cards downside up ?). It's his duty to endeavour avoiding the (foreseeable) problems. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070226/34e56fb3/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 27 07:32:39 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:32:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Punish the victim? Message-ID: <45E3D087.5030500@NTLworld.com> [A] Bridge laws seem to protect rule breakers. Many infractions go unnoticed by the players. Many that are noticed go unreported. Many that are reported attract no adverse ruling. [B] Witnesses are normally *gagged*. [C] There is a law that seems to mandate that a director deals with any irregularity that he notices -- but most BLMLers -- including the law-makers themselves -- seem to think that the *director must turn a blind* eye unless summoned. The analogy may not be completely valid, but would we support a law that prevented an observer of a mugging appearing as a witness; and insisted that a passing policemen must not interfere? Imagine a murderer appealing his conviction on the grounds that most murders go undetected and he was just unlucky that an over-officious observer or policeman caught him in the act. It gets worse. Even when the poor victim detects the infraction, draws attention to it, calls the director, and the director is disposed towards a favourable ruling -- the victim can still forfeit redress by completely innocent behaviour before or after the infraction. [D] The victim may lose redress if the director judges that *he could protect himself* by questioning the suspected law-breaker at the time of the infraction -- even if the victim had no suspicion at that time. Unfortunately such questions inflict further damage on the interrogator. [i] Opponents may complain to the director about repeated *harassment*. [ii] The questions provide useful *information to opponents* about the asker's hand. [iii] The questions and answers may *tip off opponents* to a misunderstanding. [iv] The asker's partner must to lean over backwards to avoid actions that may be suggested by the unauthorised information from the questions. [v] In most cases it will transpire that there was *no infraction* so there will be no gain to compensate for these losses. [E] After some infractions the victim also loses redress if he chooses an action, which the (usually conservative and unimaginative) director/appeals committee judge to be *wild or gambling*. In practice this means that the victims have to pussy-foot around avoiding most of their normal actions, especially speculative doubles, slams and leads. This is also frustrating if it turns out that there was no infraction (or the director rules that there was no infraction). Now you still have to keep the poor score generated by your attempt to play down-the-middle. [F] If in spite of all this, the director rules in favour of the victim, where legal, it is fashionable to award a calculated mix of possible scores instead of the likely result most favourable to the victim. Such equity rulings protect the director from complaints and delight the law-breaker (who often gets to keep much of his profit); but leave the victim disappointed and frustrated. It is usually pointless for the poor victim to complain or appeal because such fudge scores are rarely if ever adjusted. Anyway the adjustment will just be another poor compromise. IMO none of these laws add any value. Their removal from the law book would result in simpler fairer laws, fewer infractions, and a more enjoyable game. To anticipate common quibbles... [A] No I don't think there is a greater incidence of dishonesty among bridge-players than among the population at large. [B] Deliberate cheating is rare and not always distinguishable from normal law-breaking. If you have sufficient evidence against a cheat you can deal with him separately and harshly; but you also need normal sanctions that are sufficient to deter ordinary law-breakers and those whom you merely suspect of cheating. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 27 07:44:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:44:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >The laws recognise the possibility of an awareness developing >through experience that partner will occasionally violate >agreements with certain hand types in certain sequences. The >laws require disclosure of such awareness without deeming >there to be an agreement (implicit or explicit). Richard Hills: In my opinion Tim is begging the question, petitio principii. In my opinion knowledge or awareness of partner's habits will automatically create an implicit partnership understanding. My opinion is explicitly supported on page 8 of the WBF Code of Practice: >>To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be >>determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a >>heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may >>be psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of >>the committee one of the following circumstances is >>established: >> >>(a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on >>several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the >>memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit >>is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it >>may be anticipated; or >> >>(b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in >>the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so >>fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or >> >>(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the >>partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, >>that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such >>psychic calls to occur; or >> >>(d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some >>significant external matter that may help recognition of the >>psychic call. Tim West-Meads: >Of course the laws do not forbid us from judging that an >agreement (which may be illegal) *does* exist - but the >threshold of evidence to make such a judgement goes beyond "you >know partner tries it on occasionally" - we need (a little) >evidence that a call has been "based on" such an understanding >rather than merely being aware. Richard Hills: In my opinion Tim is once again begging the question, once again petitio principii. In my opinion knowledge or awareness of partner's habits will once again automatically create an implicit partnership understanding, even if subsequent calls are not "based on" that implicit partnership understanding. My opinion is once again explicitly supported on page 8 of the WBF Code of Practice: >>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, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Tue Feb 27 09:33:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:33:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45E3ECE6.5050206@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills (earlier posting): > > > Herman De Wael: > >> When interpreting L75D2, I prefer to do this the way it is >> written. >> >> When interpreting L75D2, Richard interprets "not in any >> manner" as "I choose to inform my partner when I wish". > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > A "straw man" argument, misstating my position for the purposes > of drama and poetic license. I interpret "not in any manner" > in accordance with its originally intended meaning "don't make > faces when pard misexplains". Likewise, "when I wish" does > not have the same meaning as "when required by Law 75C to > disclose our partnership agreement". > I had no intention of misstating your position. I was trying to point out that your position and mine are just as valid. You gladly break L75D2. I just as gladly break L73C. You defend your breaking of L75D2 by pointing out you are following L73C. I defend my breaking of L73C by pointing out I am following L75D2. > Herman De Wael: > >> Just face it Richard, one of two laws is going to get broken. >> I chose mine, you chose yours. Let's leave it at that. > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > In my opinion I never deliberately break any of the Laws. > Yes you do. You choose to interpret L75D2 so that you believe you don't break it. Your interpretation is just wrong. > No, it is only by a sea-lawyer non-contextual trees-not-forest > De Wael School interpretation that Herman has chosen one of two > equally illegal interpretations of Law. Even if Herman argues > that Kojak's First Rule applies to the De Wael School, by > hypothetically choosing to argue that Law 75D is a more > specific Law than Law 75C, this hypothetical argument would > fail, since a deliberately false De Wael School explanation is > a clear infraction of Law 75D1 (which requires the Director to > be summoned immediately when a player realises that his own > explanation was erroneous or incomplete). > But then again, that player would be breaking L75D2. > And I do not resile from my opinion that Herman's ethics are > idiosyncratic, since by his own admission his choice to adopt > the De Wael School is optional, and the deliberate falsehoods > which are a consequence of the De Wael School are contrary to > the generally accepted nature of the game of bridge. > There are no deliberate falsehoods in describing my partner's bid in exactly the way he intended it. Explaining it in another way (such as the systemic way) is being deliberately unhelpful, and gives partner UI, in direct violation of L75D2. About that "falsehood" I have once concocted a bidding sequence in which partner, having first misexplained a previous bid, now gives a reply to a non-asked question. The opponents wish to know what partner shows, but the player only wants to tell them the systemic meaning of the bid. Such as "4NT", "asking for aces", "5C", "shows the club king.". "But he was giving aces". "No, 4NT asks for club honours". "But how many aces does he have?". Do you really think we don't have to tell them the meaning of 5C if it were a reply to ace asking? IMO to tell them 5C shows the CK is: a) a blatant lie, covered up by "system", while the player knows quite well how many aces his partner has; and b) a blatant attempt to give UI to partner. I actually believe this is cheating. