From henk at amsterdamned.org Thu Mar 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 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 FSF Fourth Suit Forcing 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 Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at amsterdamned.org Thu Mar 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for February 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 100 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 33 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 31 hermandw (at) skynet.be 28 twm (at) cix.co.uk 24 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 21 ehaa (at) starpower.net 18 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 18 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 14 svenpran (at) online.no 13 john (at) asimere.com 11 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 9 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 8 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 8 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 6 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 6 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 5 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 5 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 5 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 5 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 4 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 4 adam (at) irvine.com 4 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 4 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 3 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 3 geller (at) nifty.com 2 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 2 tkooij (at) tiscali.nl 2 schoderb (at) msn.com 2 picatou (at) uqss.uquebec.ca 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 cibor (at) poczta.fm 2 anne (at) baa-lamb.co.uk 1 vitoldbr (at) yandex.ru 1 rebecca (at) dptech.net 1 kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 emu (at) fwi.net.au 1 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 1 Wikipedia: (at) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Mar 1 01:23:58 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:23:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009501c75b97$ee217d70$6400a8c0@rota> Richard Hills writes: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > 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 don't see East's second double as a violation of captaincy, because his hand is unlimited. If pass is not forcing here, East can pass with a minimum double and let West decide what to do, or double with extra high-card values to ensure that West either passes or bids on. If pass is forcing, then East's double expresses a preference for playing 5Cx rather than competing, and West can override it. However, there is no logical alternative to assuming that North doesn't know what he is doing. > You, West, hold: > > K > A6543 > JT542 > T2 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I have about what partner expects me to have; the 5-5 distribution is an extra value, but the doubleton club is not an asset since partner probably has one or two. In addition, the opponents are more likely to have gone to the 5-level when they shouldn't have gone, since it was the preemptor who bid on. Thus I pass, after some consideration of 5H if partner's double shows extras. I don't consider 5D because this is matchpoints, and 5D cannot be a good score if 4H was making. I would give East a bit of leeway if his second double was slow, becauce this was an unexpected auction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 1 04:17:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:17:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009501c75b97$ee217d70$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] >I have about what partner expects me to have; the 5-5 distribution is >an extra value, but the doubleton club is not an asset since partner >probably has one or two. In addition, the opponents are more likely >to have gone to the 5-level when they shouldn't have gone, since it >was the preemptor who bid on. Thus I pass, after some consideration >of 5H if partner's double shows extras. I don't consider 5D because >this is matchpoints, and 5D cannot be a good score if 4H was making. > >I would give East a bit of leeway if his second double was slow, >because this was an unexpected auction. * * * EBU appeals casebook 2001, number 4 "Why take out?" Tournament Director: Chris Barrable Appeals Committee: Heather Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal Steve Eginton Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs 92 Dlr: South J2 Vul: Both 3 AKQJ9863 K A863 A6543 KQ9 JT542 AKQ86 T2 7 QJT754 T87 97 54 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 4C Dble(1) Pass 4H 5C Dble(2) Pass 5D Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Not alerted, not disputed, however was for take out (2) Not alerted, but was made after hesitation Result at table: 6H making by West, NS -1430 Director first called: At end of auction Director's statement of facts: TD was called to table by North who reserved rights as a result of the agreed hesitation prior to the second double. Director's ruling: Table result stands Details of ruling: TD believes West will bid 5D after partner's second double in 70%+ cases. The first was takeout and even though not alerted is played as such. Law 16A. Note by editor: Under EBU regulations, all unalerted doubles above 3S are for penalties. The definition of a logical alternative action in EBU events is one that at least 30% of a player's peers would find if playing a similar system and style. Thus if a call would be found by more than 70% of a player's peers there is no logical alternative to it and the call is considered evident. Note that the definition of logical alternative tends to be different outside the United Kingdom. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: We felt that the 5D bid was clear cut. When 4C is doubled for take out the double of 5C can't be out and out penalties - just showing a good hand. * * * Richard Hills: I agree with Matthias Berghaus, Tony Musgrove and David Grabiner that passing 5Cx is a logical action for West. I am particularly impressed that Matthias took the trouble to construct a plausible East hand which was consistent with East's bidding (the actual East's bunny bidding was totally inconsistent) in which 5H or 5D was hopeless, while 5C would likely suffer an 800 penalty. David Stevenson (casebook panellist): >>Surely everyone will bid 5D? There seems little merit in this appeal. Herman De Wael (casebook panellist): >>Nothing to add. 5D is clear-cut. Richard Hills: But while it is logical to pass 5Cx if you are an analytical expert, a pass is not a logical alternative for a superficial bunny, who is dazzled by their 5-5 in the reds, so automatically bids 5D. Given that East's auction demonstrably proves that they were a bunny, it is likely that West was also a bunny, so it is likely that the TD and AC gave the correct ruling. Ergo, David Stevenson was also correct in his hint that perhaps the North-South deposit should have been retained rather than returned. Likewise, Herman De Wael correctly eschewed logorrhea this 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. 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 Thu Mar 1 23:48:05 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:48:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <009501c75b97$ee217d70$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070301144609.01d634c0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > >Richard Hills: > >I agree with Matthias Berghaus, Tony Musgrove and David Grabiner that >passing 5Cx is a logical action for West. I am particularly impressed >that Matthias took the trouble to construct a plausible East hand which >was consistent with East's bidding (the actual East's bunny bidding was >totally inconsistent) in which 5H or 5D was hopeless, while 5C would >likely suffer an 800 penalty. > Still confused. Surely pass is 100% forcing in this situation, showing 1 club, so then I can bid 5D. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 1 06:54:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:54:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070301144609.01d634c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >Still confused. Surely pass is 100% forcing in this situation, >showing 1 club, so then I can bid 5D. Richard Hills: Given that West with a yarborough and heart length would have to respond 4H to East's takeout double of 4C, it is not logical to deem a subsequent hypothetical pass of 5C by East is forcing. Why force West to choose between -750 and -800 when a simple -600 might earn some matchpoints? Of course an illogical arrangement that pass might be 100% forcing may well exist by special partnership agreement. See the January - March 2005 thread "100% of nothing", when several blmlers chose to deliberately break an agreement by electing to choose a sensible pass in response to partner's "100% forcing" 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. 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 ljtrent at adelphia.net Thu Mar 1 08:22:23 2007 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:22:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 Message-ID: <4553148.1172733743080.JavaMail.root@web31> This is getting scary. So, what's up with this? APPEAL CASE 4 Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21 Dick Bruno Board 8 S Q 8 4 3 Vul: None H 2 Dlr: West D K Q 8 4 C A K 8 5 Barie Wall Ray Miller S A J 7 2 S K 9 5 H K Q 10 5 4 H J 9 7 3 D 6 2 D A J 3 C J 7 C Q 10 9 Peggy Kaplan S 10 6 H A 8 6 D 10 9 7 5 C 8 4 3 2 West North East South 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass 3C Pass 3H All Pass (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. Facts: The result at the table was 3H by West making three after the opening lead of the CA. EW play 2NT as a limit raise or better in hearts. West confused two auctions and provided a mistaken explanation of 2NT without having been asked. The partnership agreement of the 3C bid is that it is a long-suit game try. Director's Ruling: The director found that there was unauthorized information (UI) arising from the incorrect explanation of the agreement. After consulting several players, the director decided that bidding 4H was a less successful logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2, an adjustment was made to 4H by East, down one for a score of E-W minus 50. The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11 point hands. 3C suggested 12 to 13 high-card points, since with more, West would have accepted the limit raise. South suggested that East's club fillers made his hand worth a raise to 4H. The Decision: The committee determined that West?s misexplanation constituted UI under Law 16. Since East possessed information suggesting that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as opposed to 4H, was made more attractive given the form of scoring. So the questions to be answered at this point were whether there was a logical alternative to bidding 3H and whether there were any other calls, such as 3D or 3NT, to consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum hand like: S Ax H KQ10xx D xx C Kxxx where the game would depend on a club finesse. The panel also noted that changing one of the kings to an ace or adding the DJ would make 4H an excellent game. Therefore, the committee deemed 4H a LA to 3H. The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin and Jim Thurtell. From ljtrent at adelphia.net Thu Mar 1 08:29:05 2007 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:29:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" Message-ID: <7567287.1172734145353.JavaMail.root@web31> My search reveals one use of the word "natural" in the lawbook It occurs in Law 75D in the first line of the footnote: "Example 1: The actual partnership agreement is that 2D is a natural signoff; the mistake was . . . " and so on. Linda From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 09:12:52 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:12:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <4553148.1172733743080.JavaMail.root@web31> References: <4553148.1172733743080.JavaMail.root@web31> Message-ID: On 01/03/07, Linda Trent wrote: > This is getting scary. > So, what's up with this? Please explain why you think this is scary. I fail to see anything extraordinary in this case. The TD and AC got this one right IMO. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > APPEAL CASE 4 > Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs > Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21 > Dick Bruno > Board 8 S Q 8 4 3 > Vul: None H 2 > Dlr: West D K Q 8 4 > C A K 8 5 > Barie Wall Ray Miller > S A J 7 2 S K 9 5 > H K Q 10 5 4 H J 9 7 3 > D 6 2 D A J 3 > C J 7 C Q 10 9 > Peggy Kaplan > S 10 6 > H A 8 6 > D 10 9 7 5 > C 8 4 3 2 > West North East South > 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass > 3C Pass 3H All Pass > > (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. > > Facts: The result at the table was 3H by West > making three after the opening lead of the CA. EW > play 2NT as a limit raise or better in hearts. > West confused two auctions and provided a > mistaken explanation of 2NT without having been > asked. The partnership agreement of the 3C bid is > that it is a long-suit game try. > > Director's Ruling: The director found that > there was unauthorized information (UI) arising > from the incorrect explanation of the agreement. > After consulting several players, the director > decided that bidding 4H was a less successful > logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than > bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by > the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2, > an adjustment was made to 4H by East, down one > for a score of E-W minus 50. > > The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11 > point hands. 3C suggested 12 to 13 high-card > points, since with more, West would have accepted > the limit raise. South suggested that East's club > fillers made his hand worth a raise to 4H. > > The Decision: The committee determined that > West?s misexplanation constituted UI under Law > 16. Since East possessed information suggesting > that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as > opposed to 4H, was made more attractive given > the form of scoring. So the questions to be > answered at this point were whether there was a > logical alternative to bidding 3H and whether there > were any other calls, such as 3D or 3NT, to > consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum > hand like: S Ax H KQ10xx D xx C Kxxx > where the game would depend on a club finesse. > The panel also noted that changing one of the > kings to an ace or adding the DJ would make 4H > an excellent game. Therefore, the committee > deemed 4H a LA to 3H. > > The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), > Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin > and Jim Thurtell. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Mar 1 09:45:30 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:45:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261493F3@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> > 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. To an extent, the EBU has beaten Herman to it, this is Orange Book (2006) 3 D 7 "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play." 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070301/051f057c/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 1 10:32:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald wrote: > Please explain why you think this is scary. > I fail to see anything extraordinary in this case. > The TD and AC got this one right IMO. Well it scares me. If playing 2N as "limit raise or better" then 3C should be either a LSGT *or* the beginning of a slam try sequence with values and length in C. West might hold Qx,AKTxx,x,AKxxx and 6H is laydown (and given the X of 1H the SQ isn't really needed). To me 3D is a not only an LA to 3H but the blindingly obvious choice. If West thinks 2N is a Lebensohlic style relay to 3C then 3D shows a weak hand with 6+D and no H fit and will pass. 3D looks as if it goes 4 off. Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 1 11:25:44 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 01 Mar 2007 11:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 Message-ID: <20070301102544.4E6B0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> > Harald wrote: > > > Please explain why you think this is scary. > > I fail to see anything extraordinary in this case. > > The TD and AC got this one right IMO. > > Well it scares me. If playing 2N as "limit raise or better" then 3C > should be either a LSGT *or* the beginning of a slam try sequence with > values and length in C. West might hold Qx,AKTxx,x,AKxxx and 6H is > laydown (and given the X of 1H the SQ isn't really needed). To me 3D is > a not only an LA to 3H but the blindingly obvious choice. > 3H? And then it goes pass, pass, pass... Partner holds QJx Kxx KQ10xx Jxxx x AJx KJxx Q10x takes 10 tricks and asks politely after the hand: "you have a fourth trump, you have help in clubs and you say you couldn't find any extras in your hand over 3C??" Bidding negative 3H over natural and invitational 3C is not blindigly obvious. It is blidingly idiotic. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 1 12:27:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <20070301102544.4E6B0A4169@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad wrote: > > > > Well it scares me. If playing 2N as "limit raise or better" then > > 3C should be either a LSGT *or* the beginning of a slam try > > sequence with values and length in C. West might hold > > Qx,AKTxx,x,AKxxx and 6H is laydown (and given the X of 1H the SQ > > isn't really needed). To me 3D is a not only an LA to 3H but the > > blindingly obvious choice. > > > > 3H? And then it goes pass, pass, pass... Partner holds > > QJx Kxx > KQ10xx Jxxx > x AJx > KJxx Q10x > > > takes 10 tricks and asks politely after the hand: "you have > a fourth trump, you have help in clubs and you say you couldn't > find any extras in your hand over 3C??" > > Bidding negative 3H over natural and invitational 3C is not blindigly > obvious. It is blidingly idiotic. Your text seems to indicate that we agree (3H barely counts as an LA absent the UI) but your tone indicates disagreement with my suggestion that 3D is a clear (and unsuggested) LA to 4H. If one bids 3D and pard shows no further interest by bidding 3H one will still raise to 4 (pass is still barely an LA) but if pard shows slam interest (e.g. by bidding 4C) one should co-operate. Tim From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 1 13:12:05 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 01 Mar 2007 13:12:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 Message-ID: <20070301121205.6E6C2A418D@poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad wrote: > > > > > > Well it scares me. If playing 2N as "limit raise or better" then > > > 3C should be either a LSGT *or* the beginning of a slam try > > > sequence with values and length in C. West might hold > > > Qx,AKTxx,x,AKxxx and 6H is laydown (and given the X of 1H the SQ > > > isn't really needed). To me 3D is a not only an LA to 3H but the > > > blindingly obvious choice. > > > > > > > 3H? And then it goes pass, pass, pass... Partner holds > > > > QJx Kxx > > KQ10xx Jxxx > > x AJx > > KJxx Q10x > > > > > > takes 10 tricks and asks politely after the hand: "you have > > a fourth trump, you have help in clubs and you say you couldn't > > find any extras in your hand over 3C??" > > > > Bidding negative 3H over natural and invitational 3C is not blindigly > > obvious. It is blidingly idiotic. > > Your text seems to indicate that we agree (3H barely counts as an LA > absent the UI) Yes, I have indeed misread your post - I thought 3D was a typo for which I apologize. > but your tone indicates disagreement with my suggestion > that 3D is a clear (and unsuggested) LA to 4H. If one bids 3D and pard > shows no further interest by bidding 3H one will still raise to 4 (pass > is still barely an LA) but if pard shows slam interest (e.g. by bidding > 4C) one should co-operate. > Definitely mixing two types of invitational bids (game & slam tries) in one bid is not the best solution. However once we have agreed to play this inferior solution I firmly believe that responder shouldn't even consider the slammish hand unless proven otherwise. In the vast majority of cases 3C will be a game try and it is thus in our best interest to get to 4H quickly. Most of the time partner will simply bid 3/4H himself over 3D and all that the 3D will have achieved will be giving free information about both hands to our opponents. For instance if partner bids 3H over 3D they will certainly appreciate knowing that he is minimum for his game try. Plus I really want to avoid the spade lead - if partner has long clubs then there is an option of pitching spades on clubs (playing along dummy reversal lines) for instance: xx Kxx AKxxx Jxxx x AJx AKxxx Q10x Especially at MPs a spade lead might prove costly. So the scientific bid of 3D is, in my mind, a losing proposition. By far. If partner has a slammish hand he might jump to 6H over 4H directly and this contract will have a play. The number of times when the 3D bid proves essential to reach/avoid a slam will be very small coparing to the number of times it will make defenders' life easier. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 1 14:19:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070301144609.01d634c0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony wrote: > > > > Still confused. Surely pass is 100% forcing in this situation, > showing 1 club, so then I can bid 5D. Playable - possibly even systemically superior. But it's also playable to agree that pass is non-forcing and X shows extras for the original t/o double. The LAs rather depend on what methods one discovers the OS to be playing (or attributes to them if the situation is undiscussed). My own agreements are that forcing passes apply only after our side has freely bid a vulnerable game (this sequence doesn't qualify) and, IMO, that is rather more of an agreement than is typical amongst UK pairs. With a rabbitty pair I don't think an AC would even stop to consider the possibility that they might have had a forcing pass agreement. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 1 14:19:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <20070301121205.6E6C2A418D@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad wrote: > Definitely mixing two types of invitational bids (game & slam tries) I wouldn't describe it as mixing two types of bid. I'd say 3C was descriptive (ie showing something in C and a non-minimum hand). > in one bid is not the best solution. However once we have agreed to > play this inferior solution I firmly believe that responder shouldn't > even consider the slammish hand unless proven otherwise. Playing like that would indeed be an inferior solution. The whole point of "mixing the types" is that it preserves significant space for evaluating "fitting values. One hand or the other later shows lack of slam interest by bidding Hearts. It is also the standard mixed meaning (at least where I play)of a 3C "LSGT" when the bidding goes something like 1H-2H-3C-3D/H-3S (the 3S bid is now slam interest). > xx Kxx > AKxxx Jxxx > x AJx > AKxxx Q10x > > > Especially at MPs a spade lead might prove costly. Well, if North doesn't hold the SA for his double (unlikely) he will probably find the spade lead from his QJXx anyway. > So the scientific bid of 3D is, in my mind, a losing proposition. Ok, we'll agree to differ on that aspect - but do you think it sufficiently clearly a losing proposition to not rate as an LA (the UI suggests 4H over 3D I believe). Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Mar 1 22:21:05 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:21:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 References: <4553148.1172733743080.JavaMail.root@web31> Message-ID: <004601c75c47$871ce640$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Linda Trent" > This is getting scary. > So, what's up with this? > > APPEAL CASE 4 > Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs > Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21 > Dick Bruno > Board 8 S Q 8 4 3 > Vul: None H 2 > Dlr: West D K Q 8 4 > C A K 8 5 > Barie Wall Ray Miller > S A J 7 2 S K 9 5 > H K Q 10 5 4 H J 9 7 3 > D 6 2 D A J 3 > C J 7 C Q 10 9 > Peggy Kaplan > S 10 6 > H A 8 6 > D 10 9 7 5 > C 8 4 3 2 > West North East South > 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass > 3C Pass 3H All Pass > > (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. > > Facts: The result at the table was 3H by West > making three after the opening lead of the CA. EW > play 2NT as a limit raise or better in hearts. > West confused two auctions and provided a > mistaken explanation of 2NT without having been > asked. The partnership agreement of the 3C bid is > that it is a long-suit game try. > > Director's Ruling: The director found that > there was unauthorized information (UI) arising > from the incorrect explanation of the agreement. > After consulting several players, the director > decided that bidding 4H was a less successful > logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than > bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by > the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2, > an adjustment was made to 4H by East, down one > for a score of E-W minus 50. > > The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11 > point hands. 3C suggested 12 to 13 high-card > points, since with more, West would have accepted > the limit raise. South suggested that East's club > fillers made his hand worth a raise to 4H. > > The Decision: The committee determined that > West?s misexplanation constituted UI under Law > 16. Since East possessed information suggesting > that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as > opposed to 4H, was made more attractive given > the form of scoring. So the questions to be > answered at this point were whether there was a > logical alternative to bidding 3H and whether there > were any other calls, such as 3D or 3NT, to > consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum > hand like: S Ax H KQ10xx D xx C Kxxx > where the game would depend on a club finesse. > The panel also noted that changing one of the > kings to an ace or adding the DJ would make 4H > an excellent game. Therefore, the committee > deemed 4H a LA to 3H. > > The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), > Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin > and Jim Thurtell. Danny Kleinman permits me to quote his thoughts on the subject (it was too complicated for me!): West committed an infraction by explaining East's 2NT without having been asked for an explanation of his alert. This provided unauthorized information to East, namely, that West's three clubs following was not a game try . which is exactly the rationale for the rule that explanations should not be volunteered. There is no reason to believe that West was in any way dishonorable in volunteering his explanation, and I do not believe that West should be subject to penalty or discipline. However, the report does not say whether East acted properly. East was required, at the end of the auction, to draw attention to the misinformation and to call the director at that time. Was East also required to bid four hearts over three clubs? No, East had a close decision: minimum for his two notrump, but lovely fillers in clubs. Give West S-Ax H-KQ10xx D-xx C-KJxx, and I would expect four hearts to make without a club finesse. Without even trying to construct hands for West, I would deem four hearts a plausible alternative (a better term for it than "logical alternative") to three clubs. Other plausible alternatives include three diamonds (hedge) and three notrump. Given West's erroneous explanation (most likely based on the misconception that two notrump was Lebensohl), I would expect West to pass East 's rebid. Because three diamonds is a plausible rebid for East, I would adjust the result to three diamonds down four (not four hearts down one). So the penalty for West's misinformation is simply the risk of the least favorable plausible result thereby incurred. - Danny Kleinman Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Mar 2 02:08:00 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 02:08:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 References: Message-ID: <006a01c75c67$3a473300$63221d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" > Ok, we'll agree to differ on that aspect - but do you think it > sufficiently clearly a losing proposition to not rate as an LA (the UI > suggests 4H over 3D I believe). To me 3D is not an LA. I consider it a 0% bid, bad, bad bridge. Of course I may very well be wrong with my assessment. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 2 02:34:05 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:34:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45E77F0D.4080404@NTLworld.com> * * * [EBU appeals casebook 2001, number 4 "Why take out?"] Tournament Director: Chris Barrable Appeals Committee: Heather Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal Steve Eginton Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs 92 Dlr: South J2 Vul: Both 3 AKQJ9863 K A863 A6543 KQ9 JT542 AKQ86 T2 7 QJT754 T87 97 54 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 4C Dble(1) Pass 4H 5C Dble(2) Pass 5D Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Not alerted, not disputed, however was for take out (2) Not alerted, but was made after hesitation Result at table: 6H making by West, NS -1430 Director first called: At end of auction Director's statement of facts: TD was called to table by North who reserved rights as a result of the agreed hesitation prior to the second double. Director's ruling: Table result stands Details of ruling: TD believes West will bid 5D after partner's second double in 70%+ cases. The first was takeout and even though not alerted is played as such. Law 16A. Note by editor: Under EBU regulations, all unalerted doubles above 3S are for penalties. The definition of a logical alternative action in EBU events is one that at least 30% of a player's peers would find if playing a similar system and style. Thus if a call would be found by more than 70% of a player's peers there is no logical alternative to it and the call is considered evident. Note that the definition of logical alternative tends to be different outside the United Kingdom. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit returned [Appeals Committee's comments] We felt that the 5D bid was clear cut. When 4C is doubled for take out the double of 5C can't be out and out penalties - just showing a good hand. [Richard Hills] I agree with Matthias Berghaus, Tony Musgrove and David Grabiner that passing 5Cx is a logical action for West. I am particularly impressed that Matthias took the trouble to construct a plausible East hand which was consistent with East's bidding (the actual East's bunny bidding was totally inconsistent) in which 5H or 5D was hopeless, while 5C would likely suffer an 800 penalty. [David Stevenson (casebook panellist)] Surely everyone will bid 5D? There seems little merit in this appeal. [Herman De Wael (casebook panellist)] Nothing to add. 5D is clear-cut. [nige1] IMO: North gilded the lily with 5C; but the EW bidding seems reasonable. Pass by East would *not* have been forcing (except by agreement). East's second double was the normal expert action, presumably, showing extra values and no great heart fit. It certainly did not imply that East had resorted his hand to find he had a penalty rather than a take-out double :) With a suitable 5-5, West was quite right to show his second suit. I belong to the "shoot-the hesitater" school but here I agree with David Stevenson and Herman de Wael that the result should stand and the deposit be returned. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Mar 2 02:49:14 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:49:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <008201c75c6c$fc4879a0$6400a8c0@rota> Richard Hills writes: > But while it is logical to pass 5Cx if you are an analytical expert, a > pass is not a logical alternative for a superficial bunny, who is > dazzled by their 5-5 in the reds, so automatically bids 5D. Given that > East's auction demonstrably proves that they were a bunny, it is likely > that West was also a bunny, so it is likely that the TD and AC gave the > correct ruling. > > Ergo, David Stevenson was also correct in his hint that perhaps the > North-South deposit should have been retained rather than returned. I don't agree with the hint. A deposit should only be retained if the appellants should have known they did not have a case. If you would have a case against experts but not against bunnies or vice versa, it is not your responsibility to determine the caliber of the opponents. (And there are many pro-am partnerships in which West is an expert and East a bunny.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 2 03:57:07 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:57:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <200703011521.l21FLx1B027324@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703011521.l21FLx1B027324@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45E79283.9060200@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Linda Trent > West North East South > 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass > 3C Pass 3H All Pass > > (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. [but really showing heart support] > After consulting several players, the director > decided that bidding 4H was a less successful > logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than > bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by > the UI. [the AC:] > Since East possessed information suggesting > that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as > opposed to 4H, was made more attractive I don't understand the "demonstrably suggested" or "made more attractive." East has good heart support, but partner is unaware of it. Why doesn't that suggest bidding 4H over 3H? If those are the only two LA's, it seems to me East has chosen the less-suggested one. As others have written, if 3D is a LA, it seems to be the only legal one, all heart and notrump bids being suggested by the UI. In the ACBL, I think 3D probably is a LA; I don't think it would be in most of the world. Of course both judgments depend on the EW bidding agreements, which aren't given. From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 04:24:58 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:24:58 +1300 Subject: [blml] An opening lead problem Message-ID: <2a1c3a560703011924h821b100ka2d8c8b3146ff195@mail.gmail.com> 1NT 2C - five card Stayman 2H 4C - five hearts; splinter 4D 4H - cue; sign-off 4S 4NT - cue; waiting 5D 6H - cue; sign-off 10xxx A10 Jx KQxxx What would you lead? Would you make a different lead on the identical auction but with the explanation that 4NT was RKCB? What evidence do you require from the declaring side to support their agreements when there is a different explanation on each side of the screen. In particular at the end of the hand declarer said that 4NT was RKCB but later changed is mind stating that it was waiting. The had no documentation to back up either agreement. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 2 05:18:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:18:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008201c75c6c$fc4879a0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [big snip] >>Ergo, David Stevenson was also correct in his hint that perhaps the >>North-South deposit should have been retained rather than returned. >> >>Likewise, Herman De Wael correctly eschewed logorrhea this time. >> >>:-) David Grabiner: >I don't agree with the hint. A deposit should only be retained if >the appellants should have known they did not have a case. If you >would have a case against experts but not against bunnies or vice >versa, it is not your responsibility to determine the caliber of the >opponents. [snip] Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "irony, n. Expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially mock adoption of another's views" Richard Hills: Rats. My irony was too subtle; I had just one smiley at the end of my posting when I should have been liberally scattering smileys throughout. Yes, if: (a) a player breaks tempo, and (b) their partner then chooses a demonstrably suggested logical alternative, which (c) is to the benefit of their side, but (d) the TD rules that that was the only logical alternative, and (e) the opponents appeal the TD's ruling, but (f) the AC upholds the TD's ruling, then (g) in my opinion the AC should never forfeit the deposit, because (h) in my opinion it is very rare that an "only one logical alternative" ruling which is appealed is in fact as clearcut as a Stevensonian AC might think. 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 Mar 2 07:18:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:18:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wael School (was ...poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael (27th February 2007): >>>>Your interpretation is just wrong. Richard Hills (1st March 2007): >>>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. Richard Willey (22nd May 2005): >>Herman, I was curious whether you would be willing to >>submit a query to the Belgian Bridge authorities regarding >>your methods? Ultimately their opinion carries a lot more >>weight than anyone participating in this debate. I >>certainly would be extremely interested in seeing a ruling >>on this... Herman De Wael (22nd May 2005): >Well, actually, I don't. > >The BBF is not composed of a different set of directors >than blml. > >Among them too, some are of the erroneaous opinions of Sven >and yourself. > >If I can't vote on myself, I'd rather not ask the question. > >Yes, I know that this is silly. Richard Hills (2nd March 2007): :-( :-( :-( * * * >From the ancient "chrestomathy" thread -> Richard Hills wrote: >>>>I am currently editing a book -> >>>> >>>>"I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Bridge Competitor: a >>>>chrestomathy compiled from the bridge laws mailing list" Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>:-) For learners presumably. Very few of those around on >>>blml. ~ G ~ (-: David Stevenson wrote: >>I am always willing to learn. Are you suggesting I am in >>a minority? Herman De Wael wrote: >Very few of us are apparently willing to change our first >opinions about law issues. > >I am not even saying I am among those few. > >I do think we both have a stubborn streak that is not very >compatible with the statement "willing to learn". Grattan Endicott wrote: +=+ Who could have foreseen such responses? The self-deprecation of each is admirable, in its way. :-) As to why I commented as I did? Maybe whimsy, maybe an urge to see who would say what... same thing, really. ~ G ~ +=+ 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 1 13:14:30 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 12:14:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" References: <7567287.1172734145353.JavaMail.root@web31> Message-ID: <000d01c75caa$eb9cb560$789287d9@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: "Linda Trent" To: Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: [blml] Definition of the term "Natural" > My search reveals one use of the word "natural" in > the lawbook > > It occurs in Law 75D in the first line of the footnote: > > "Example 1: The actual partnership agreement is > that 2D is a natural signoff; the mistake was . . . > " and so on. > > Linda > +=+ My thanks to all who found this same use of 'natural'. It does not occasion any need in the Law Book for a definition, I think. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 2 10:57:02 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:57:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <006a01c75c67$3a473300$63221d53@k827b8a5159344> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070302105605.028188e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:08 2/03/2007 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-Meads" > > > Ok, we'll agree to differ on that aspect - but do you think it > > sufficiently clearly a losing proposition to not rate as an LA (the UI > > suggests 4H over 3D I believe). > >To me 3D is not an LA. I consider it a 0% bid, bad, bad bridge. >Of course I may very well be wrong with my assessment. To me 3D is automatic ; it means "my hand is OK for clubs, but poor otherwise", a kind of "last train". Of course, I might well be wrong with that evaluation. Best regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 2 10:59:03 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:59:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] An opening lead problem References: <2a1c3a560703011924h821b100ka2d8c8b3146ff195@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00b701c75cb1$87df3eb0$789287d9@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: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:24 AM Subject: [blml] An opening lead problem > > What evidence do you require from the declaring > side to support their agreements when there is a > different explanation on each side of the screen. In > particular at the end of the hand declarer said that > 4NT was RKCB but later changed is mind stating > that it was waiting. They had no documentation to > back up either agreement. > +=+ First, behind screens, I would only consider whether the player on lead had correct information as to the partnership agreement. If I could not establish to my satisfaction what the partnership agreement was, or if it appeared to me that possibly there was no true partnership agreement, I would make a Law 85B ruling in favour of the defending side. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 1 23:16:48 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:16:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:22:23 PST." <4553148.1172733743080.JavaMail.root@web31> Message-ID: <200703012215.OAA13322@mailhub.irvine.com> > This is getting scary. > So, what's up with this? Actually, on second reading, I did notice something really scary. > APPEAL CASE 4 > Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs > Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21 > Dick Bruno > Board 8 S Q 8 4 3 > Vul: None H 2 > Dlr: West D K Q 8 4 > C A K 8 5 > Barie Wall Ray Miller > S A J 7 2 S K 9 5 > H K Q 10 5 4 H J 9 7 3 > D 6 2 D A J 3 > C J 7 C Q 10 9 > Peggy Kaplan > S 10 6 > H A 8 6 > D 10 9 7 5 > C 8 4 3 2 > West North East South > 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass > 3C Pass 3H All Pass > > (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. [snip snip snip] > The panel also noted that changing one of the > kings to an ace or adding the DJ would make 4H > an excellent game. I'm not so sure that having AJ72 opposite A95 of spades, or having AJJ of diamonds in dummy, would have made for such an excellent game. But perhaps that's because I don't have a lot of experience playing these particular card combinations. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 1 23:10:22 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:10:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Mar 2007 09:12:52 +0100." Message-ID: <200703012209.OAA13190@mailhub.irvine.com> Harald wrote: > On 01/03/07, Linda Trent wrote: > > This is getting scary. > > So, what's up with this? > > Please explain why you think this is scary. > I fail to see anything extraordinary in this case. > The TD and AC got this one right IMO. My first impression was that East barely has a limit raise--11 HCP and flat as a pancake. So doing anything more than he already has seems over-aggressive, so I probably wouldn't have ruled 4H to be a logical alternative. But Marv's post convinced me that it's at least plausible. The hand does have plenty of intermediates. Nevertheless, I can understand how someone looking at East's flat minimum might think that the AC/TD overreached to try to find a way to punish E-W for their infraction. But IMHO this one is borderline between "LA" and "not LA", so I can accept the AC going either way on this. -- Adam > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > > > > > APPEAL CASE 4 > > Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs > > Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21 > > Dick Bruno > > Board 8 S Q 8 4 3 > > Vul: None H 2 > > Dlr: West D K Q 8 4 > > C A K 8 5 > > Barie Wall Ray Miller > > S A J 7 2 S K 9 5 > > H K Q 10 5 4 H J 9 7 3 > > D 6 2 D A J 3 > > C J 7 C Q 10 9 > > Peggy Kaplan > > S 10 6 > > H A 8 6 > > D 10 9 7 5 > > C 8 4 3 2 > > West North East South > > 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass > > 3C Pass 3H All Pass > > > > (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. > > > > Facts: The result at the table was 3H by West > > making three after the opening lead of the CA. EW > > play 2NT as a limit raise or better in hearts. > > West confused two auctions and provided a > > mistaken explanation of 2NT without having been > > asked. The partnership agreement of the 3C bid is > > that it is a long-suit game try. > > > > Director's Ruling: The director found that > > there was unauthorized information (UI) arising > > from the incorrect explanation of the agreement. > > After consulting several players, the director > > decided that bidding 4H was a less successful > > logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than > > bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by > > the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2, > > an adjustment was made to 4H by East, down one > > for a score of E-W minus 50. > > > > The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11 > > point hands. 3C suggested 12 to 13 high-card > > points, since with more, West would have accepted > > the limit raise. South suggested that East's club > > fillers made his hand worth a raise to 4H. > > > > The Decision: The committee determined that > > West?s misexplanation constituted UI under Law > > 16. Since East possessed information suggesting > > that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as > > opposed to 4H, was made more attractive given > > the form of scoring. So the questions to be > > answered at this point were whether there was a > > logical alternative to bidding 3H and whether there > > were any other calls, such as 3D or 3NT, to > > consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum > > hand like: S Ax H KQ10xx D xx C Kxxx > > where the game would depend on a club finesse. > > The panel also noted that changing one of the > > kings to an ace or adding the DJ would make 4H > > an excellent game. Therefore, the committee > > deemed 4H a LA to 3H. > > > > The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), > > Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin > > and Jim Thurtell. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 john at asimere.com Sat Mar 3 04:06:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:06:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 References: <200703012209.OAA13190@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <004301c75d40$fd7c4b60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 > > Harald wrote: > >> On 01/03/07, Linda Trent wrote: >> > This is getting scary. >> > So, what's up with this? >> >> Please explain why you think this is scary. >> I fail to see anything extraordinary in this case. >> The TD and AC got this one right IMO. I have a 9 loser 3433 H. raise. Jeez, I know the yanks need a rock to open but it's gettin' feckin' ridiculous. 2N was a serious overbid even if you play 3+ raises. I'd be looking for the 2h bid in my box facing the game try. 3D is verging on the bizarre - a return game try.? I wanna play money against people who bid like this. cheers john > > My first impression was that East barely has a limit raise--11 HCP and > flat as a pancake. So doing anything more than he already has seems > over-aggressive, so I probably wouldn't have ruled 4H to be a logical > alternative. But Marv's post convinced me that it's at least > plausible. The hand does have plenty of intermediates. > > Nevertheless, I can understand how someone looking at East's flat > minimum might think that the AC/TD overreached to try to find a way to > punish E-W for their infraction. But IMHO this one is borderline > between "LA" and "not LA", so I can accept the AC going either way on > this. > > -- Adam > > > > >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Harald Skj?ran >> >> > >> > APPEAL CASE 4 >> > Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs >> > Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21 >> > Dick Bruno >> > Board 8 S Q 8 4 3 >> > Vul: None H 2 >> > Dlr: West D K Q 8 4 >> > C A K 8 5 >> > Barie Wall Ray Miller >> > S A J 7 2 S K 9 5 >> > H K Q 10 5 4 H J 9 7 3 >> > D 6 2 D A J 3 >> > C J 7 C Q 10 9 >> > Peggy Kaplan >> > S 10 6 >> > H A 8 6 >> > D 10 9 7 5 >> > C 8 4 3 2 >> > West North East South >> > 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass >> > 3C Pass 3H All Pass >> > >> > (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. >> > >> > Facts: The result at the table was 3H by West >> > making three after the opening lead of the CA. EW >> > play 2NT as a limit raise or better in hearts. >> > West confused two auctions and provided a >> > mistaken explanation of 2NT without having been >> > asked. The partnership agreement of the 3C bid is >> > that it is a long-suit game try. >> > >> > Director's Ruling: The director found that >> > there was unauthorized information (UI) arising >> > from the incorrect explanation of the agreement. >> > After consulting several players, the director >> > decided that bidding 4H was a less successful >> > logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than >> > bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by >> > the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2, >> > an adjustment was made to 4H by East, down one >> > for a score of E-W minus 50. >> > >> > The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11 >> > point hands. 3C suggested 12 to 13 high-card >> > points, since with more, West would have accepted >> > the limit raise. South suggested that East's club >> > fillers made his hand worth a raise to 4H. >> > >> > The Decision: The committee determined that >> > West?s misexplanation constituted UI under Law >> > 16. Since East possessed information suggesting >> > that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as >> > opposed to 4H, was made more attractive given >> > the form of scoring. So the questions to be >> > answered at this point were whether there was a >> > logical alternative to bidding 3H and whether there >> > were any other calls, such as 3D or 3NT, to >> > consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum >> > hand like: S Ax H KQ10xx D xx C Kxxx >> > where the game would depend on a club finesse. >> > The panel also noted that changing one of the >> > kings to an ace or adding the DJ would make 4H >> > an excellent game. Therefore, the committee >> > deemed 4H a LA to 3H. >> > >> > The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), >> > Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin >> > and Jim Thurtell. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > blml mailing list >> > blml at amsterdamned.org >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Mar 3 07:11:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:11:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] An opening lead problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560703011924h821b100ka2d8c8b3146ff195@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >1NT 2C - five card Stayman >2H 4C - five hearts; splinter >4D 4H - cue; sign-off >4S 4NT - cue; waiting >5D 6H - cue; sign-off > >10xxx >A10 >Jx >KQxxx > >What would you lead? Richard Hills: King of clubs, perhaps pard has the ace of clubs, perhaps a passive club lead means that pard wins their doubleton queen of spades for the setting trick. Wayne Burrows: >Would you make a different lead on the identical >auction but with the explanation that 4NT was RKCB? Richard Hills: No, I would still lead the king of clubs. Keycard Blackwood is often misused, so pard may still hold the ace of clubs. Anyway, 4C may have been intended as Gerber when systemically a splinter, so even if pard lacks the ace of clubs dummy may hold two or more clubs. 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 Mar 3 12:57:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:57:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - system notes emailed on request - was an artificial game force relay). However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out the 1S card from his bidding box instead. I immediately called the Director, and only now did partner realise his error. Since it was my summoning of the Director which awakened partner to his mispull, what Law should the Director have used for his ruling? (a) Law 25A, Immediate Correction of Inadvertency? (b) Law 25B, Delayed or Purposeful Correction? (c) Law 27, Insufficient Bid? 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Mar 3 13:58:42 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:58:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1HNTow-1wXTCi0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to > respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - > system notes emailed on request - was an artificial > game force relay). > > However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out > the 1S card from his bidding box instead. > > I immediately called the Director, and only now did > partner realise his error. > > Since it was my summoning of the Director which > awakened partner to his mispull, what Law should > the Director have used for his ruling? > > (a) Law 25A, Immediate Correction of Inadvertency? > (b) Law 25B, Delayed or Purposeful Correction? > (c) Law 27, Insufficient Bid? As long as partner tried to change his call after he become aware of the mispull the director should have used a). It is of no relevance how attention is drawn to the mispull . b) is never in order (see the Law) c) might be in order, if the requirements of Law 25A are not fulfilled. BTW: don't you use written bidding down under ? Regards Peter From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 3 14:55:16 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:55:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c75d9b$931c06b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to > respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - > system notes emailed on request - was an artificial > game force relay). > > However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out > the 1S card from his bidding box instead. > > I immediately called the Director, and only now did > partner realise his error. > > Since it was my summoning of the Director which > awakened partner to his mispull, what Law should > the Director have used for his ruling? > > (a) Law 25A, Immediate Correction of Inadvertency? > (b) Law 25B, Delayed or Purposeful Correction? > (c) Law 27, Insufficient Bid? As you describe the event, and if your opponents agree that your partner apparently never intended to bid 1S, I would rule (a) Law 25A. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Sat Mar 3 15:53:08 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:53:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601c75d9b$931c06b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c75da3$a861e9b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >> I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to >> respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - >> system notes emailed on request - was an artificial >> game force relay). >> >> However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out >> the 1S card from his bidding box instead. >> >> I immediately called the Director, and only now did >> partner realise his error. >> >> Since it was my summoning of the Director which >> awakened partner to his mispull, what Law should >> the Director have used for his ruling? >> >> (a) Law 25A, Immediate Correction of Inadvertency? >> (b) Law 25B, Delayed or Purposeful Correction? >> (c) Law 27, Insufficient Bid? > > As you describe the event, and if your opponents agree that your partner > apparently never intended to bid 1S, I would rule (a) Law 25A. Completely agree. It doesn't matter how a player finds out. John > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Mar 3 15:56:24 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:56:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] An opening lead problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002c01c75da4$1d114800$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] An opening lead problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Wayne Burrows: > >>1NT 2C - five card Stayman >>2H 4C - five hearts; splinter >>4D 4H - cue; sign-off >>4S 4NT - cue; waiting >>5D 6H - cue; sign-off >> >>10xxx >>A10 >>Jx >>KQxxx >> >>What would you lead? I agree with Richard, but if told 4N is waiting then DJ becomes a bit more attractive. I'd still lead the CK though. John > > Richard Hills: > > King of clubs, perhaps pard has the ace of clubs, > perhaps a passive club lead means that pard wins > their doubleton queen of spades for the setting > trick. > > Wayne Burrows: > >>Would you make a different lead on the identical >>auction but with the explanation that 4NT was RKCB? > > Richard Hills: > > No, I would still lead the king of clubs. Keycard > Blackwood is often misused, so pard may still hold > the ace of clubs. > > Anyway, 4C may have been intended as Gerber when > systemically a splinter, so even if pard lacks the > ace of clubs dummy may hold two or more clubs. > > > 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 3 21:02:59 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:02:59 -0600 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:57:49 +1100 > > >I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to >respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - >system notes emailed on request - was an artificial >game force relay). > >However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out >the 1S card from his bidding box instead. > >I immediately called the Director, and only now did >partner realise his error. > >Since it was my summoning of the Director which >awakened partner to his mispull, what Law should >the Director have used for his ruling? > >(a) Law 25A, Immediate Correction of Inadvertency? Has the player changed their call? no. Has the player attempted to change their call and the opponents stopped him? no has there been a pause. yes Has thinking gone on? yes no. >(b) Law 25B, Delayed or Purposeful Correction? Has LHO called? no. Has the player changed his call? no If the player changes his call before a ruling is made L25B1 specifies that L27 applies. >(c) Law 27, Insufficient Bid? Was there an IB? yes yes regards roger pewick >Best wishes _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices you?ll love. Compare products and save at MSN? Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 4 03:21:52 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:21:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? Message-ID: <94A4CC5E-A983-49FC-896D-255409E6C841@rochester.rr.com> A question was raised on the BBO forums. Here's the scenario: You're dealer. The auction goes 1S-(P)-P-(2C)-....P-(P)-2D-(3C). You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this information UI to you? (A poll in the BBO thread was split 50=50). Reference was made to Law 73D1, in particular the last clause "inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be an opponent, and at his own risk," with the claim that this "clearly" shows that you *are* constrained by UI here. It ain't clear to me. :-) One further question: if you *are* constrained by UI, where does it stop? Will partner be further constrained if you bid? Will it ever be possible to arrive at a reasonable contract? From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 05:30:23 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:30:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c75e10$497cc5b0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: >From: "John Probst" >To: "Roger Pewick" >Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 03:50:44 -0000 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Roger Pewick" >To: >Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:02 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > > > > >>From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >>To: blml at rtflb.org > >>Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:57:49 +1100 > >> > >> > >>I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to > >>respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - > >>system notes emailed on request - was an artificial > >>game force relay). > >> > >>However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out > >>the 1S card from his bidding box instead. > >> > >>I immediately called the Director, and only now did > >>partner realise his error. > >> > >>Since it was my summoning of the Director which > >>awakened partner to his mispull, what Law should > >>the Director have used for his ruling? > >> > >>(a) Law 25A, Immediate Correction of Inadvertency? > > > > Has the player changed their call? no. > > Has the player attempted to change their call and the opponents stopped > > him? > > no > > has there been a pause. yes > > Has thinking gone on? yes > >"as soon as a player becomes aware .... " The answer is NO! "> >>I immediately called the Director, and only now did > >>partner realise his error." By stipulation the player has thought he has made an error of IB. I do not know how he can pull cards from his bidding box and not be able to notice before the cards arrive at the table- let alone for some time afterwards. ANd whether or not he has noticed he should have automatically noticed [L21] if for no other reason to protect his privilege of correcting a mispull. That he has now allegedly noticed yet has not acted and there having be a passage of time there has been pause for thought. That the partner has noticed an irregularity and drawn attention to it, he has made a communication other than by call or play and that communication has been received by partner. To use that communication as a pretext to recover from his irregularity without suffering penalty proves the assertion that there has been a breach of L73. regards roger pewick > > no. > > > >>(b) Law 25B, Delayed or Purposeful Correction? > > > > Has LHO called? no. > > Has the player changed his call? no > > If the player changes his call before a ruling is made L25B1 specifies > > that > > L27 applies. > > > >>(c) Law 27, Insufficient Bid? > > > > Was there an IB? yes > > yes > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > >>Best wishes _________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 4 11:09:47 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:09:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c75e45$c97d3990$3ada403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to >> >>respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - >> >>system notes emailed on request - was an artificial >> >>game force relay). >> >> >> >>However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out >> >>the 1S card from his bidding box instead. >> >> >> >>I immediately called the Director, and only now did >> >>partner realise his error. >> >> +=+ I apologize for not having followed this topic closely. However, seeking to refresh my mind, may I ask whether it has been settled that: 1. The Director having been called Law 9B2 applies. 2. When he arrives, the 1S bid on the table being insufficient, the Director will apply Law 27. (I have not seen it said that the offender actually changed his bid before the Director arrived. I may have missed such a statement when deleting numbers of messages.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 4 11:56:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:56:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c75e45$c97d3990$3ada403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c75e4b$bda9abc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ........... > >> >>I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to > >> >>respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - > >> >>system notes emailed on request - was an artificial > >> >>game force relay). > >> >> > >> >>However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out > >> >>the 1S card from his bidding box instead. > >> >> > >> >>I immediately called the Director, and only now did > >> >>partner realise his error. > >> >> > +=+ I apologize for not having followed this topic closely. > However, seeking to refresh my mind, may I ask whether it > has been settled that: > > 1. The Director having been called Law 9B2 applies. > 2. When he arrives, the 1S bid on the table being insufficient, > the Director will apply Law 27. > > (I have not seen it said that the offender actually changed his > bid before the Director arrived. I may have missed such a > statement when deleting numbers of messages.) The sequence of events described was: 1: Offender's partner opened the auction with a 1S bid. 2: Offender bid 1S, insufficient and apparently (according to the description given) an inadvertent call where 1NT was intended. 3: Offender's partner immediately summoned the Director without first explicitly calling attention to the irregularity. 4: The offender now noticed his error. According to the description given his attitude clearly confirms that his insufficient bid was inadvertent. Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should have changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his error and before the Director arrived? IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and the offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A by delaying his "immediate" correction of the call until the Director had arrived at the table? Or are you saying that because he became aware of his mistake from a subsequent action (not a call!) by his partner Law 25A is no longer applicable? Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Mar 4 12:43:11 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:43:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <000001c75e4b$bda9abc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c75e4b$bda9abc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1HNp7P-1P6eXY0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > ........... > > > > > > I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to > > > > > > respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - > > > > > > system notes emailed on request - was an artificial > > > > > > game force relay). > > > > > > > > > > > > However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out > > > > > > the 1S card from his bidding box instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > I immediately called the Director, and only now did > > > > > > partner realise his error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +=+ I apologize for not having followed this topic closely. > > However, seeking to refresh my mind, may I ask whether it > > has been settled that: > > > > 1. The Director having been called Law 9B2 applies. > > 2. When he arrives, the 1S bid on the table being insufficient, > > the Director will apply Law 27. > > > > (I have not seen it said that the offender actually changed his > > bid before the Director arrived. I may have missed such a > > statement when deleting numbers of messages.) > > The sequence of events described was: > 1: Offender's partner opened the auction with a 1S bid. > 2: Offender bid 1S, insufficient and apparently (according to the > description given) an inadvertent call where 1NT was intended. > 3: Offender's partner immediately summoned the Director without first > explicitly calling attention to the irregularity. > 4: The offender now noticed his error. According to the description > given his attitude clearly confirms that his insufficient bid was > inadvertent. > > Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should have > changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his error and > before the Director arrived? yes, sure! Read the law ... > IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and the > offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A by delaying > his "immediate" correction of the call until the Director had arrived > at the table? Offender only has rights under Law 25A, if he changes or tries to change his call immediately. Peter > Or are you saying that because he became aware of his mistake from a > subsequent action (not a call!) by his partner Law 25A is no longer > applicable? From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 4 13:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <1HNp7P-1P6eXY0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > > Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should have > > changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his error and > > before the Director arrived? > > yes, sure! > Read the law ... > > > IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and the > > offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A by delaying > > his "immediate" correction of the call until the Director had > > arrived > > at the table? > > Offender only has rights under Law 25A, if he > changes or tries to change his call immediately. I have read the law. The word "immediately" is not used. The words "without pause for thought" are used. A player who is waiting for the director to arrive should not automatically be deemed to have paused for thought. If, when the TD does arrive, the player says to the TD "I didn't realise my mistake until my partner called you - I meant to bid 1N - am I allowed to change my call?" Then it is a perfectly reasonable TD judgement to say that the player has not paused "for thought" but has merely waited in attempted compliance with 9b2. Note attempted. IMO an immediate correction (or attempted correction) is not actually a breach of L9b2 given the context of the heading (but that's an interpretation also open to debate). Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 4 11:25:57 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:25:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? References: <94A4CC5E-A983-49FC-896D-255409E6C841@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000a01c75e5e$7e9cf1e0$39ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:21 AM Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? >A question was raised on the BBO forums. Here's the scenario: You're > dealer. The auction goes 1S-(P)-P-(2C)-....P-(P)-2D-(3C). > > You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an > ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this > information UI to you? (A poll in the BBO thread was split 50=50). > Reference was made to Law 73D1, in particular the last clause > "inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be > an opponent, and at his own risk," with the claim that this "clearly" > shows that you *are* constrained by UI here. It ain't clear to me. :-) > > One further question: if you *are* constrained by UI, where does it > stop? Will partner be further constrained if you bid? Will it ever be > possible to arrive at a reasonable contract? > +=+ This is a question that has lodged in my mind for over twenty years. It happened that the bidding went 1S - p - 2S - 3C p* - p - 3S - p 4S all pass. Ten tricks. (* ages ) The Director was not called. Perhaps he should have been. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 4 14:17:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:17:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <1HNp7P-1P6eXY0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000201c75e5f$67996a40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt ............... > > The sequence of events described was: > > 1: Offender's partner opened the auction with a 1S bid. > > 2: Offender bid 1S, insufficient and apparently (according to the > > description given) an inadvertent call where 1NT was intended. > > 3: Offender's partner immediately summoned the Director without first > > explicitly calling attention to the irregularity. > > 4: The offender now noticed his error. According to the description > > given his attitude clearly confirms that his insufficient bid was > > inadvertent. > > > > Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should have > > changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his error and > > before the Director arrived? > > yes, sure! > Read the law ... Indeed. Law 25A: Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law. And from Maastricht, August 30th 2000 - 6 When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his mistake. So "immediately" is to be "measured" from the moment offender discovers his mistake (within the time limit "until his partner makes a call"), not from the moment he actually made his mistake. > > IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and the > > offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A by delaying > > his "immediate" correction of the call until the Director had arrived > > at the table? > > Offender only has rights under Law 25A, if he > changes or tries to change his call immediately. In direct violation of Law 9B2 ! ???? Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty. See also Law 9B1(c): Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. Please do not forget that according to the facts as they have been presented to us there is no doubt that the offender's call was inadvertent and that he intended to bid 1NT. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 4 14:28:14 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 13:28:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c75e4b$bda9abc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c75e61$297ee850$6001e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] <<< >> +=+ I apologize for not having followed this topic closely. >> However, seeking to refresh my mind, may I ask whether it >> has been settled that: >> >> 1. The Director having been called Law 9B2 applies. >> 2. When he arrives, the 1S bid on the table being insufficient, >> the Director will apply Law 27. >> >> (I have not seen it said that the offender actually changed his >> bid before the Director arrived. I may have missed such a >> statement when deleting numbers of messages.) > > Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should > have changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his > error and before the Director arrived? > IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and > the offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A > by delaying his "immediate" correction of the call until the > Director had arrived at the table? > > Or are you saying that because he became aware of his > mistake from a subsequent action (not a call!) by his partner > Law 25A is no longer applicable? > +=+ I am not saying either of these things. I am saying that when the Director has been called no player is entitled to take any further action and the Director will make hias ruling on the facts as he finds them upon arrival at the table. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 14:44:36 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:44:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <000201c75e5f$67996a40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs >Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:17:05 +0100 > > > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt >............... > > > The sequence of events described was: > > > 1: Offender's partner opened the auction with a 1S bid. > > > 2: Offender bid 1S, insufficient and apparently (according to the > > > description given) an inadvertent call where 1NT was intended. > > > 3: Offender's partner immediately summoned the Director without first > > > explicitly calling attention to the irregularity. > > > 4: The offender now noticed his error. According to the description > > > given his attitude clearly confirms that his insufficient bid was > > > inadvertent. > > > > > > Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should have > > > changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his error and > > > before the Director arrived? > > > > yes, sure! > > Read the law ... > >Indeed. >Law 25A: >Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call >for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, >without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; >if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law. >And from Maastricht, August 30th 2000 - 6 >When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call >(Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his >mistake. > >So "immediately" is to be "measured" from the moment offender discovers his >mistake (within the time limit "until his partner makes a call"), >not from >the moment he actually made his mistake. The contention that the circumstances allow a change of call without penalty are totally unsupported by law. For the law to so allow would require a substantial change in law. This assertion is supported, and emphatically so, by passage of law: L45C1 specifies that if a defender?s card is held so that it is possible for the partner to have seen [it is presumed that he has seen it] and thus must be played. And it is right to make such a presumption without regard as to whether he has seen it. And so it is the same when a bidding card is taken from the bidding box. It is possible for the player to see the card as he should be looking at the card as he grabs it and can be looking at it as he removes it and can be looking at it as he puts it on the table. Since it not only is possible that the player could see his own bidding card it is most probable he has indeed seen it. And it is even more right to presume he has seen it than in the analogous situation covered by L45C1. And having presumed to have seen it there is a presumption that he is aware of his error at the point in time no later [if not sooner] than the card is placed on the table. Conversely L25A provides that in order for there to be an expectation of no penalty when a player corrects his call- the player must indeed substitute it. If the player?s election to substitute depends upon finding out whether or not his substitution will be penalized, or his rights, it is de facto after pause for thought. As such, it is right to presume that if a player hasn?t stated his intention to correct his call prior placing his bidding card on the table and then immediately follow through then to do so later there has been pause and such pause has been filled with thought. regards roger pewick > > > IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and the > > > offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A by delaying > > > his "immediate" correction of the call until the Director had arrived > > > at the table? > > > > Offender only has rights under Law 25A, if he > > changes or tries to change his call immediately. > >In direct violation of Law 9B2 ! ???? > >Law 9B2: >No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all >matters >in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty. > >See also Law 9B1(c): >Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to >which he might otherwise be entitled. > >Please do not forget that according to the facts as they have been >presented >to us there is no doubt that the offender's call was inadvertent and that >he >intended to bid 1NT. > >Sven _________________________________________________________________ Don?t miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft? Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 4 20:24:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:24:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <1HNp7P-1P6eXY0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <000001c75e4b$bda9abc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1HNp7P-1P6eXY0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <2989F1EC-9798-43F8-8725-2FB91ED1D499@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 4, 2007, at 6:43 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > Offender only has rights under Law 25A, if he > changes or tries to change his call immediately. Law 25A doesn't say that. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 4 20:30:53 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:30:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 4, 2007, at 8:44 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > The contention that the circumstances allow a change of call > without penalty are totally unsupported by law. For the law to so > allow would require a substantial change in law. > > This assertion is supported, and emphatically so, by passage of law: > > L45C1 specifies that if a defender?s card is held so that it is > possible for the partner to have seen [it is presumed that he has > seen it] and thus must be played. And it is right to make such a > presumption without regard as to whether he has seen it. > > And so it is the same when a bidding card is taken from the bidding > box. It is possible for the player to see the card as he should be > looking at the card as he grabs it and can be looking at it as he > removes it and can be looking at it as he puts it on the table. > Since it not only is possible that the player could see his own > bidding card it is most probable he has indeed seen it. And it is > even more right to presume he has seen it than in the analogous > situation covered by L45C1. And having presumed to have seen it > there is a presumption that he is aware of his error at the point > in time no later [if not sooner] than the card is placed on the table. > > Conversely L25A provides that in order for there to be an > expectation of no penalty when a player corrects his call- the > player must indeed substitute it. If the player?s election to > substitute depends upon finding out whether or not his substitution > will be penalized, or his rights, it is de facto after pause for > thought. > > As such, it is right to presume that if a player hasn?t stated his > intention to correct his call prior placing his bidding card on the > table and then immediately follow through then to do so later there > has been pause and such pause has been filled with thought. I hear the deep voice of the bullfrog. Sorry Roger, but this won't wash. That the contention *are* supported by law has already been demonstrated. Try again. From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 4 21:44:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 21:44:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c75e9d$e2f6a5c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > >............... > > > Read the law ... > > > >Indeed. > >Law 25A: > >Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call > >for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, > >without pause for thought. .................. > Conversely L25A provides that in order for there to be an expectation of > no > penalty when a player corrects his call- the player must indeed substitute > it. If the player's election to substitute depends upon finding out > whether > or not his substitution will be penalized, or his rights, it is de facto > after pause for thought. > > As such, it is right to presume that if a player hasn't stated his > intention > to correct his call prior placing his bidding card on the table and then > immediately follow through then to do so later there has been pause and > such > pause has been filled with thought. Do yourself the favour and explain how your view can be compatible with the leading clause in Law 25A: "Until his partner makes a call". Note that even after LHO has made a subsequent call the time window for applying L25A is still open! Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 4 23:13:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:13:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c75e45$c97d3990$3ada403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ I apologize for not having followed this topic closely. >>>However, seeking to refresh my mind, may I ask whether it >>>has been settled that: >>> >>>1. The Director having been called Law 9B2 applies. >>>2. When he arrives, the 1S bid on the table being >>>insufficient, the Director will apply Law 27. >>> >>>(I have not seen it said that the offender actually changed >>>his bid before the Director arrived. I may have missed such a >>>statement when deleting numbers of messages.) >>> >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sven Pran: >>Are you saying that for Law 25A to apply the offender should >>have changed his inadvertent call immediately when noticing his >>error and before the Director arrived? >>IMO this would have been a clear violation of Law 9B2, and >>the offender should not lose any of his rights under Law 25A >>by delaying his "immediate" correction of the call until the >>Director had arrived at the table? >> >>Or are you saying that because he became aware of his >>mistake from a subsequent action (not a call!) by his partner >>Law 25A is no longer applicable? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am not saying either of these things. I am saying that when >the Director has been called no player is entitled to take any >further action and the Director will make his ruling on the facts >as he finds them upon arrival at the table. > Regards, > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: This incident occurred at a local Canberra Bridge Club event. But the local Director, Sean Mullamphy, also wears another hat as the Chief Director of Australia, so his interpretation of Law has a certain amount of authority. After ascertaining the facts, Sean's expertise enabled him to decide that Law 25A, not Law 27, was the appropriate Law. I suspect that Grattan's initial item 2 suggestion on this thread was "devil's advocate" irony. Given that most Directors lack the expertise of Sean Mullamphy (or Sven Pran / Ed Reppert / John Probst) in interpreting the Lawbook, it seems to me that to assist non-expert Directors the next Lawbook should have a cross-reference to Law 25A inserted into Law 27. 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 john at asimere.com Sun Mar 4 23:59:03 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 22:59:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Incomplete Swiss matches Message-ID: <000501c75eb0$b4615080$0701a8c0@john> This is by way of consultation; as I'm involved. My online site had a massive crash tonight, thus killing off a number of swiss matches in progress. We need to score them on an EBU 20-0 scale. The matches are of 18 boards (and the scoring is Butler imps, although that's not relevant except that an award of 2 imps a board is appropriate if you're awarding average plus.) We use EBU White Book for default regulation so if nine boards have been played the match is in good standing. As I see it, this is a "no fault of your own" situation, but I dislike inflating VPs in a Swiss. We could 1) score the number of boards actually played on an appropriate scale for that number of boards, thus avoiding VP inflation 2) Award average plus both sides and score as an 18 board match where the total VPs are > 20 3) Take a halfway house of some sort. What do we do about matches that have played fewer than 9 boards? Our default VPs for a "no fault of your own" is 14. Can we adjust this based on such results as we have, and if so, how? Taking the case where only 3 boards or 8 boards have been played, it's unfair to adjust the VPs purely on scores attained, but something might be possible. Await replies with interest. John From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 5 00:06:20 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:06:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001401c75eb1$b8f932b0$0701a8c0@john> >> Regards, >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > This incident occurred at a local Canberra Bridge Club event. But > the local Director, Sean Mullamphy, also wears another hat as the > Chief Director of Australia, so his interpretation of Law has a > certain amount of authority. > > After ascertaining the facts, Sean's expertise enabled him to > decide that Law 25A, not Law 27, was the appropriate Law. I > suspect that Grattan's initial item 2 suggestion on this thread > was "devil's advocate" irony. > > Given that most Directors lack the expertise of Sean Mullamphy (or > Sven Pran / Ed Reppert / John Probst) in interpreting the Lawbook, > it seems to me that to assist non-expert Directors the next Lawbook > should have a cross-reference to Law 25A inserted into Law 27. Yeah, Sean'd get it right. We've had this discussion in re "The Wendy coup" where the player pulls the bid and spends the next 10 seconds looking at Wendy's legs (I would anyway). He then notices it's not the call he intended to make and his partner has not yet called. This is SO obviously L25A territory, i don't know why we're discussing it. John > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 5 01:06:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:06:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Incomplete Swiss matches [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c75eb0$b4615080$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Probst: >This is by way of consultation; as I'm involved. My online site had a >massive crash tonight, thus killing off a number of swiss matches in >progress. We need to score them on an EBU 20-0 scale. The matches are of >18 boards (and the scoring is Butler imps, although that's not relevant >except that an award of 2 imps a board is appropriate if you're awarding >average plus.) > >We use EBU White Book for default regulation so if nine boards have been >played the match is in good standing. > >As I see it, this is a "no fault of your own" situation, but I dislike >inflating VPs in a Swiss. > >We could 1) score the number of boards actually played on an appropriate >scale for that number of boards, thus avoiding VP inflation >2) Award average plus both sides and score as an 18 board match where the >total VPs are > 20 >3) Take a halfway house of some sort. > >What do we do about matches that have played fewer than 9 boards? Our >default VPs for a "no fault of your own" is 14. Can we adjust this based >on such results as we have, and if so, how? Taking the case where only 3 >boards or 8 boards have been played, it's unfair to adjust the VPs purely >on scores attained, but something might be possible. > >Await replies with interest. John Law 81C3: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants." Richard Hills: If I was the TD I would use Law 81C3 to: (a) cancel the entire event, due to it being irrevocably compromised by the huge number of fouled boards, and (b) refund the entry fees of all contestants, and (c) give all contestants free entry (if they desired) into a replay of the entire event. A decade ago the ABF carelessly held a national pairs championship in a venue with inadequate space and no air-conditioning during the height of the Australian summer. (It was not entirely the fault of the ABF, as the vendor of the venue had given the ABF misleading assurances.) Due to the stifling heat, those participants who wished to withdraw were permitted to do so, and all participants were given free entry to the following year's national pairs championship. 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 Mar 5 04:16:15 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:16:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Failure to see alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45E28EFE.2040100@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >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 inconsistent. 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 infraction so at least a >split score would be in order. > >Not to mention that these two rulings are wildly inconsistent. Richard Hills: Not inconsistent, rather circumstances alter cases (horses for courses). In the first case a 4C opening bid was not alerted _and_ the CC was incorrectly filled out. Given that a significant proportion of bridge players still use a 4C opening as a natural preempt, the AC considered that "protecting yourself" was not quite applicable. In the second case a 2C opening bid was not alerted _but_ the CC was correctly filled out. South tried "pull the other one, it's got bells on" by arguing that an unalerted 2C opening bid must be weak with long clubs. Given that the vast majority of 2C openings are not natural, and given that this South held long and strong clubs: Q8 KT4 62 KJT752 the Director and the Appeals Committee applied "horses for courses" in ruling that this South had not done enough to protect himself. The offending side kept their score in the second case because their failure to alert caused no damage; rather the damage was caused by an apparent attempt at a double-shot by the so-called non-offending 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. 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 Mon Mar 5 06:18:45 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:18:45 -0600 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs References: <000d01c75e9d$e2f6a5c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs >> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >> >............... >> > > Read the law ... >> > >> >Indeed. >> >Law 25A: >> >Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended >> >call >> >for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, >> >without pause for thought. > .................. >> Conversely L25A provides that in order for there to be an expectation of >> no >> penalty when a player corrects his call- the player must indeed >> substitute >> it. If the player's election to substitute depends upon finding out >> whether >> or not his substitution will be penalized, or his rights, it is de facto >> after pause for thought. >> >> As such, it is right to presume that if a player hasn't stated his >> intention >> to correct his call prior placing his bidding card on the table and then >> immediately follow through then to do so later there has been pause and >> such >> pause has been filled with thought. > > Do yourself the favour and explain how your view can be compatible with > the > leading clause in Law 25A: "Until his partner makes a call". > > Note that even after LHO has made a subsequent call the time window for > applying L25A is still open! > > Sven Case 1 [the almost always case] the player makes an inadvertent call where he is not impeded from correcting it. The law specifies that the correction must be made without pause for thought from the point in time the call is made. Case 2 [a very rare occurrence] At the time the call is being made a distraction outside the partnership's control prevents detection that a misspull has occurred. An example, 'FIRE!' where the LHO has called, perhaps quite quickly. Or also, the opponent starts his call before the player has finished his action [or so quickly that the player had no opportunity to correct before the opponent called]. The opponent's premature reaching for his bidding cards being a distraction preventing the noticing of a misspull. The opportunity to correct an inadvertent call [misspull] without pause for thought ends once partner has called- it being a rare occasion that the opportunity is still available at the time the LHO begins reaching for his bidding cards [due to the condition not being satisfied- without pause for thought]. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 5 06:25:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:25:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1HNTow-1wXTCi0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >BTW: don't you use written bidding down under ? Richard Hills: By The Way bidding boxes were introduced this year for the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Bidding boxes have also been introduced into major bridge clubs such as the New South Wales Bridge Association and the Canberra Bridge Club. I suspect that the increasing popularity of bidding boxes in Australia may be linked to the success of Al Gore's ecological documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in Aussie cinemas, since written bidding creates huge amounts of waste paper, so has a bigger "environmental footprint" than bidding boxes. Yesterday I attended the annual teams congress of the smallish Illawarra Bridge Association in Wollongong. I was impressed that they too have adopted bidding boxes. (By The Way my team fell over the line, winning first place by just 1 VP). There was one ruling at the IBA Teams which might be of interest to blml. Halfway through the play of a hand I (correctly) conceded two tricks to the opponents and claimed the rest as sure winners. Not being used to such an early claim the opponents requested that I play on. Was my early claim an "annoyance" infraction of Law 74A2? Or is an action specifically allowed by Law, such as a claim which is compliant with Law 70C, never deemed to "interfere with the enjoyment of the game"? The TD happened to be nearby collecting boards when the opponents suggested that play continue after the claim, and he immediately informed the table that play after a claim was not permitted. He then adjudicated my claim. Law 81C6 permits the TD to "rectify" an irregularity, but is he permitted to _prevent_ the irregularity of playing on after a claim? Or was the TD's intervention permitted by the broader and more general Law 82A power "maintain the progress of the game"? 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 Mon Mar 5 08:36:32 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:36:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to see alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <01f601c75ef9$011ffe10$55331d53@k827b8a5159344> > Richard Hills: > > Not inconsistent, rather circumstances alter cases (horses for > courses). > > In the first case a 4C opening bid was not alerted It was. Only in a improper manner. Ie. in a manner that _everybody_ alerts bids on screens. Sadly, no one follows the WBF offical procedure. > _and_ the CC was > incorrectly filled out. Given that a significant proportion of > bridge players still use a 4C opening as a natural preempt, the AC > considered that "protecting yourself" was not quite applicable. 1. The description of the the 4C was in the "General Approach And Style" section. This is the first thing you check before the match - it is clear East-West didn't inspect the North-South card at all before playing . 2. The TD found out that East looked at the opposing CC only during the play - but not before he pulled his partner's double. So what North-South had in their CC was irrelevant as East didn't care. 3. How often have you seen a natural 4C - 4H sequence? I haven't seen it even once in my enitre life. If you're saying that looking at KJT752 South from the second case should have got a clue that 2C was artificial and at the same time you're saying that if your opponents bid 4C - 4H then there is no reason so suspect Namyats then puh-leeze... 4C - 4H smells Namyats from 100 miles. > Given that the vast majority of 2C openings are not > natural, Not here. In Poland it is mostly natural. >The offending side kept their score in the second case because their >failure to alert caused no damage; Really? In both cases if the bid had been alerted in a proper manner the offenders would never have gotten their good score. So they benefited from their infraction. Plus if in two almost identical cases you allow the OS to keep their score in one of them and in another you 1. Give them the worst possible score. 2. Forfeit the deposit thus telling them that any prestense they might have to keeping their good score are outrageous, ridiculous. 3. Suspend them for one game then don't tell me that both rulings are right. "Consistency is all I ask". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 5 09:51:55 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:51:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001b01c75f03$8f2f97b0$fcbc87d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > The TD happened to be nearby collecting boards when > the opponents suggested that play continue after the > claim, and he immediately informed the table that > play after a claim was not permitted. He then > adjudicated my claim. Law 81C6 permits the TD to > "rectify" an irregularity, but is he permitted to > _prevent_ the irregularity of playing on after a > claim? Or was the TD's intervention permitted by > the broader and more general Law 82A power "maintain > the progress of the game"? > +=+ I think Law 81C5 suffices. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 5 10:53:19 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:53:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs References: <000d01c75e9d$e2f6a5c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c75f0c$53673ef0$11b287d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 5:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs > > > The opportunity to correct an inadvertent > call [misspull] without pause for thought ends > once partner has called- it being a rare > occasion that the opportunity is still available > at the time the LHO begins reaching for his > bidding cards [due to the condition not being > satisfied- without pause for thought]. > +=+ To quote from another thread: " 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. " We have to consider our position with regard to the possibility of a purposeful action, of whatever kind, to alert partner to his irregularity (Law 73A1). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From J.P.Pals at uva.nl Mon Mar 5 11:11:20 2007 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:11:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261493F3@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS play an artificial defence, based on transfers. South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: K9 62 QJ8 AKQ942 He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and hearts). Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. South does not know what will happen: a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the alertability of 1C? If he doesn't, what are his options under the calamity scenarios in a) and b)? Thanks for comments JP From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Mar 5 11:43:52 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 05 Mar 2007 11:43:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 Message-ID: <20070305104352.E7E30233503@poczta.interia.pl> > East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a > 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS > play an artificial defence, based on transfers. > > South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: > > K9 > 62 > QJ8 > AKQ942 > > He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and > hearts). > Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. > > South does not know what will happen: > a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. > b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR > hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. > > Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the > alertability of 1C? NO!!! Emphatically NO!!! That would be like telling partner "watch out: my next bid is going to be artificial!". That would be blatant transmission of the UI to partner. If South _knows_ the meaning of the 1C opening he simply has to assume that partner knows it, too (in the same fashion you do when playing with screens). So he should overcall 1S. If partner doesn't alert then South should treat a raise to 3S as natural from partner's own suit (partner's failure to alert 1S is UI to South), raise it to 4S, go down a million and seek redress from the TD which he will certainly get. South knows that his LHO committed an irregularity by failing to alert 1C but L9A1 says South may draw attention to it "Unless prohibited by Law". L73B1 prohibits drawing attention to the failure alert when doing so would transmit UI to partner. Only TD is allowed to give redress for infractions, players are not allowed to take justice in their own hands ("he committed an infraction so I gotta do the same to save my ass"). We were in this point when we discussed whether players are allowed to ask additional questions about bids to make sure partner gets all the inferences. Say your RHO opens 1C (Polish Club), a system that you are very familiar with but partner is not. The explanation is "natural or balanced, could be strong". This is a woefully inadequate explanation and you know it but you are not allowed to continue investigation along the lines "So it means he can have a void in clubs, doesn't it?" or "does this mean that he can have a doubleton in clubs when weak?" to make sure that partner realizes that 1C is not natural. You have to assume partner understands all the inferences. Only when the hand is over are you allowed to call the TD and ask for redress if you were damaged by the inaccurate explanation. Even if you are not damaged you may call the TD so that he instructs your opponents to alert and/or explain properly. But you cannot attempt to neutralize their infraction of misexplaining and misalerting by sending UI yourself. This is a no-no. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 5 12:17:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:17:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <45EBFC56.6060306@skynet.be> Jan Peter Pals wrote: > East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a > 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS > play an artificial defence, based on transfers. > > South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: > > K9 > 62 > QJ8 > AKQ942 > > He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and > hearts). > Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. > > South does not know what will happen: > a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. > b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR > hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. > > Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the > alertability of 1C? I would not rule against someone who asks the meaning of a bid when it clearly defines his system. I would almost rule against someone who does not ask and solely relies on an alert. > If he doesn't, what are his options under the calamity scenarios in a) > and b)? > "Failure to protect oneself could come up!" BTW, in Belgium there is no difference in treatment of "1Cl can be 4432" and "1cl better minor", but even here, players are obliged to tell their system at the start of the round. I would imagine that in the Netherlands, where such difference is much more important, it should be a big infraction if people do not start by saying that they play that 1Cl could be 2. BTW2, I find it stupid that the NBB make such a distinction, and I find players even more stupid that insist on playing diamonds 4, when they know that over their 1Cl they can expect anything. But then I'm only Belgian. ;) > Thanks for comments > JP > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 5 12:49:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <20070305104352.E7E30233503@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070305104352.E7E30233503@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <45EC03C5.4070902@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a >> 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS >> play an artificial defence, based on transfers. >> >> South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: >> >> K9 >> 62 >> QJ8 >> AKQ942 >> >> He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and >> hearts). >> Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. >> >> South does not know what will happen: >> a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. >> b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR >> hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. >> >> Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the >> alertability of 1C? > > NO!!! Emphatically NO!!! That would be like telling partner > "watch out: my next bid is going to be artificial!". > That would be blatant transmission of the UI to partner. > See how different the replies could be? In reaction to Conrad I would offer the following: Don't you believe that they know that they are playing different systems over different 1Cl? Then how can asking about a bid be any communication as to what the next bid shall mean? > If South _knows_ the meaning of the 1C opening he simply has to > assume that partner knows it, too (in the same fashion > you do when playing with screens). So he should overcall > 1S. If partner doesn't alert then South should treat a raise > to 3S as natural from partner's own suit (partner's > failure to alert 1S is UI to South), raise it to 4S, > go down a million and seek redress from the TD which > he will certainly get. Unless the TD rules that partner should have asked, because your the meaning of your bid depends on it. > South knows that his LHO committed an irregularity by > failing to alert 1C but L9A1 says South may draw attention > to it "Unless prohibited by Law". L73B1 prohibits > drawing attention to the failure alert when doing so would > transmit UI to partner. > Not if you don't rule that to ask for a meaning of an important bid would not create UI. > Only TD is allowed to give redress for infractions, players > are not allowed to take justice in their own hands > ("he committed an infraction so I gotta do the same to save my ass"). > We were in this point when we discussed whether players > are allowed to ask additional questions about bids to make > sure partner gets all the inferences. Say your RHO > opens 1C (Polish Club), a system that you are very familiar > with but partner is not. The explanation is "natural or balanced, > could be strong". This is a woefully inadequate explanation and you > know it but you are not allowed to continue investigation along > the lines "So it means he can have a void in clubs, doesn't it?" > or "does this mean that he can have a doubleton in clubs when > weak?" to make sure that partner realizes that 1C is not > natural. You have to assume partner understands all the inferences. > Only when the hand is over are you allowed to call the TD and > ask for redress if you were damaged by the inaccurate explanation. > I don't believe this is the same thing. > Even if you are not damaged you may call the TD so that he > instructs your opponents to alert and/or explain properly. > But you cannot attempt to neutralize their infraction of misexplaining > and misalerting by sending UI yourself. This is a no-no. > > > I see where Conrad is coming from. I prefer to correct my opponents' small mistakes rather than rely on the TD to correct my own misfortunes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Mar 5 13:00:50 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 05 Mar 2007 13:00:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 Message-ID: <20070305120050.DD5C12334F4@poczta.interia.pl> > Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a > > 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS > > play an artificial defence, based on transfers. > > > > South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: > > > > K9 > > 62 > > QJ8 > > AKQ942 > > > > He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and > > hearts). > > Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. > > > > South does not know what will happen: > > a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. > > b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR > > hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. > > > > Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the > > alertability of 1C? > > I would not rule against someone who asks the meaning of a bid when it > clearly defines his system. I would almost rule against someone who > does not ask and solely relies on an alert. You mean - the lack of alert? So you'd rule against someone who didn't ask about the meaning of an unalerted call in order not to transmit UI? Unbelievable. It reminds me of a team called West Lvov who once played in the Polish Third Division (more than 10 years ago, so no screens were used). There was a 1H opening and the Ukrainian guy gasped at it and asked his LHO in Polish, with this inimittable Ukrainian accent: "do you psyche?". -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From henk at ripe.net Mon Mar 5 13:20:19 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:20:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <45EBFC56.6060306@skynet.be> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <45EBFC56.6060306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45EC0B03.30801@ripe.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Jan Peter Pals wrote: > I would almost rule against someone who > does not ask and solely relies on an alert. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the alert system? > BTW, in Belgium there is no difference in treatment of "1Cl can be > 4432" and "1cl better minor", but even here, players are obliged to > tell their system at the start of the round. I would imagine that in > the Netherlands, where such difference is much more important, it > should be a big infraction if people do not start by saying that they > play that 1Cl could be 2. There is a requirement that you hand over your convention card to the opponents at the start of the round, which is effectively the same. However, there is no requirement that one actually remembers what is on the opponent's card by the time a bid comes up. 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 5 13:48:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:48:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <000401c75f24$9f80d3b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jan Peter Pals > East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a > 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS > play an artificial defence, based on transfers. > > South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: > > K9 > 62 > QJ8 > AKQ942 > > He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and > hearts). > Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. > > South does not know what will happen: > a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. > b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR > hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. > > Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the > alertability of 1C? > If he doesn't, what are his options under the calamity scenarios in a) > and b)? There are unanimous and correct comments that you may not ask question(s) for the purpose of drawing your partner's attention to opponents' system. Thus in this case you are supposed to bid 1S and continue the auction with the assumption that partner is aware of the systems in use. There is however deeper water in this pond: You say that you know opponents' agreements, but how do you know that they haven't recently changed their agreements and that the opening bid in 1C now shows clubs so that no alert from West was missing after all? I would rule that you are allowed to verify your assumed "knowledge" of opponents' system, primarily by looking at their CC, or if this is unavailable by asking question(s). This so much more because you see a conflict between opponents' actions and what you believe is their agreement. Actually I would take this principle even a step further: If I am aware that you saw such a conflict and just assumed one or the other alternative (incorrectly) with damage as the result, I might quite likely rule that your damage was self-inflicted because you failed to protect your interests by clarifying the situation. Your question(s) will definitely create UI for your partner but as long as you have a legitimate reason for asking such questions there is no law that makes them illegal. (Your partner must of course be very careful not to select his actions from the fact that you asked questions.) Regards Sven From emu at fwi.net.au Mon Mar 5 13:56:11 2007 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:56:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <004301c75d40$fd7c4b60$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001d01c75f25$af9d9fc0$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Harald Skjfran >> >> > >> > APPEAL CASE 4 >> > Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs >> > Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21 >> > Dick Bruno >> > Board 8 S Q 8 4 3 >> > Vul: None H 2 >> > Dlr: West D K Q 8 4 >> > C A K 8 5 >> > Barie Wall Ray Miller >> > S A J 7 2 S K 9 5 >> > H K Q 10 5 4 H J 9 7 3 >> > D 6 2 D A J 3 >> > C J 7 C Q 10 9 >> > Peggy Kaplan >> > S 10 6 >> > H A 8 6 >> > D 10 9 7 5 >> > C 8 4 3 2 >> > West North East South >> > 1H Dbl 2NT (1) Pass >> > 3C Pass 3H All Pass >> > >> > (1) Explained as a relay to 3C. >> > >> > Facts: The result at the table was 3H by West >> > making three after the opening lead of the CA. EW >> > play 2NT as a limit raise or better in hearts. >> > West confused two auctions and provided a >> > mistaken explanation of 2NT without having been >> > asked. The partnership agreement of the 3C bid is >> > that it is a long-suit game try. >> > >> > Director's Ruling: The director found that >> > there was unauthorized information (UI) arising >> > from the incorrect explanation of the agreement. >> > After consulting several players, the director >> > decided that bidding 4H was a less successful >> > logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than >> > bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by >> > the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2, >> > an adjustment was made to 4H by East, down one >> > for a score of E-W minus 50. >> > >> > The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11 >> > point hands. 3C suggested 12 to 13 high-card >> > points, since with more, West would have accepted >> > the limit raise. South suggested that East's club >> > fillers made his hand worth a raise to 4H. >> > >> > The Decision: The committee determined that >> > West?s misexplanation constituted UI under Law >> > 16. Since East possessed information suggesting >> > that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as >> > opposed to 4H, was made more attractive given >> > the form of scoring. So the questions to be >> > answered at this point were whether there was a >> > logical alternative to bidding 3H and whether there >> > were any other calls, such as 3D or 3NT, to >> > consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum >> > hand like: S Ax H KQ10xx D xx C Kxxx >> > where the game would depend on a club finesse. >> > The panel also noted that changing one of the >> > kings to an ace or adding the DJ would make 4H >> > an excellent game. Therefore, the committee >> > deemed 4H a LA to 3H. >> > >> > The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), >> > Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin >> > and Jim Thurtell. >> > I've had enough! IF East had bid 4H and it had MADE, NS would have been spitting chips as the 4H bid was 'obviously' suggested by the UI. And the appeal committee would have been arguing that 3H (making 4) was the ONLY possible LA. This is getting ridiculous. I agree Linda, SCARY. Double Shots rule in Bridge if this sort of thing stands. regards, Noel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 5 14:23:00 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:23:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <45EBFC56.6060306@skynet.be> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305141226.021652f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:17 5/03/2007 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the > > alertability of 1C? He just needs to ask. Alerts are for letting know ; questions too. The question solves what the failure to alert entangled. When it appears that the bid should have been alerted, every player's duty is to call for the TD ; most wouldn't care about that as there was no damage, but that's another story. The overcaller isn't more bound to do it than other players at the table. Yas, "failure to protect oneself" might be argued in such an obvious case. I've about the same problem, except that the distinction is between forcing or not. In cases of doubt, I ask 'forcing or not ?' and that's that. This is one problem that may prove harder to solve *with* screens, as a case in Belgian championship has shown : when the explanation is slightly different on both sides of the screen, a complete SNAFU may ensue. >Herman : BTW2, I find it stupid that the NBB make such a distinction, and I >find players even more stupid that insist on playing diamonds 4, when >they know that over their 1Cl they can expect anything. >But then I'm only Belgian. ;) FWIW, I'm Belgian too, and I like to play against players who use transfer overcalls ; this gives us so much space ! I even play 5-card diamonds with some partners, and have scored heavily against pairs that were willing to treat our 1C as conventional. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Mar 5 14:34:33 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 05 Mar 2007 14:34:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 Message-ID: <20070305133433.88A822334E3@poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a > >> 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS > >> play an artificial defence, based on transfers. > >> > >> South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: > >> > >> K9 > >> 62 > >> QJ8 > >> AKQ942 > >> > >> He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and > >> hearts). > >> Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. > >> > >> South does not know what will happen: > >> a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. > >> b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR > >> hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. > >> > >> Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the > >> alertability of 1C? > > > > NO!!! Emphatically NO!!! That would be like telling partner > > "watch out: my next bid is going to be artificial!". > > That would be blatant transmission of the UI to partner. > > > > See how different the replies could be? > In reaction to Conrad I would offer the following: > Don't you believe that they know that they are playing different > systems over different 1Cl? I believe that this is a very legitimate possibility. Recently I had a very similar experience with my own regular partner. And I have seen situations like that that many times at the table. This happens especially when they adopted this new defense recently or when one partner forced the other to play something the other doesn't like - the latter scenario is the most frequent. This is even more probable when they don't face "short club" pairs very often and don't get to test their artificial defense very often. People forget their artificial treatments quite frequently. > I see where Conrad is coming from. I prefer to correct my opponents' > small mistakes The problem is that you are practically guaranteeing that partner will wake up if he doesn't remember that defense. Consider this scenario: - 1C - ALERT! - What does it mean? - Just can be short with 4=4=3=2, otherwise normal - OK, thank you, 1S It is quite possible for North to fail to remember (inquiry about an alerted call is pretty much automatic) Now take this: - 1C Pause. - What does it mean? - Oh, sorry, I should have alerted, can be short with 4=4=3=2, otherwise normal. - 1S The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an unalerted call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals) would wake up a dead man. Of course after the hand they will claim that "obviously we know our system" but my experience tells me that weird treatments and defenses are _often_ forgotten. When you ask a player away from the table he will tell you "ah, this sequence means ..." but at the table it too easy to lose concentration for a while and simply let your thoughts wander. People do it all the time. It is the "hand was faster than mind" case. As an indirect proof how all this unauthorized information transmitted by alerts and questions is, in effect, used by players you just check what happens when you make people play with screens. The number of bidding accidents in simple sequences increases by a truely big margin. Just because players lose all this non-verbal information they get - they don't have confirmation whether partner alerted their bids, they can't see their partners ask questions about meanings of certain bids etc. When you put people behind screens you'll realize how big the impact of those "wake-up questions" is. That's why I believe players should go out of their way to avoid trasmitting UI when playing without screens. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 5 14:47:01 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:47:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] player overruling the TD ? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305142308.02150ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Is there such a thing as asking the TD to overrule himself ? This is a case that appeared in Belgian mixed teams last week : You hold Qxxx - AKx - 10x - Q9xx. Well, that's the kind of hands 11-14 NT are made for, so you merrily open one. LHO doubles. Partner passes (shows values and suggests beginning to double). RHO bids 1S. No Sir ! says partner. RHO reaches for something else in his BB (presumably 2S) but you stop him in his tracks, and call for the TD. The idea is to accept 1S. Then you'll bid 1NT, which you hope partner will understand as denying interest in going any higher, showing a spade stopper, but by the same time not goodish spades, as you didn't attempt to have a whack at 2S. Right ? Not for the TD, alas, who checks that 2S wouldn't have been artificial, then explains that 'if you bid 2S etc.' and 'if you bid something else, including pass, etc.', but completely forgets to mention the possibility of accpeting the IB. Upon which RHO bids 2S. What are your rights here ? a) asking the TD to reconsider his reading, or to read the applicable law rather than citing it ? And what if RHO has bid before you can utter any word, as was the case ? b) directly tell you'll request use of L82 if needed ? Sort of keeping your rights ? c) are you allowed to mention the IB, call the TD, then accept it (rather than accepting it altogether), so that partner knows you know what you're doing ? In practice, I did neither, afraid that my reaction could give out UI, or any kind of information to opponents. Partner reopened with 2NT (take-out), which I passed. Herman and collegues were spared a headache, as the defense was soft enough to allow that contract to be made, so L82 remained in its bed. Best regards, Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 14:54:08 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:54:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c75e9d$e2f6a5c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 05/03/07, Roger Pewick wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs > > > >> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > >> >............... > >> > > Read the law ... > >> > > >> >Indeed. > >> >Law 25A: > >> >Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended > >> >call > >> >for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, > >> >without pause for thought. > > .................. > >> Conversely L25A provides that in order for there to be an expectation of > >> no > >> penalty when a player corrects his call- the player must indeed > >> substitute > >> it. If the player's election to substitute depends upon finding out > >> whether > >> or not his substitution will be penalized, or his rights, it is de facto > >> after pause for thought. > >> > >> As such, it is right to presume that if a player hasn't stated his > >> intention > >> to correct his call prior placing his bidding card on the table and then > >> immediately follow through then to do so later there has been pause and > >> such > >> pause has been filled with thought. > > > > Do yourself the favour and explain how your view can be compatible with > > the > > leading clause in Law 25A: "Until his partner makes a call". > > > > Note that even after LHO has made a subsequent call the time window for > > applying L25A is still open! > > > > Sven > > Case 1 [the almost always case] the player makes an inadvertent call where > he is not impeded from correcting it. > > The law specifies that the correction must be made without pause for thought > from the point in time the call is made. How can you say so, Roger?? "from the point in time the call is made" is neither mentioned in the law nor implied. Law 25A: "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought." If your "interpretation" was correct, the firstpart of the sentence ("until his partner makes a call") would have absolutely no meaning. It would have to read "until his LHO makes a call" or something similar. Obviously, the meaning is that he may substitute his intended call for the inadvertent call without pause for thought from the moment he becomes aware of the misbid. How he may become aware of the inadvertent call might be open for interpretation/discussion. I'd allow a change without penalty in the actual case - as presented here. Though I understand from Grattan's postings that his view is different, I'm not certain of the WBFLC's intentions. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Case 2 [a very rare occurrence] > > At the time the call is being made a distraction outside the partnership's > control prevents detection that a misspull has occurred. An example, > 'FIRE!' where the LHO has called, perhaps quite quickly. Or also, the > opponent starts his call before the player has finished his action [or so > quickly that the player had no opportunity to correct before the opponent > called]. The opponent's premature reaching for his bidding cards being a > distraction preventing the noticing of a misspull. > > The opportunity to correct an inadvertent call [misspull] without pause for > thought ends once partner has called- it being a rare occasion that the > opportunity is still available at the time the LHO begins reaching for his > bidding cards [due to the condition not being satisfied- without pause for > thought]. > > regards > roger pewick > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 15:05:35 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:05:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] player overruling the TD ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305142308.02150ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305142308.02150ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 05/03/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > Is there such a thing as asking the TD to overrule himself ? This is a case > that appeared in Belgian mixed teams last week : > > You hold Qxxx - AKx - 10x - Q9xx. Well, that's the kind of hands 11-14 NT > are made for, so you merrily open one. LHO doubles. Partner passes (shows > values and suggests beginning to double). RHO bids 1S. No Sir ! says partner. > RHO reaches for something else in his BB (presumably 2S) but you stop him > in his tracks, and call for the TD. > > The idea is to accept 1S. Then you'll bid 1NT, which you hope partner will > understand as denying interest in going any higher, showing a spade > stopper, but by the same time not goodish spades, as you didn't attempt to > have a whack at 2S. Right ? > > Not for the TD, alas, who checks that 2S wouldn't have been artificial, > then explains that 'if you bid 2S etc.' and 'if you bid something else, > including pass, etc.', but completely forgets to mention the possibility of > accpeting the IB. Upon which RHO bids 2S. > > What are your rights here ? > > a) asking the TD to reconsider his reading, or to read the applicable law > rather than citing it ? And what if RHO has bid before you can utter any > word, as was the case ? I'd ask the TD "What about L27A? Am I not allowed to accept the IB?" I'd do that regardless of RHO having corrected his bid, if accepting the bid was my intention. I have, on occasion, corrected a TD overlooking a law or some other important fact. And I'd be very happy if a player stopped me from making such a mistake as a TD. > > b) directly tell you'll request use of L82 if needed ? Sort of keeping your > rights ? No problem with that one either. But can't see the point. If I've told the TD about his error already (as above), he'd be expecting an appeal anyway. > > c) are you allowed to mention the IB, call the TD, then accept it (rather > than accepting it altogether), so that partner knows you know what you're > doing ? Not for the purpose of ensuring that parnter knows what I'm up to, NO! Normally I'd just accept an IB by bidding over it. If someone objected, I'd inform them of my right to do so, and tell them to call the TD if they thought this was incorrect. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > In practice, I did neither, afraid that my reaction could give out UI, or > any kind of information to opponents. > Partner reopened with 2NT (take-out), which I passed. > Herman and collegues were spared a headache, as the defense was soft enough > to allow that contract to be made, so L82 remained in its bed. > > Best regards, > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Mar 5 15:06:08 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 05 Mar 2007 15:06:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 Message-ID: <20070305140608.D62032334EF@poczta.interia.pl> > > There is however deeper water in this pond: > > You say that you know opponents' agreements, but how do you know that > they > haven't recently changed their agreements and that the opening bid in 1C > now > shows clubs so that no alert from West was missing after all? OK, Sven either you know their agreement or you're not sure. You can't have it both ways. Case 1: If you KNOW their agreement (and by "KNOW" I mean KNOWING - not a suspicion, I mean you are 100% certain, because you talked to them before this round, or have their CC in front of your nose, whatever) then can you explain to me why on earth would you need to ask? If you already know the answer? You know the anwser, you know what bid is correct with your hand - so why do you need to ask at all? There is not reason to. Thus you are not asking for your own benefit - _only_ for the benefit of your partner. The _only_ purpose of your question is to wake-up partner - and it is illegal. Now case 2: you are not sure. Yes, they played 1C 2+C the last time you played them but hell, maybe they changed. Then you must assume that 1C is natural. What if you ask and they say "1C is natural, we didn't alert, did we?". Then you have just transmitted UI to partner and now North is bound by L16 for no good reason. > I might quite likely rule that > your > damage was self-inflicted because you failed to protect your interests by > clarifying the situation. > The only problem that without screens this "protect your interest" questions create tons of UI - come on, in real life no South will _ever_ ask about the meaning of an _unaletered_ 1C call with a flat 8 count. Intentional sending of UI is an infraction. Very severe one. And there is no law that lets you commit infractions in order to "protect your interest". This is Wild West. East - West play an artifical system, fail to alert, as a result their opponents who go out of their way not to transmit UI land in 4Sx for -800 and you let the result stand? Because a player who wanted to avoid waking his partner up behaved ethically? This is beyond me. Protecting your ass can never have priority over following the law. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 5 15:34:55 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:34:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: <94A4CC5E-A983-49FC-896D-255409E6C841@rochester.rr.com> References: <94A4CC5E-A983-49FC-896D-255409E6C841@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070305093008.02aedeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:21 PM 3/3/07, Ed wrote: >A question was raised on the BBO forums. Here's the scenario: You're >dealer. The auction goes 1S-(P)-P-(2C)-....P-(P)-2D-(3C). > >You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an >ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this >information UI to you? (A poll in the BBO thread was split 50=50). >Reference was made to Law 73D1, in particular the last clause >"inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be >an opponent, and at his own risk," with the claim that this "clearly" >shows that you *are* constrained by UI here. It ain't clear to me. :-) L73D1 is about "vary[ing] the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made" and has no bearing on the matter at all. >One further question: if you *are* constrained by UI, where does it >stop? Will partner be further constrained if you bid? Will it ever be >possible to arrive at a reasonable contract? The notion that your actions may be constrained due to the fact that your partner is known to maintain an extremely high standard of ethics seems contradictory to common sense and absurd on its face. I guess the regular posters on BBO have even more idle time on their hands than we do. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 5 15:34:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:34:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] player overruling the TD ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305142308.02150ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000501c75f33$65cbe2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] ............... > Is there such a thing as asking the TD to overrule himself? > This is a case that appeared in Belgian mixed teams last week: > What level is that: National, regional, local? If it is anything but local I am astonished by your story. > > You hold Qxxx - AKx - 10x - Q9xx. Well, that's the kind of hands 11-14 NT > are made for, so you merrily open one. LHO doubles. Partner passes (shows > values and suggests beginning to double). RHO bids 1S. No Sir ! says > partner. > RHO reaches for something else in his BB (presumably 2S) but you stop him > in his tracks, and call for the TD. > > The idea is to accept 1S. Then you'll bid 1NT, which you hope partner will > understand as denying interest in going any higher, showing a spade > stopper, but by the same time not goodish spades, as you didn't attempt to > have a whack at 2S. Right ? > > Not for the TD, alas, who checks that 2S wouldn't have been artificial, > then explains that 'if you bid 2S etc.' and 'if you bid something else, > including pass, etc.', but completely forgets to mention the possibility > of > accpeting the IB. Upon which RHO bids 2S. > > What are your rights here ? > > a) asking the TD to reconsider his reading, or to read the applicable law > rather than citing it ? And what if RHO has bid before you can utter any > word, as was the case ? > > b) directly tell you'll request use of L82 if needed ? Sort of keeping > your > rights ? > > c) are you allowed to mention the IB, call the TD, then accept it (rather > than accepting it altogether), so that partner knows you know what you're > doing ? Your formal rights are: 1: Request law information from the Director until you feel sure you have been given the complete information relevant to the case. 2: Appeal the Director's ruling on the ground that he has used the law(s) incorrectly (or that he has made an incorrect judgment - not applicable in this case). 3: A further appeal to the national authority if you feel that your appeal has been handled unsatisfactorily. > In practice, I did neither, afraid that my reaction could give out UI, or > any kind of information to opponents. > Partner reopened with 2NT (take-out), which I passed. > Herman and collegues were spared a headache, as the defense was soft > enough > to allow that contract to be made, so L82 remained in its bed. Good for the Director! There seems to be far too much worrying about not giving away UI when exercising ones rights. Exercising rights (within reason) always has priority over not creating UI. UI is mainly of concern for the receiving party not for the sending party. In practice I would say that you should (in a polite manner) have called the Director's attention to the part of the laws that he apparently overlooked and have him let you accept the insufficient bid as you wanted. Note: Your reason for accepting the IB and your stated purpose for you bidding 1NT a second time is UI to your partner and particularly should not be evident to him/her from agreements between you. You will bid 1NT at your own risk that partner will interpret you as desired and your partner should be in a position to figure out your intention from "general knowledge and experience". Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 5 15:54:55 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:54:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychs and "surprises" In-Reply-To: <3465550.1172613759333.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.e arthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305155101.0214d8f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:02 27/02/2007 -0500, John R. Mayne wrote: >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. But that's not a psyche. That's a lead-directing bid. You said it yourself. Related to the suit, in a sense. I recently tried 1C - 2NT (minors) - double - 3C on a club void and long diamonds. No psyche. Showing interest in a club lead. >So, every psych and every partnership has some element of item (a) on >Eric's list, I think. Yes Sir. and that's what the line "psyches" on the CC is for. >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.) If you want to renew it, try passing 2D-p-2S-p with hearts ;-) Best regards alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 5 16:30:42 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:30:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <20070305104352.E7E30233503@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305162440.