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 27 11:13:07 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:13:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] abbreviations In-Reply-To: <45E3738D.807@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070227110355.0281ece0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:55 27/02/2007 +0100, Jeff Easterson wrote: >Here are somemore abbreviations which have appeared in the past week or >so but are not on the blml list: >ISTM = It Seems To Me >IMOBO = In My Own Biased Opinion (variant IMOCO = Conceited) >BDSM >BTA = But Then Again >And, an afterthought. When talking about blml/blmlers; how is it >pronounced? Billmill? Bullmull? Bllmll? blml? Bellmell? Blemle? Phoneticians would tell you to pronounce "balmal" with "a" like in "again". JSYK. Oops. Just So You Know. Best regards Alain From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Feb 27 11:07:19 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:07:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] abbreviations Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D026@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ISTM http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IMOBO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM http://www.acronymdb.com/acronym/BTA Robin -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: 26 February 2007 23:56 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: [blml] abbreviations Here are somemore abbreviations which have appeared in the past week or so but are not on the blml list: ISTM IMOBO BDSM BTA And, incidentally, what does SEC (unofficial) mean? Why is it placed after the communication title? And, I think (am unsure) that it is sometimes some other term as "unofficial". This was probably explained at one time or another so older, veteran, blmlers can probably supply me with an explanation. And, an afterthought. When talking about blml/blmlers; how is it pronounced? Billmill? Bullmull? Bllmll? blml? Bellmell? Blemle? Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 27 12:18:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > >>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. Yes. DISCLOSED. That's why the WBF CC has space for the disclosure of known psychic habits. The WBF psychic bidding guidelines make it 100% crystal clear that disclosure of a known habit does NOT automatically make that habit part of a regulable systemic agreement. If one discloses such habits one *may* defend oneself against an allegation that the call was *based* on an understanding by demonstrating that neither the conventions/system in use nor the actual auction at the table provide any evidence that the psych was systemic. (Such defences should not accepted automatically by the TD). ====Quote=== Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. ========= Thus we might rule: This was a psych of which there was no partnership awareness. This was a psych of which there was partnership awareness but inadequate disclosure and we will adjust for the damage caused by the inadequate disclosure (including possible damage from the lack of prior disclosure rendering NOS in no position to adapt their methods). This was a psych of which there was partnership awareness but the awareness was fully and properly disclosed on the CC - no damage from MI. This alleged psych was disclosed on the CC but the 2H bid by psycher's partner is evidence that he was deliberately catering to the possibility of a psych rendering the psychic call systemic. And/OR This alleged psych was disclosed on the CC but the agreement to play Drury in conjunction with psychs of this type affords sufficient risk protection that we consider the call systemic. There probably isn't damage from MI but we will adjust and penalise if the system is illegal for the event (or prior disclosure requirements relating to such systems were not adhered to). This alleged psych wasn't disclosed on the CC and the 2H bid by psycher's partner is evidence that he was deliberately catering to the possibility of a psych rendering the psychic call systemic (cf Drury above). We will adjust and penalise considering both MI and possibility of an illegal system. We will also consider the issue of deliberate concealment and disqualification from the event. I think the above cover the main options. Any individual case will necessitate collecting the facts and judging accordingly. Tim From tkooij at tiscali.nl Tue Feb 27 12:53:19 2007 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:53:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton wrote: >> Psyching tendencies must be disclosed, but a mention on a CC should >> be enough. > I am not so sure Herman understands the merits of a psyche. Nothing > about psyches can nor should be said on a CC. Tim replies: Ton, may I refer you to the bottom right of the official WBF CC as available on their website (attempted diagram below): And ton answers: I don't see a good reason for blml-ers to obey to the regulations of WBF or EBL. They both might be in error, and probably when one is the other is as well, since they normally copy their regulations. In the meantime Sven has given enough reason to justify my statement. I will add one aspect. Most players never psyche but all of them would be stupid to put this on their CC, giving away a weapon they are entitled to use. Even my NBO had a corner on the CC asking to mark never/seldom/often. Never is stupid, often is against the laws, so seldom should be the only mark given. And the example by one of you telling which calls and in what position mihght be psyched in my opinion are partnership agreements. ton From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 27 13:51:25 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:51:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills asserted: > > [big snip] > >>>the deliberate falsehoods which are a >>>consequence of the De Wael School are >>>contrary to the generally accepted nature of >>>the game of bridge. > > Roger Pewick asked: > >>I am interested in having an enumeration as >>to what is the generally accepted nature of >>the game of bridge. > > Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: > >>>>...if you read the laws all together the >>>>indisputable intent in this matter may be >>>>inferred... > > Grattan Endicott, 15th March 2006: > >>>>...What the WBFLC established - even as >>>>long ago as under the chairmanship of Ed >>>>Theus - is that, except it be so specified, >>>>no one law is subject to another... > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6225 6285 As the nature of the game is generally accepted, I am puzzled at the number of those that persist in pursuing it. regards roger pewick From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 15:12:45 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:12:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening In-Reply-To: <45E3AD92.4020905@NTLworld.com> References: <000201c759f7$cd888960$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45E3AD92.4020905@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702270612m5303f959k7cbbbaca241ca95e@mail.gmail.com> > [B] There is no obvious legal mechanism for declaring *probabilistic* > systemic agreements i.e. In this context, most of the time we call X > with this hand but occasionally we call Y just to keep opponents > guessing. (For the sake of argument assume that neither X nor Y on such > a hand is a HUM). This form of Poker bluff is in accord with basic > games-theory, and it seems to be perfectly legal but how do you disclose it? I want to preface all of this by explictly stating that this is a hypothetical though experiment. Nigel is constantly harping about the need for a simple and practical rules set that anyone can apply. I'm quite sure that he SHOULD recognize that implementing this type of regime might be possible in theory, but is quite impractical. In short, he is succumbing to same meaningless debates about "How Many Angels can Dance on the Head of a Pin" that he normally decries.... Lets assume that the powers that be require that partner and I disclose the mixed strategy that we employ when restricted choice type defensive problems crop up. I am going to use restricted choice as an example because A. Most people should know the problem (and the solution) B The equilibirum is to assign equal weights to two different actions. In theory, you just flip a coin and play the Queen half the time and the Jack half the time... Thing don't get simplier than this. (In theory, we could extend this same type of strategy over to the bidding game) Obviously, you can't go and flip a coin during play. This is impractical, highly visible, and relies on an outside aid. I would argue that the best solution is to use the randomness inherent in the card deal itself. For example If (Spade length) + (Club length) > (Heart length + Diamond length) I play the Queen if (Spade length) + (Club length) < (Heart length + Diamond length) I play the Jack The only real problem with this approach is that you need to make sure that there isn't any correlation between your card play problem and the rule set for your random number generator. Here's how I think that disclosure should be achieved. I believe that 1. Partner, the opponents, and the TD staff have the right to know that a mixed strategy is being employed. Furthermore, they also have the right to know to know the PDF that describes one's choice of actions. (50% of the time I play the Queen, 50% of the time I play the Jack). 2. Neither partner NOR the opponents have the right to know the specific rules set for random number generator used to govern this process. 3. In theory, one might do the following: Prior to the start of the tournament, I submit five different rules sets to the TD staff. One rules set might be based on (Spade length + Club length). A second might be based on (Spade length + Heart length). A third on (Spade length + Diamond length), and so on. In turn, the TD staff would randomly choose one of these rules sets for me to use during the next session. I am not permitted to disclose this to information to partner. 4. At the close of the session, the rules set that has been assigned to me can be published. Anyone who wants to can verify that my bidding (or play) is consistent with my disclosed methods. As I said at the start: In theory, you can do this sort of stuff. In practice, it would be a hell of a lot more trouble than its worth (especially given the fact that no one can prove the existence of a mixed strategy for the bidding game, let alone state what the resulting PDF would look like) From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 27 15:20:29 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:20:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45E43E2D.9080205@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Thus we might rule: > > This was a psych of which there was no partnership awareness. > > This was a psych of which there was partnership awareness but inadequate > disclosure and we will adjust for the damage caused by the inadequate > disclosure (including possible damage from the lack of prior disclosure > rendering NOS in no position to adapt their methods). > > This was a psych of which there was partnership awareness but the > awareness was fully and properly disclosed on the CC - no damage from MI. > This is the case usually applicable to my psyches. Except that the partner usually is not aware, but he could be, considering the fact that I may psyche is common knowledge and my partner of the moment could well share in that. > This alleged psych was disclosed on the CC but the 2H bid by psycher's > partner is evidence that he was deliberately catering to the possibility > of a psych rendering the psychic call systemic. And/OR > This alleged psych was disclosed on the CC but the agreement to play > Drury in conjunction with psychs of this type affords sufficient risk > protection that we consider the call systemic. There probably isn't > damage from MI but we will adjust and penalise if the system is illegal > for the event (or prior disclosure requirements relating to such systems > were not adhered to). > I have often stated that I do not play Drury. As to my partner bidding only 2H, that would of course never happen. > This alleged psych wasn't disclosed on the CC and the 2H bid by > psycher's partner is evidence that he was deliberately catering to the > possibility of a psych rendering the psychic call systemic (cf Drury > above). We will adjust and penalise considering both MI and possibility > of an illegal system. We will also consider the issue of deliberate > concealment and disqualification from the event. > > > I think the above cover the main options. Any individual case will > necessitate collecting the facts and judging accordingly. > > Tim > > Precisely Tim. And any attempt by the blml posters to classify the Herman 1H into one of these categories without examining the rest of the facts is doomed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 27 18:58:31 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:58:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] References: <45E43E2D.9080205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004c01c75a9a$5a1dbbf0$26aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] > > > And any attempt by the blml posters to classify the > Herman 1H into one of these categories without > examining the rest of the facts is doomed. > +=+ If I were to meet the question in my periodic role as Systems Desk Manager at an EBL Championship I would have no difficulty. +=+ < Ton wrote: I don't see a good reason for blml-ers to obey to the regulations of WBF or EBL. They both might be in error, and probably when one is the other is as well, since they normally copy their regulations. < +=+ I am in sympathy with Ton's attitude to psyches in this thread - I believe that if a call is truly psychic there can be nothing predictable in it. (For example, the method will not have been proclaimed on the internet!). Therefore there can be no matter of understanding to be disclosed. However, where there is considered to be a partnership understanding, 'psyches' which may be made on hands of fewer than 8HCP, are clearly subject to regulation under Law 40D. The EBL and the WBF have deemed fit to exercise this power as part of their systems regulations. They do so under the heading of 'Psychic Bidding' and the definition of 'Psychic Call' in the law book is drawn sufficiently loosely to allow of its applicability even when there is a measure of partnership understanding with regard to it. So my stated objections to describing matters of understanding as 'psychic' are admittedly objections of principle, not fused in the clay of the 1997 laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 27 19:19:40 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:19:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psychs and "surprises" [WAS Herman's 1H opening] Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070227123238.02b5ac70@pop.starpower.net> In seeking to find the fine line between a legitmate, non-systemic psych and a systemic implicit agreement, we have been discussing the applicability of the rule of thumb that to be legitimate a psych must "be as much of a surprise to partner as to the opponents". Permit me to suggest that, in pursuing this discussion, we have been conflating two quite different situations: (a) partner is aware of one's tendency to psych in specific situations or circumstances (like Herman's 1H opening), and (b) partner is aware of one's propensity to psych far more often than the typical bridge player in any situation at any time (the "Zia effect"). In either case, one's partner may be "less surprised" at one's psych than are the opponents, but the implications are quite different. It is only in (a) that we may approach or cross the line between a legitimate psych and a PU (concealed or otherwise). In (b), however, I don't see how the fact that one may, in general, psych frequently as opposed to occasionally, or occasionally as opposed to rarely, can affect the extent to which any given psych can be viewed as "systemic". Perhaps a better rule of thumb would be that a legitimate psych must be one that is as much of a surprise to partner as would be a different psych in a different situation. But if partner has no reason to "look for" a particular psych in a particular situation, then the "systemicness" of an unpredictable psych in a random situation cannot depend on whether one psychs, on average, once a session or once a decade. Which does not, of course, mean that the frequency of one's non-systemic psychs is not, or cannot be, or should not be, fully disclosable. But one cannot be legitimately constrained from psyching, based on putative "partnership experience", merely because one likes to psych. We need to understand that "I like to open 1H with 0-3 HCP and fewer than four hearts" and "I really like to psych a lot" are not comparable, or even vaguely similar, "agreements", and it makes no sense to try to treat them as if they were the same thing. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 27 19:32:44 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:32:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Herman's 1H opening References: <000201c759f7$cd888960$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45E3AD92.4020905@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0702270612m5303f959k7cbbbaca241ca95e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003901c75a9d$adbda240$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "richard willey" < > Lets assume that the powers that be require that partner and I > disclose the mixed strategy that we employ when restricted choice type > defensive problems crop up. I am going to use restricted choice as an > example because > > A. Most people should know the problem (and the solution) > B The equilibirum is to assign equal weights to two different > actions. In theory, you just flip a coin and play the Queen half the > time and the Jack half the time... Thing don't get simplier than > this. Humph, I generally play the jack from QJ against naive declarers, because their practice is to play the queen and they assume it's what others do. As with all falsecards, telling opponents when and how we falsecard is surely not required, else deception is no longer much of a weapon. It is NOT a *special* partnership agreement, since falsecarding skill comes from general knowledge and experience (L75C) We play standard discards and signals, but will often go non-standard (on leads too) for tactical reasons. Why tell declarer something when partner probably has no need to know? I love playing against odd-even enthusiasts. After a few rounds of play they have told me the location of my missing high cards, thanks a lot. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 27 21:04:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:04:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Probabalistic agreements Message-ID: <45E48EBA.9040703@NTLworld.com> [nige1] There is no obvious legal mechanism for declaring *probabilistic* systemic agreements i.e. In this context, most of the time we call X with this hand but occasionally we call Y just to keep opponents guessing. (For the sake of argument assume that neither X nor Y on such a hand is a HUM). This form of Poker bluff is in accord with basic games-theory, and it seems to be perfectly legal but how do you disclose it? (i) For example, at teams, first in hand, not-vulnerable, we normally keep our 2S openers up to strength: 6-9 HCP, 6 card suit and 2 top honours. We agree, however, that 10% of the time that we pick up 0-9 HCP and any five spades we also open 2S (the remaining 90% of the time we would pass the latter hand-type). (ii) Extending the previous example, we might agree to modify the percentages according to other conditions. For example, the quality of opponents or the state of the match. Again there seems no obvious mechanism for disclosure. [Richard Willey] I want to preface all of this by explicitly stating that this is a hypothetical thought experiment. Nigel is constantly harping about the need for a simple and practical rules set that anyone can apply. I'm quite sure that he SHOULD recognize that implementing this type of regime might be possible in theory, but is quite impractical. In short, he is succumbing to same meaningless debates about "How Many Angels can Dance on the Head of a Pin" that he normally decries.... [nige1] I feel that Richard W, at heart, is a kindred spirit so I am hurt that he disparages so much of what I write. *Probabilistic agreements* seem to be legal; they are such an obvious idea that I'm sure experts employ them. Hence the problem is not hypothetical. (OK -- I concede that it is more of a priority to implement legislation about agreed but undeclared consistent minor deviations). Richard slightly misinterprets my crusade: I would like rules to be more simple, clear, objective and complete. Paradoxically, however, fewer rules would result in a more complex game. For example, no system restrictions at top level -- opening the way for the intellectual challenge of HUMs, encrypted signals, and so on. [Richard W] Lets assume that the powers that be require that partner and I disclose the mixed strategy that we employ when restricted choice type defensive problems crop up. I am going to use restricted choice as an example because A. Most people should know the problem (and the solution) B The equilibrium is to assign equal weights to two different actions. In theory, you just flip a coin and play the Queen half the time and the Jack half the time... Thing don't get simpler than this. (In theory, we could extend this same type of strategy over to the bidding game) Obviously, you can't go and flip a coin during play. This is impractical, highly visible, and relies on an outside aid. I would argue that the best solution is to use the randomness inherent in the card deal itself. For example If (Spade length) + (Club length) > (Heart length + Diamond length) I play the Queen if (Spade length) + (Club length) < (Heart length + Diamond length) I play the Jack The only real problem with this approach is that you need to make sure that there isn't any correlation between your card play problem and the rule set for your random number generator. Here's how I think that disclosure should be achieved. I believe that 1. Partner, the opponents, and the TD staff have the right to know that a mixed strategy is being employed. Furthermore, they also have the right to know to know the PDF that describes one's choice of actions. (50% of the time I play the Queen, 50% of the time I play the Jack). 2. Neither partner NOR the opponents have the right to know the specific rules set for random number generator used to govern this process. 3. In theory, one might do the following: Prior to the start of the tournament, I submit five different rules sets to the TD staff. One rules set might be based on (Spade length + Club length). A second might be based on (Spade length + Heart length). A third on (Spade length + Diamond length), and so on. In turn, the TD staff would randomly choose one of these rules sets for me to use during the next session. I am not permitted to disclose this to information to partner. 4. At the close of the session, the rules set that has been assigned to me can be published. Anyone who wants to can verify that my bidding (or play) is consistent with my disclosed methods. As I said at the start: In theory, you can do this sort of stuff. In practice, it would be a hell of a lot more trouble than its worth (especially given the fact that no one can prove the existence of a mixed strategy for the bidding game, let alone state what the resulting PDF would look like) [nige1] Several times previously in BLML, I have suggested basing a "random" call on the possession of certain specific cards, hence I endorse Richard's suggestion of randomising based on relative suit lengths. It seems simple and fair. I hasten to mention 2 small quibbles (before somebody else does)... [A] To give opponents a problem, you rarely need to stick to the exact probabilities. For example if defenders *sometimes* play the knave and at other times play the queen (where "sometimes" means randomly between about 10% and 90% of the time), that presents declarer with the same dilemma as when you play the knave, randomly, half of the time. I'm not a current BW subscriber but I'm told that Jeff Rubens recently demonstrated this to be the case). [B] If there are only a few different rule-sets for each player, then other players might be able to deduce which had been chosen, during the course of a long session. [C] In any case, what can the director do if a player fail to conform to the chosen rule-set? Is the player not allowed to make mistakes -- or even psych his agreement? And whatever he does, will it not be just as much a surprise to partner as to opponents? IMO it is fascinating stuff :) From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 22:18:43 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:18:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" Message-ID: <2da24b8e0702271318m399bccd6oea9a543042d6c054@mail.gmail.com> Quick question: Through the years we've seen a number of debates on BLML dealing with the meaning of the word natural. As I recall, it was (generally) accepted that bids could be both natural and conventional. For example, a Muiderberg 2S opening which showed 5+ Spades and 4+ cards in either minor is both natural and conventional. More recently, I've some definitions which suggest an alternative approach. The EBU Organge Book definines natural as "Natural Suit bid: a bid showing length in the suit and saying nothing about any other suit. Length is at least four cards unless explicitly stated otherwise. In many situations, especially on later rounds, a natural suit bid may show at least three cards in that suit." The Bridge World offers ""a call indicating a desire to play in the named strain without offering information relevant to a specific different strain." and I've seen some claims that the ACBL is using the same definition. I'm curious whether there is a significant change taking on here... -- "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 Tue Feb 27 22:59:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Falsecards (was Herman's...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901c75a9d$adbda240$6601a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: >As with all falsecards, telling opponents when and how we >falsecard is surely not required, else deception is no >longer much of a weapon. Richard Hills: This argument was exploded by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial. Partnership understandings on carding must be disclosed to the same extent as partnership understandings on bidding. Marvin French: >It is NOT a *special* partnership agreement, since >falsecarding skill comes from general knowledge and >experience (L75C). WBF Code of Practice, page 8: >>Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the >>agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by >>defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is >>lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his >>reading of the fall of the cards. Marvin French: >We play standard discards and signals, but will often go >non-standard (on leads too) for tactical reasons. Why >tell declarer something when partner probably has no need >to know? Richard Hills: The vast majority of bridge players are Walter the Walrus on their opening leads, never or hardly ever choosing to falsecard before dummy is visible. So, if Marv's partner is aware that Marv is **often** non-standard on lead for tactical reasons, then Marv's opponents are entitled to share the awareness that Marv is **often** not the Walrus, perhaps via a pre-alert. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Tue Feb 27 23:02:39 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:02:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Psychs and "surprises" Message-ID: <3465550.1172613759333.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Eric Landau >Sent: Feb 27, 2007 1:19 PM >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: [blml] Psychs and "surprises" [WAS Herman's 1H opening] > >In seeking to find the fine line between a legitmate, non-systemic >psych and a systemic implicit agreement, we have been discussing the >applicability of the rule of thumb that to be legitimate a psych must >"be as much of a surprise to partner as to the opponents". Permit me >to suggest that, in pursuing this discussion, we have been conflating >two quite different situations: (a) partner is aware of one's tendency >to psych in specific situations or circumstances (like Herman's 1H >opening), and (b) partner is aware of one's propensity to psych far >more often than the typical bridge player in any situation at any time >(the "Zia effect"). Except (b) doesn't exist. Zia's psychs have purposes, and there is a pattern. Fake splinters are a favorite. No one psychs randomly; a psych white v. red over a strong 1C is more likely than a psych red v. white, right? And some psychs are not considered by some people; all white, IMPS, if partner opens 3H-X to me, and I hold x -- J953 QJT98654, I'm going to bid 4H - catches the lead, and muddles the opponents bidding. Someone else might not even think of that. > >In either case, one's partner may be "less surprised" at one's psych >than are the opponents, but the implications are quite different. It >is only in (a) that we may approach or cross the line between a >legitimate psych and a PU (concealed or otherwise). My partner knows I am not an idiot. If the auction starts 1H-P-1S-P-2C-P I am not going to psych a club raise. Ever. Marvin, do I have to disclose this tendency? What of people who never psych initial actions? I'm not one of them, but there's a powerful argument to be made there. And if you *do* psych, there are hand patterns that anyone would expect; if I psych a 1H opening, the chance that I have six spades and a 19-count is.... remote. So, every psych and every partnership has some element of item (a) on Eric's list, I think. In (b), however, I >don't see how the fact that one may, in general, psych frequently as >opposed to occasionally, or occasionally as opposed to rarely, can >affect the extent to which any given psych can be viewed as "systemic". > >Perhaps a better rule of thumb would be that a legitimate psych must be >one that is as much of a surprise to partner as would be a different >psych in a different situation. In that case, 2H-X-2S as a psych is illegal for all competent players. Does anyone take 2S seriously? (I've never pulled this, myself, because I prefer other mischief, but it's wildly common.) I don't think this rule can work. But if partner has no reason to "look >for" a particular psych in a particular situation, then the >"systemicness" of an unpredictable psych in a random situation cannot >depend on whether one psychs, on average, once a session or once a decade. Psychs aren't random. Can't be random. > >Which does not, of course, mean that the frequency of one's >non-systemic psychs is not, or cannot be, or should not be, fully >disclosable. But one cannot be legitimately constrained from psyching, >based on putative "partnership experience", merely because one likes to >psych. > >We need to understand that "I like to open 1H with 0-3 HCP and fewer >than four hearts" and "I really like to psych a lot" are not >comparable, or even vaguely similar, "agreements", and it makes no >sense to try to treat them as if they were the same thing. I agree that opening some significant fragment of 0-3 HCP fewer-than-four hearts hands 1H would likely become a PU, but "random" is too strong. If I'm psyching, I have a plan. Certain auctions scream for such plans more often. If they open a strong club, and I have Q9 AKQJT984 3 984, 3D would be attractive. And if it went 1C-3D-P-4D (Pass=values)/X-4H, my partner wouldn't know for sure I had hearts, but no partner would pull with one heart and four diamonds - he'd leave whatever adventure in terror I was committing come back to me. (4H might be a prelude to 4S, then 5C, for all pard knows.) If I sat down with Eric, and we agreed to "Super-aggressive preempts over strong club" and started playing, and Eric perpetrated the above 3D sequence, I would recognize that a psych was possible out of the gate - more possible than on other sequences - and I would know partner had a non-random hand for his bidding. This is a particular psych in a particular situation that has a likelihood way, way higher than other situations. And I would pass 4Hx with any hand. And I wouldn't consider this event as showing much of anything for future hands; it doesn't create a PU, outside of "partner is reasonably imaginative." --JRM From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 27 23:36:25 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:36:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" References: <2da24b8e0702271318m399bccd6oea9a543042d6c054@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007301c75abf$b7ea7dc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "richard willey" > Quick question: > > Through the years we've seen a number of debates on BLML dealing with > the meaning of the word natural. As I recall, it was (generally) > accepted that bids could be both natural and conventional. For > example, a Muiderberg 2S opening which showed 5+ Spades and 4+ cards > in either minor is both natural and conventional. > > More recently, I've some definitions which suggest an alternative > approach. The EBU Organge Book definines natural as > > "Natural Suit bid: > > a bid showing length in the suit and saying nothing about any other > suit. Length is at least four cards unless explicitly stated > otherwise. In many situations, especially on later rounds, a natural > suit bid may show at least three cards in that suit." > > The Bridge World offers ""a call indicating a desire to play in the > named strain without offering information relevant to a specific > different strain." and I've seen some claims that the ACBL is using > the same definition. Not so. The ACBL Convention Chart defines the word "natural" as follows: 1. An opening suit bid or response that shows three-plus cards in a minor or four cards-plus in a major. 2. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons). 3. An overcall is natural if it shows four or more cards in the suit. Why are they defining "natural" instead of "conventional" in a publication entitled "ACBL General Convention Chart"? Because they want to outlaw the bidding of three-card major suits, which they don't like, even though the Laws say it's okay. The ACBL Alert Procedure defines the word "natural" this way: (1) Three or more cards in a minor suit (2) Four or more cards in a major suit (3) Four or more cards for an overcall at the one level [five at the two level??] (4) Five or more cards for a weak two bid (5) Six or more cards for a three-level preempt Definition (1) is how players get away with bidding xxx suits as a "Help Suit Game Try" without explaining the weakness when questioned. When you complain to the TD, he says it's natural, that's all you need to know. Baloney on that. Three small is a "Weak Suit Game Try" that should be Alerted as such, natural or not. > I'm curious whether there is a significant change taking on here... > I see no need for the word "natural," which is not in the Laws (other than in an obscure footnote). A call is either conventional or it is not conventional, that's it. The definitions in the Laws and BW's definition are not good. We know a convention when we see one, but it is hard to define. Let me try: A bid is a convention if it -- Doesn't show three or more cards in the suit (any strength), or -- Doesn't show strength in the suit (any length). -- Says something specific about another denomination by agreement rather than inference. -- Asks a question by agreement rather than inference. A play is a convention if it conveys a meaning by agreement rather than inference [from the Laws, I like that] A double is a convention if it is not intended "to play." That does not mean a non-conventional double must be passed ! A redouble is a convention if is not intended "to play." That does not mean a non-conventional redouble must be passed! A pass is a convention if it conveys a meaning by agreement rather than inference Law 30C defines a conventional pass, but it's beyond my ability to understand it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 28 00:11:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:11:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45D9B5B9.000004.28175@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>Non-bridge jurisprudency has it that, when you have only two >>possible courses of action, and both of them are infractions, >>then none is. >> >>Couldn't it be one of those cases ? As long as there is no >>item in TFLB that defines precedence between L75C and L75D. Roger Pewick: >Say that situation X exists. And passage A of the Law >requires that when situation X exists that the player is to >be hung by the ankles; while in addition there is passage B >that requires that when situation X exists that the player is >to be hung by an ankle and a wrist. As such I read that the >law requires that when situation X exists then in order to >satisfy the law then the player must be hung by both ankles >and that the player must be hung by an ankle and a wrist. > >And for the sake of hypothesis, consider additionally that >there is passage C that requires when situation X exists then >the player is to not be hung [set free]. As for satisfying >the law under that premise - it is a foolish man that allows >himself to be the judge. Johnny Depp, Earl of Rochester (1647-1680): "Here lies our sovereign lord the King Whose promise none relies on; He never said a foolish thing, Nor ever did a wise one." Richard Hills: As a foolish man I dare to judge that, when in doubt, the Laws should be read with commonsense (Kojak's Third Rule). William Schoder (Kojak), 21st February 2007: >>>There you go again, Mathias! Trying to inject "common >>>sense" into this thread. If we do that, it goes away, and >>>then what is left for us to posture over? The English >>>language? [snip] >>>To read the law and twist the words to defend a ludicrous >>>interpretation is probably what the games of BLML are mostly >>>about. There's a world of difference between alleging that >>>the words used in the laws could be misinterpreted (in this >>>case it would need someone without any knowledge of the game >>>of bridge), and taking a stance that is silly. I used to get >>>all excited up over this kind of sophistic reasoning, but >>>I've mellowed and found it better for my blood pressure to >>>just laugh. >>> >>>It's gratifying to find comments like yours and Tim's -- >>>there's still hope for the game. >>> >>>Kojak Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 28 00:50:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:50:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45E3ECE6.5050206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (previous posting): >>In my opinion I never deliberately break any of the Laws. Herman De Wael asserted: >Yes you do. You choose to interpret L75D2 so that you >believe you don't break it. Your interpretation is just >wrong. Richard Hills (current posting): In my opinion, what Herman should have written is -> "In my opinion, your interpretation of Law 75D2 is just wrong." I note that Herman De Wael has not yet been given plenary authority by the WBF Laws Committee to over-rule my commonsense interpretation of the wording of Law 75D2. Disclaimer published by the WBF Laws Committee: >>>"No opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision >>>of the committee, should be considered to have the >>>authority of a committee decision. Directors seeking >>>guidance should refer to their respective NBOs." Richard Hills (current posting): I further note that Herman De Wael has _not_ sought guidance from the Belgian NBO for a temporary ruling on whether or not the De Wael School is valid in Belgium. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 28 01:14:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:14:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Probabilistic agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45E48EBA.9040703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie's syllogism: (1) *Probabilistic agreements* seem to be legal; (2) they are such an obvious idea that I'm sure experts employ them. (3) Hence the problem is not hypothetical. Richard Hills' syllogism: (1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness (2) A ham sandwich is better than nothing (3) Hence a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness Nigel Guthrie's hypothetical: We agree, however, that 10% of the time that we pick up 0-9 HCP and any five spades we also open 2S (the remaining 90% of the time we would pass the latter hand-type). ..... there seems no obvious mechanism for disclosure. Richard Hills' WTP?: What's the problem? A partnership's understandings, whether variable or not, must be disclosed - Law 40 and Law 75 still apply. Indeed, in Nigel's British homeland a variable 1NT opening, 12-14 or 15-17, is freely used and equally freely disclosed. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 28 01:55:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <004c01c75a9a$5a1dbbf0$26aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > However, where there is considered to be a > partnership understanding, 'psyches' which may be > made on hands of fewer than 8HCP, are clearly > subject to regulation under Law 40D. No, L40A makes clear that a player is *always* free to make a psychic call provided that such call or play is not *based* on a partnership understanding. Mere awareness is not enough to say that the bid is *based* on that understanding. Herman's 1H bids are wholly independent of whether any awareness even exists and thus cannot be said to be *BASED* on any understanding whatsoever. > The EBL and the WBF have deemed fit to exercise this > power as part of their systems regulations. While in fact they have said "Explicit agreements that psychic calls are expected, or providing systemic protection for them, are classified as Brown Sticker". The Herman 1H is neither expected by agreement (there are no hand types on which Herman is systemically obliged to psych 1H) nor protected by system (OK, technically I need to check his CC for this one). The relevant section of the WBF psychic bidding policy in this instance is item 2. (which I have already quoted at least twice on this thread). > So my stated > objections to describing matters of understanding > as 'psychic' are admittedly objections of principle, > not fused in the clay of the 1997 laws. Perhaps instead of soi-disant "principle" you should analyse the linguistic usage in the WBF policy that actually distinguishes between "Explicit agreements.." and "Understandings whereby from time to time..". OK, maybe you have misunderstood the Herman 1H and are mis-classifying it under Policy 1 rather than Policy 2 but an objection to "describing matters of understanding as 'psychic'" would be to say that Policy 2 describes an empty set of disclosure requirements. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 28 03:14:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:14:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: What are your logical alternatives when four calls from partner and LHO are inconsistent, suggesting that they are both bird brains? Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 4C(1) Dble(2) Pass 4H 5C(3) Dble(4) Pass ? (1) Preempt in clubs, transferring captaincy of the auction to South (2) Takeout double, transferring captaincy of the auction to West (3) Preempt in clubs, transferring captaincy of the auction to South (4) Penalty double, seizing captaincy of the auction from West You, West, hold: K A6543 JT542 T2 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Wed Feb 28 23:13:40 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:13:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070228141127.01d55338@mail.optusnet.com.au> (RJH): At 06:14 PM 27/02/2007, you wrote: >What are your logical alternatives when four >calls from partner and LHO are inconsistent, >suggesting that they are both bird brains? > >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: Both > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >Pass 4C(1) Dble(2) Pass >4H 5C(3) Dble(4) Pass >? > >(1) Preempt in clubs, transferring captaincy >of the auction to South >(2) Takeout double, transferring captaincy >of the auction to West >(3) Preempt in clubs, transferring captaincy >of the auction to South >(4) Penalty double, seizing captaincy of the >auction from West I hate to dispute with someone who knows how to play this game, but I would like to suggest the last double means "I have two club losers so you'd better pass", so I pass Cheers, Tony(Sydney) >You, West, hold: > >K >A6543 >JT542 >T2 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >National Training Branch, DIAC >02 6225 6285 > >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. DIAC 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 > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/705 - Release Date: 27/02/2007 >3:24 PM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 28 04:42:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:42:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: [big snip] >>>the deliberate falsehoods which are a consequence >>>of the De Wael School are contrary to the generally >>>accepted nature of the game of bridge. Roger Pewick: >>As the nature of the game is generally accepted, I >>am puzzled at the number of those that persist in >>pursuing it. Grattan Endicott, 15th February 2007: >+=+ I suggest that a game is defined by its rules, or >by a statement of an object to be obtained in >compliance with its rules. This does not predicate a >necessity of familiarity with its rules if the player >accepts the remedies that follow breaches of them. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills retracts: Okay, the "generally accepted nature of the game" is an irrelevant consideration when determining legality or illegality of an action. I therefore retract my previous assertion and agree that a game is defined by its rules, since any other approach would lead to chaotic and inconsistent rulings according to each individual director's idiosyncratic interpretation of the "generally accepted nature of the game". But taking a step backwards, since Duplicate Bridge is "defined by its rules", what criteria should a National Authority (for example, the Belgian National Authority) use when deciding upon a temporary interpretation of an ambiguity in the Lawbook? Is the external-to-Law guidepost of "generally accepted nature of the game" a valid approach when creating new Law to fill a gap? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 28 05:21:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:21:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070228141127.01d55338@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>>You, West, hold: >>> >>>K >>>A6543 >>>JT542 >>>T2 >>> >>>What call do you make? >>>What other calls do you consider making? Tony Musgrove (blmler): >>I hate to dispute with someone who knows how to play this >>game, but I would like to suggest the last double means >>"I have two club losers so you'd better pass", so I pass >> >>Cheers, >> >>Tony(Sydney) Matthias Berghaus (casebook panellist): >...the slow second double makes 5D decidedly easier. Axxx, >Kxx, AKQx, Qx bids the same way (only faster, probably) >and beats 5C 800 in top tricks. Much better than -100... Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 28 06:25:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:25:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45E3ECE6.5050206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael (current posting): >>About that "falsehood" I have once concocted a >>bidding sequence in which partner, having first >>misexplained a previous bid, now gives a reply >>to a non-asked question. The opponents wish to >>know what partner shows, but the player only >>wants to tell them the systemic meaning of the >>bid. [snip] >>is: a) a blatant lie, covered up by "system", >>while the player knows quite well how many >>aces his partner has; and b) a blatant attempt >>to give UI to partner. I actually believe this >>is cheating. Richard Hills ("asked jesting Pilate" thread): >"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 ("asked jesting Pilate" thread): 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. So why all this writing about "better diamonds" being False? What is Truth, indeed? Richard Hills: >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... Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 28 09:13:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:13:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45E539B1.2060800@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills (previous posting): > >>> In my opinion I never deliberately break any of the Laws. > > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> Yes you do. You choose to interpret L75D2 so that you >> believe you don't break it. Your interpretation is just >> wrong. > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > In my opinion, what Herman should have written is -> > > "In my opinion, your interpretation of Law 75D2 is just > wrong." > > I note that Herman De Wael has not yet been given plenary > authority by the WBF Laws Committee to over-rule my > commonsense interpretation of the wording of Law 75D2. > Neither did you receive authority to over-rule my literary interpretation of the wording of L75D2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 28 09:24:33 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:24:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <004c01c75a9a$5a1dbbf0$26aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <45E43E2D.9080205@skynet.be> <004c01c75a9a$5a1dbbf0$26aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45E53C41.2010008@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > < > +=+ I am in sympathy with Ton's attitude to psyches > in this thread - I believe that if a call is truly psychic > there can be nothing predictable in it. (For example, > the method will not have been proclaimed on the > internet!). Therefore there can be no matter of > understanding to be disclosed. Don't you see that proclaiming something on the Internet does not alter anything to the nature of the psyche. I have told a few friends that in the past I have perpetrated a similar psyche a number of times. This changes nothing to the agreements I have made with regular partners, and certainly nothing to the small set of agreements I will make when I next start a tournament with an unregular one. Now suppose I make that similar psyche once again; I cannot hide the fact that I have done the psyche before. So you would rule my psyche has become systemic. But don't you see you are then punishing me for my writing on blml? Because at the next table, someone else will do exactly the same psyche (that has happened to me once!) and either: he will not tell the TD he has done it before, or: he will tell he has done it before, but he hasn't told this fact to the whole world via blml. Yet it is well possible that he has exactly the same habit as me, and exactly the same level of agreement (none) with his partner. And I am not talking about awareness by the partner. Generally, my partners are not aware of these tendencies of mine. Yet I don't hide behind that. They could be aware of it, and so this tendencies should be disclosed. But I refuse to stop doing a psyche simply because I have done the same one 20 times in the past 20 years. I am willing to avoid discussing it with regular partners; I am willing to forego playing Drury; I am willing to accept a ruling of MI if my opponents were to be damaged if they did not know I am a more regular psycher than most in Belgium (I am those 20 psyches ahead of 95% of Belgian players). But I am not willing to see ruled systemic something about which the only "system" is my public admittance that I have done it before and consider doing it again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 28 09:32:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:32:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychs and "surprises" [WAS Herman's 1H opening] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070227123238.02b5ac70@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070227123238.02b5ac70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45E53E2B.6020008@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > We need to understand that "I like to open 1H with 0-3 HCP and fewer > than four hearts" and "I really like to psych a lot" are not > comparable, or even vaguely similar, "agreements", and it makes no > sense to try to treat them as if they were the same thing. > But they are the same thing, nevertheless. "I really like to psych a lot" is simply a set of statements, one of which is: -"1H in third hand might be done on 0-3" -"1H after an opponent's double can be with hearts or spades" -... Each of these statements should be looked at in the same way as my statement of only the first one. Surely you are not going to punish me for psyching too little? John has exactly the same habit as me. When faced with a third hand and zero points, he will open (perhaps only "sometimes", but he will). He will then tell you exatly the same as I do: when faced with this type of hand, I have psyched in the past and I will psyche in the future. Surely you are not going to punish me because John does so many psyches he cannot post to blml on every single one of them - yet he does not different than I do, when holding that same hand. (sorry if I misinterpret your psyching habits, John, or if you would never perform this particular one - you must understand what I am trying to convey - I do less psyches than you, but the fact that I have told the world about those from the past -and even from the futurs- does not alter my tendencies, it only makes them better known). > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 28 10:56:21 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:56:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" References: <2da24b8e0702271318m399bccd6oea9a543042d6c054@mail.gmail.com> <007301c75abf$b7ea7dc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c75b23$ed4f03f0$c3d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" > > > Why are they defining "natural" instead of "conventional" in > a publication entitled "ACBL General Convention Chart"? > Because they want to outlaw the bidding of three-card major > suits, which they don't like, even though the Laws say it's > okay. > +=+ I argued that the successive attempts to define 'conventional' had been so messy and unsuccessful that we should adopt an inverse approach. We would define what was not conventional so that everything outside of that definition was to be deemed conventional. I do not recall that the laws use the word 'natural': it is used in some regulations.and it is for their authors to define their use of the word. (Can anyone remind me of the existence of the word 'natural' in a law?) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 28 11:30:44 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:30:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] References: Message-ID: <000301c75b23$ee423d90$c3d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] > > Perhaps instead of soi-disant "principle" you should analyse the > linguistic usage in the WBF policy that actually distinguishes > between "Explicit agreements.." and "Understandings whereby > from time to time..". > > OK, maybe you have misunderstood the Herman 1H and are > mis-classifying it under Policy 1 rather than Policy 2 but an > objection to "describing matters of understanding as 'psychic'" > would be to say that Policy 2 describes an empty set of > disclosure requirements. > +=+ Nothing persuades me that Herman's partners are not aware of his use of the 1H bid in certain situations. It is without doubt, in my view, a matter of partnership understanding. That belief is, of course, redoubled in respect of any partner who subscribes to blml (as I slily pointed out to him). Under the WBF regulation such "psychics should be made randomly but any understandings about them should be revealed". That is the case on the basis that Herman sometimes does and sometimes does not make the psyche in any relevant situation. However if, as was asserted earlier in this thread, there are relevant situations in which Herman invariably makes the bid - let us say third in hand with 0-3 HCP and a shortage in Hearts at a given vulnerability - then the method is unquestionably HUM because in those situations 1H is weaker than Pass. I take the view that it is within the competence of a Director, an appeals committee, or a duly appointed controller of systems, to judge that, on the balance of probabilities, this last applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Wed Feb 28 12:52:40 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:52:40 +0900 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" In-Reply-To: <000201c75b23$ed4f03f0$c3d4403e@Mildred> References: <000201c75b23$ed4f03f0$c3d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200702281152.AA07494@geller204.nifty.com> gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > I do not recall that the laws use the word 'natural': >it is used in some regulations.and it is for their authors >to define their use of the word. (Can anyone remind me >of the existence of the word 'natural' in a law?) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I could only find one instance in the 1997 laws, in the examples of mistaken explanations and forgetting the convention associated with Law75D2. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 28 14:09:33 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:09:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c75b23$ee423d90$c3d4403e@Mildred> References: <000301c75b23$ee423d90$c3d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <45E57F0D.2000606@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> > +=+ Nothing persuades me that Herman's partners are not > aware of his use of the 1H bid in certain situations. It is I don't need to persuade you. I tell you it is like that. But I also tell everyone that I don't consider it important how much my partner knows. The fact that there is something to be known is enough. Partner could know it, so opponents are entitled to know it, even if partner does not in fact know it. So let's abandon that discussion. > without doubt, in my view, a matter of partnership understanding. Yes it is. So what? > That belief is, of course, redoubled in respect of any partner > who subscribes to blml (as I slily pointed out to him). Under the > WBF regulation such "psychics should be made randomly but > any understandings about them should be revealed". And what does randomly mean? Sometimes you do it, and sometimes you don't? OK, I shall from now on keep track of the times I did not open. > That is the case on the basis that Herman sometimes does > and sometimes does not make the psyche in any relevant > situation. However if, as was asserted earlier in this thread, there > are relevant situations in which Herman invariably makes the > bid - let us say third in hand with 0-3 HCP and a shortage in > Hearts at a given vulnerability - then the method is unquestionably > HUM because in those situations 1H is weaker than Pass. I take > the view that it is within the competence of a Director, an appeals > committee, or a duly appointed controller of systems, to judge > that, on the balance of probabilities, this last applies. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Now suppose I have kept track of all the times I had 4 points or less in third hand in the past 20 years. I tell you that on 30% of those hands, I have opened anyway. Would you accept that this is random? But then I reveal that the last time I opened on 4 points was 10 years ago. After a debacle then, I decided no longer to open on 4 points. So you ask me to redo my statistics and to only count the hands with 3 points or less. It turns out that from those, I opened 75%. Next you ask me to omit those with red v white vul. It turns out that the percentage shoots up to 95%. So, you say, it is systemic. But let's now suppose that the percentage is still only 60%. You can go on refining. Did I have more hearts than spades or vice versa. Perhaps if you only count the hands of 2 points, with less hearts than spades, non-vul, the percentage of those I opened rises to 100%. But at the same time, the absolute number has dropped to 4 in 20 years. What is random about all this? And don't you believe that if you were to list each and every hand John Probst has played in 20 years, you will not find some types of situations in which John has psyched 100% of the time? So I repeat, the only thing that distinguishes me from any other psycher is that I have noticed in my psyching history a particular trend, and I have been foolish enough to tell blml about it. If I had been less honest (and I am not calling any psycher dishonest) then my habits would go on undetected for another 20 years. What I a trying to do is to enable psychers to honestly admit their psyching tendencies, without fears of genuine psychs becoming banned. So that we can weed out the non-genuine psyches. There is nothing to be gained in banning me from psyching, simply because a badly worded regulation with a wrong interpretation means the bid could be banned. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 28 15:18:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:18:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0702271318m399bccd6oea9a543042d6c054@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2da24b8e0702271318m399bccd6oea9a543042d6c054@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070228090811.02a2ed50@pop.starpower.net> At 04:18 PM 2/27/07, rwilley wrote: >Through the years we've seen a number of debates on BLML dealing with >the meaning of the word natural. As I recall, it was (generally) >accepted that bids could be both natural and conventional. For >example, a Muiderberg 2S opening which showed 5+ Spades and 4+ cards >in either minor is both natural and conventional. I don't think so. Granted, we've had a lot of unresolved discussion regarding the semantics of various such terms, but ISTM we have come to the general conclusion that TFLB requires a bifurcation of agreements into two mutually exclusive categories, "conventional" and "not conventional". So unless we choose to define "natural" as synonymous with "not conventional", it becomes a useless term for the purpose of understanding and applying the laws. >More recently, I've some definitions which suggest an alternative >approach. The EBU Organge Book definines natural as > >"Natural Suit bid: > >a bid showing length in the suit and saying nothing about any other >suit. Length is at least four cards unless explicitly stated >otherwise. In many situations, especially on later rounds, a natural >suit bid may show at least three cards in that suit." > >The Bridge World offers ""a call indicating a desire to play in the >named strain without offering information relevant to a specific >different strain." and I've seen some claims that the ACBL is using >the same definition. We haven't come to consensus on the definition of a convention -- or, in the case of the above, an equivalent definition of "not a convention", whether we choose to use "natural" as a synonym or not -- beyond "I know it when I see it". But I think those of us who "know it when we see it" have something very much like one of the above definitions in mind. >I'm curious whether there is a significant change taking on here... I suggest that we have, collectively, not so much changed our thinking on the subject as refined it. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 28 15:43:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:43:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) In-Reply-To: References: <45E3ECE6.5050206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070228093333.02ae2270@pop.starpower.net> At 12:25 AM 2/28/07, richard.hills wrote: >Herman De Wael ("asked jesting Pilate" thread): > >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. So why all this writing >about "better diamonds" being False? > >What is Truth, indeed? Truth comes not in the form of a noun (however qualified), but in the form of a statement, with a subject and a verb. "One ace" or "better diamonds than clubs" is neither true nor false. "He (by agreement) shows one ace" and "he (in fact) holds better diamonds than clubs" are true; "he holds one ace" and "he shows better diamonds than clubs" are false. So only one of Herman's two answers can be "in reality" true; which one depends on what the question hidden behind those "?"s are! If the question is "what does he show?", only "one ace" is the truth; if the question is "what does he hold?", only "better diamonds than clubs" is the truth. As only one of those questions is legal, we should have no problem knowing which one we are to respond to. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 28 16:35:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c75b23$ee423d90$c3d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > That is the case on the basis that Herman sometimes does > and sometimes does not make the psyche in any relevant > situation. However if, as was asserted earlier in this thread, there > are relevant situations in which Herman invariably makes the Herman has since confirmed that he is likely (not certain) to psych with a suitable holding. > bid - let us say third in hand with 0-3 HCP and a shortage in > Hearts at a given vulnerability - then the method is unquestionably > HUM because in those situations 1H is weaker than Pass. Actually it isn't. Even if it were systemic the requirement for H shortage (as well as 0-3 hcp) means that a 3rd seat pass has a minimum of zero hcp (and so could be 432,432,432,5432 - no hand can be weaker than that). The 1H could be said to *include* some hands weaker than other hands which opener would systemically pass - but that is true of many systems/agreements (I might agree to open 1H on xx,KQJTx,QJx,xxx and pass, in the same seat, on AQ,xxxxx,KQx,Jxx). > I take the view that it is within the competence of a Director, an > appeals committee, or a duly appointed controller of systems, to ^DACoS > judge that, on the balance of probabilities, this last applies. Of course, and we would expect the TD/AC/DACoS to gather all the relevant facts. It must also be within the competence of said august person(s) to judge that the Herman 1H is a disclosable psychic habit and *NOT* a systemic agreement. For example I might discover that while Herman says he will sometimes choose pass with suitable hands he has never actually made such a choice. I might discover that Herman's partner is an avid reader of BLML (unbeknownst to Herman). I might discover that a partner remembers such a psych from 3 years ago (albeit Herman had forgotten the incident) and should have disclosed the experience. I might discover that Herman's 3rd hand psych frequency is about as expected for a reasonable player and that the 0-3 type is not only a relatively small proportion of 1H openers but also a fairly small proportion of *psyched* 3rd hand openers (partner much less likely to have detected a pattern to be disclosed). The important principle, as recognised by the WBF and EBL, is that some things should be disclosed even though they are not "agreements" and that in so disclosing an awareness of habit does not automatically *become* an "agreement". Tim From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 28 17:29:19 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:29:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] References: <000301c75b23$ee423d90$c3d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <005701c75b55$99233e40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "You have to act when things look like > they are going to happen; if you wait > until you know for certain, it's too late." > ~ Russell Schweickart > (There is a 1 in 45000 chance the > asteroid Apophis will collide with the > earth AD2036.) > =========================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Rule reform poll [SEC=PERSONAL] > > >> >> Perhaps instead of soi-disant "principle" you should analyse the >> linguistic usage in the WBF policy that actually distinguishes >> between "Explicit agreements.." and "Understandings whereby >> from time to time..". >> >> OK, maybe you have misunderstood the Herman 1H and are >> mis-classifying it under Policy 1 rather than Policy 2 but an >> objection to "describing matters of understanding as 'psychic'" >> would be to say that Policy 2 describes an empty set of >> disclosure requirements. >> > +=+ Nothing persuades me that Herman's partners are not > aware of his use of the 1H bid in certain situations. It is > without doubt, in my view, a matter of partnership understanding. > That belief is, of course, redoubled in respect of any partner > who subscribes to blml (as I slily pointed out to him). Under the > WBF regulation such "psychics should be made randomly but > any understandings about them should be revealed". > That is the case on the basis that Herman sometimes does > and sometimes does not make the psyche in any relevant > situation. However if, as was asserted earlier in this thread, there > are relevant situations in which Herman invariably makes the > bid - let us say third in hand with 0-3 HCP and a shortage in > Hearts at a given vulnerability - then the method is unquestionably > HUM because in those situations 1H is weaker than Pass. I take > the view that it is within the competence of a Director, an appeals > committee, or a duly appointed controller of systems, to judge > that, on the balance of probabilities, this last applies. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It's pretty obvious if Herman always opens a herman heart it's a HUM, and if he only sometimes does it's a psyche. Like I said, it's a frequency thing. If herman heart were part of my repertoire, I'd probably only use it if the parity of all three cards were the same (or some such metric, which I'd not disclose) in order to keep the frequency about right. As I've said before, when I sort my hand I turn on or off a couple of bits which I may find cause to use during the auction or play. (Q or J from QJ for example; I play one of them a bit more often than the other btw). Provided partner doesn't know my metric, better still doesn't know I have a metric, for regulating my herman heart I'm in the clear which is why I won't disclose it. As to the need to disclose Herman's third seat 1h openers I doubt I'd bother. It's GBK that 3rd seat can muck around and I just can't see the point of alerting his 3rd seat 1H opener. OTOH I would expet herman to alert my 1NT overcall "occasionally a joke" since opponents probably do need to know I might be at it. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Feb 28 17:40:13 2007 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:40:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" In-Reply-To: <000201c75b23$ed4f03f0$c3d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott writes I do not recall that the laws use the word 'natural': it is used in some regulations.and it is for their authors to define their use of the word. (Can anyone remind me of the existence of the word 'natural' in a law?) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ Using WinWord on my lawbook I found only one occurence: Law 75: Partnership Agreements Example 1 : Mistaken Explanation The actual partnership agreement is that 2? is a natural sign-off; the mistake was in North's explanation. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 28 18:23:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:23:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] abbreviations References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D026@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <00ba01c75b5d$21297640$0701a8c0@john> > ISTM > IMOBO > BDSM Bondage; Discipline and Sado-Masochism, common abbreviation used in sex shops and on some of the more deviant internet pornography sites. ..... used to describe what my partners try to do to me when I am in a possible psyching position, in order to dissuade me from doing it again. The problem is that I like the pain :) > BTA > > And, incidentally, what does SEC (unofficial) mean? Why is it placed > after the communication title? And, I think (am unsure) that it is > sometimes some other term as "unofficial". This was probably explained > at one time or another so older, veteran, blmlers can probably supply me > with an explanation. > And, an afterthought. When talking about blml/blmlers; how is it > pronounced? Billmill? Bullmull? Bllmll? blml? Bellmell? Blemle? > Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 28 18:23:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:23:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] abbreviations References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D026@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <00ba01c75b5d$21297640$0701a8c0@john> > ISTM > IMOBO > BDSM Bondage; Discipline and Sado-Masochism, common abbreviation used in sex shops and on some of the more deviant internet pornography sites. ..... used to describe what my partners try to do to me when I am in a possible psyching position, in order to dissuade me from doing it again. The problem is that I like the pain :) > BTA > > And, incidentally, what does SEC (unofficial) mean? Why is it placed > after the communication title? And, I think (am unsure) that it is > sometimes some other term as "unofficial". This was probably explained > at one time or another so older, veteran, blmlers can probably supply me > with an explanation. > And, an afterthought. When talking about blml/blmlers; how is it > pronounced? Billmill? Bullmull? Bllmll? blml? Bellmell? Blemle? > Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 28 23:03:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:03:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45E539B1.2060800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>I note that Herman De Wael has not yet been given plenary >>authority by the WBF Laws Committee to over-rule my >>commonsense interpretation of the wording of Law 75D2. Herman De Wael: >Neither did you receive authority to over-rule my literary >interpretation of the wording of L75D2. Richard Hills: I accept the implied dare. If Herman submits the De Wael School interpretation of Law 75D2 to the Belgian National Authority for a temporary ruling on its validity in Belgium, then I will submit the De Hills School interpretation of Law 75D2 to the Australian National Authority for a temporary ruling on its validity in Australia. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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 Feb 28 23:25:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:25:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] > I do not recall that the laws use the word 'natural': >it is used in some regulations.and it is for their authors >to define their use of the word. (Can anyone remind me >of the existence of the word 'natural' in a law?) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Laval Du Breuil: >Using WinWord on my lawbook I found only one occurrence: > >Law 75: Partnership Agreements > > Example 1 : Mistaken Explanation > >The actual partnership agreement is that 2D is a natural >sign-off; the mistake was in North's explanation. Richard Hills: And note that even the Law 75 footnote use of the word "natural" is unnecessary, since "natural signoff" is a tautology. How can a signoff, "willingness to play in the denomination named", ever be unnatural? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 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. DIAC 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