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:43 5/03/2007 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >If South _knows_ the meaning of the 1C opening he simply has to >assume that partner knows it, too (in the same fashion >you do when playing with screens). So he should overcall >1S. If partner doesn't alert then South should treat a raise >to 3S as natural from partner's own suit (partner's >failure to alert 1S is UI to South), raise it to 4S, >go down a million and seek redress from the TD which >he will certainly get. In Belgium, "certainly" would be a gross overbid. I know it from bitter experience. "It's the 16th deal and you don't know what their 1C means ? Are you kidding ?" And he was no beginner TD, believe me. > The explanation [of 1C] is "natural or balanced, >could be strong". BTA I'd be allowed to ask if the bid is forcing, if that conditions my overcalls and they didn't specify it, else it's a lose-lose situation. In general, one of two things should be implemented : a) one should be allowed to ask more information from a nebulous explanation, without it constituting UI. b) the words "failed to protect oneself" should be erased from all TD's minds. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Mar 5 16:39:07 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 05 Mar 2007 16:39:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 Message-ID: <20070305153907.7F4442334EC@poczta.interia.pl> > a) one should be allowed to ask more information from a nebulous > explanation, without it constituting UI. This would legalize the "pro question". -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 5 16:51:39 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:51:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] player overruling the TD ? In-Reply-To: <000501c75f33$65cbe2e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305142308.02150ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305163533.02169710@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:34 5/03/2007 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >............... > > Is there such a thing as asking the TD to overrule himself? > > This is a case that appeared in Belgian mixed teams last week: > > > >What level is that: National, regional, local? If it is anything but local I >am astonished by your story. National. Belgian championship. Which doesn't mean that much. Perhaps bad players deserve bad directors. (We won. This tells what the level was ;-) Perhaps language problems in Belgium are such that being perfectly bilingual (and courteous) is more important than being an experienced TD. >1: Request law information from the Director until you feel sure you have >been given the complete information relevant to the case. AG : OK, but as I told I wasn't given time to do so before RHO's bid (and I'm quick to step in, I may tell you). You see, he "knew" what to do, was ready for it, and the TD only confirmed this. >Note: Your reason for accepting the IB and your stated purpose for you >bidding 1NT a second time is UI to your partner and particularly should not >be evident to him/her from agreements between you. You will bid 1NT at your >own risk that partner will interpret you as desired and your partner should >be in a position to figure out your intention from "general knowledge and >experience". Right so. But it wouldn't need an agreement for her to understand why I didn't double or let her double - and the players I've asked confirmed that the meaning of 1NT would have been obvious (given the meaning of partner's pass). Of course, if you tell me that "not doubling or bidding high means that I can't double or bid high" is a specific agreement, that's trouble for us. And, apart from that, why is it that catering that my rights are preserved won't be UI, and exerting them would ? Isn't that a bit perverse ? Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 5 17:25:58 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B13A01F@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <45EC4496.7060908@NTLworld.com> [Jan Peter Pals] > East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a > 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS > play an artificial defence, based on transfers. > > South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: > > K9 > 62 > QJ8 > AKQ942 > > He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and > hearts). > Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. > > South does not know what will happen: > a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. > b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR > hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. > > Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the > alertability of 1C? > If he doesn't, what are his options under the calamity scenarios in a) > and b)? [nige1] Superficially, asking about the meaning of the unalerted opener, for the benefit of partner, is a "Kaplan question". No sane director would so rule, however, because you are drawing attention to a *prior* irregularity: Either the convention card is wrong or LHO has failed to alert. Presumably, though, you should call the director *before* asking? Some pairs seem to adopt a cunning* tactic of doubtful legality over a "failure to alert" infraction. They ask if they want to trot out their conventional defence to an artificial bid; otherwise, they just make their normal call, without asking. Are any laws specifically relevant to this ploy? Or is this yet another case of "profiting legitimately from opponent's infraction"? In the UK, even if there was no disclosure failure, you are still allowed to ask the meaning of a ambiguous bid -- to protect yourself and partner. For instance: LHO opens 1S and RHO replies 4C. Most calls above 3N are *not* alerted in the UK. Suppose that you have different defensive counters depending on whether 4C is a cue-bid or a splinter or Swiss or weak. Suppose also that it is not absolutely clear it from opponent's card which it is. According to national UK directors whom we have consulted. you may ask the meaning of the bid -- in spite of the unauthorised information transmitted to partner if you subsequently pass because your hand is unsuitable for action over the specified kind of call. * [Job spec for WBFLC members] As cunning as a cunning fox with a degree in cunning from Cunning University. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 5 18:07:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:07:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <20070305133433.88A822334E3@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070305133433.88A822334E3@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <45EC4E41.8010306@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>>> East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a >>>> 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS >>>> play an artificial defence, based on transfers. >>>> >>>> South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds: >>>> >>>> K9 >>>> 62 >>>> QJ8 >>>> AKQ942 >>>> >>>> He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and >>>> hearts). >>>> Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd) he would have bid 1NT. >>>> >>>> South does not know what will happen: >>>> a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. >>>> b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR >>>> hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H. >>>> >>>> Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the >>>> alertability of 1C? >>> NO!!! Emphatically NO!!! That would be like telling partner >>> "watch out: my next bid is going to be artificial!". >>> That would be blatant transmission of the UI to partner. >>> >> See how different the replies could be? >> In reaction to Conrad I would offer the following: >> Don't you believe that they know that they are playing different >> systems over different 1Cl? > > I believe that this is a very legitimate possibility. Recently > I had a very similar experience with my own regular partner. > And I have seen situations like that that many times at the table. > This happens especially when they adopted this new defense > recently or when one partner forced the other to > play something the other doesn't like - the latter scenario is the most > frequent. > This is even more probable when they don't face "short club" > pairs very often and don't get to test their artificial defense very often. > People forget their artificial treatments quite frequently. > >> I see where Conrad is coming from. I prefer to correct my opponents' >> small mistakes > > The problem is that you are practically guaranteeing that partner > will wake up if he doesn't remember that defense. > > Consider this scenario: > > - 1C > - ALERT! > - What does it mean? > - Just can be short with 4=4=3=2, otherwise normal > - OK, thank you, 1S > > It is quite possible for North to fail to remember (inquiry about > an alerted call is pretty much automatic) > > Now take this: > > - 1C > Pause. > - What does it mean? > - Oh, sorry, I should have alerted, can be short with 4=4=3=2, otherwise normal. > - 1S > > The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an unalerted > call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals) > would wake up a dead man. > No Conrad, you are treating non-offenders like offenders. I have seen many cases where a player claimed he had been misinformed, when his own system depended very heavily on a slight change of meaning of the opponents' bidding. It feels wrong in such case not to impose on the side that needs to know some more responsability about the asking of the system. After all, the one pair are showing either 2 or 3 clubs, but quite often they have 4 or more. The other pair are wishing their 1S overcall to show either spades or diamonds and hearts. If they don't ask (and even be certain both get the same answer) then it is up to them to have the misunderstanding. > Of course after the hand they will claim that "obviously we know > our system" but my experience tells me that weird treatments > and defenses are _often_ forgotten. When you ask a player away > from the table he will tell you "ah, this sequence means > ..." but at the table it too easy to lose concentration for > a while and simply let your thoughts wander. People do it all > the time. It is the "hand was faster than mind" case. > > As an indirect proof how all this unauthorized information > transmitted by alerts and questions is, in effect, used by > players you just check what happens when you make people > play with screens. The number of bidding accidents in simple > sequences increases by a truely big margin. Just because > players lose all this non-verbal information they get - > they don't have confirmation whether partner alerted their > bids, they can't see their partners ask questions about > meanings of certain bids etc. > > When you put people behind screens you'll realize > how big the impact of those "wake-up questions" is. > That's why I believe players should go out of their way > to avoid trasmitting UI when playing without screens. > I guess it all depends on the level they play at. It seemed to me that in the original question, there was no question of the opponents not knowing their system, while it seemed to me that the 1Cl bidder was more distracted. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 5 18:10:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:10:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <20070305140608.D62032334EF@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070305140608.D62032334EF@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <45EC4EE9.1040008@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > The only problem that without screens this "protect your interest" > questions create tons of UI - come on, in real life no South > will _ever_ ask about the meaning of an _unaletered_ 1C call > with a flat 8 count. > But the original was about a player who knew he was going to show his spade suit. Either by 1S or by 1NT, depending on the system. So his asking could not, ever, create any UI to partner. It would have been different if he were asking with the idea of passing the one meaning and bidding on the other one. > Intentional sending of UI is an infraction. Very severe one. > And there is no law that lets you commit infractions > in order to "protect your interest". This is Wild West. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 5 18:14:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:14:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] player overruling the TD ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305163533.02169710@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305142308.02150ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070305163533.02169710@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <45EC5013.5010002@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >> What level is that: National, regional, local? If it is anything but local I >> am astonished by your story. > > National. Belgian championship. Which doesn't mean that much. > > Perhaps bad players deserve bad directors. (We won. This tells what the > level was ;-) I came sixth. Tells you even more. ;) > > Perhaps language problems in Belgium are such that being perfectly > bilingual (and courteous) is more important than being an experienced TD. > And Mark certainly is both - actually rather experienced as well, so I am astounded at him getting this one wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From adam at irvine.com Mon Mar 5 18:17:15 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:17:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:21:52 EST." <94A4CC5E-A983-49FC-896D-255409E6C841@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703051715.JAA20676@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > A question was raised on the BBO forums. Here's the scenario: You're > dealer. The auction goes 1S-(P)-P-(2C)-....P-(P)-2D-(3C). > > You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an > ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this > information UI to you? (A poll in the BBO thread was split 50=50). > Reference was made to Law 73D1, in particular the last clause > "inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be > an opponent, and at his own risk," with the claim that this "clearly" > shows that you *are* constrained by UI here. It ain't clear to me. :-) This is also an ongoing thread on rec.games.bridge (with the descriptive subject "UI?"), so you may want to check out the responses there. My contribution was somewhat along the same lines as Eric's: # The notion that your actions may be constrained due to the fact that # your partner is known to maintain an extremely high standard of # ethics seems contradictory to common sense and absurd on its face. Some on r.g.b felt that partner's ethical reputation was in fact UI that you have to take into account; that didn't make any sense to me either. My feeling was that you should be entitled to assume partner's actions are legal, regardless of his reputation. The question in my mind was similar to yours: if you assume that partner's actions are legal, and that therefore his 2D will not be borderline, is this an inference drawn from the UI that you created, and is it therefore one that you must bend over backwards not to take advantage of? Barry Margolin didn't think so, because otherwise it would lead to a cascade of Nth-order inferences from UI that would be impossible to adjudicate, and that the line has to be drawn somewhere. -- Adam From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Mar 5 20:34:36 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 20:34:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 References: <20070305133433.88A822334E3@poczta.interia.pl> <45EC4E41.8010306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c75f5d$52b52930$79031d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >> The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an unalerted >> call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals) >> would wake up a dead man. >> > > No Conrad, you are treating non-offenders like offenders. No - *you* are. By refusing to give NOS redress when they followed the law to the letter. While you are letting the OS keep their score when *they* broke the law. > I have seen many cases where a player claimed he had been misinformed, > when his own system depended very heavily on a slight change of > meaning of the opponents' bidding. It feels wrong Please provide a number of the law that allows to knowingly transmit UI to partner. No "feels wrong", please. Law number. > in such case not to > impose on the side that needs to know some more responsability about > the asking of the system. > > After all, the one pair are showing either 2 or 3 clubs, but quite > often they have 4 or more. The other pair are wishing their 1S > overcall to show either spades or diamonds and hearts. If they don't > ask (and even be certain both get the same answer) then it is up to > them to have the misunderstanding. No, it is not - L73B1 prohibits them to ask if doing so would create UI. > I guess it all depends on the level they play at. It seemed to me that > in the original question, there was no question of the opponents not > knowing their system, while it seemed to me that the 1Cl bidder was > more distracted. Of course they will claim that there was no question of knowing the system. Everybody claims that afterwards. That why do we see all those tranzillion of "Ghestem strikes back" threads, huh? Seeing someone forget artificial agreement of the first round of bidding is quite common - don't let anybody tell this doesn't happen at high level. In the Polish First Division where I play I rembember seeing a few disasters like that (usually involving transfers) this season only. Or even if the partnership _is_ on the same wavelength the uncertainty about it affects their bidding. The vast majority of those cases are not sensu stricto "forgets" - it is not the player forgets that he agreed. He remembers very well but simply "the hand was faster". Lapses of concentration after a few hours of playing. All those Ghestem cases are also of that very kind. The player simply automatically raises 3C to 5C. If you asked him away from the table he would tell you 3C was Ghestem but at the table he instinctively raises to 5C. In the case we are discussing it is a legitimate possibility that playing with screens North would raise 1S to 3S for the same reason (even if 1C were alerted by his own screenmate). Usually 10 seconds later the player fully realizes what he has done. It is thus *enormous* help (at every level) to receive an extra reminder before partner makes an artificial bid. Sending such a reminder to partner so is a very severe infraction. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 5 23:05:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:05:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: <200703051715.JAA20676@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200703051715.JAA20676@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070305162508.02aea500@pop.starpower.net> At 12:17 PM 3/5/07, Adam wrote: >Ed wrote: > > > A question was raised on the BBO forums. Here's the scenario: You're > > dealer. The auction goes 1S-(P)-P-(2C)-....P-(P)-2D-(3C). > > > > You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an > > ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this > > information UI to you? (A poll in the BBO thread was split 50=50). > > Reference was made to Law 73D1, in particular the last clause > > "inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be > > an opponent, and at his own risk," with the claim that this "clearly" > > shows that you *are* constrained by UI here. It ain't clear to me. :-) > >This is also an ongoing thread on rec.games.bridge (with the >descriptive subject "UI?"), so you may want to check out the responses >there. > >My contribution was somewhat along the same lines as Eric's: > ># The notion that your actions may be constrained due to the fact that ># your partner is known to maintain an extremely high standard of ># ethics seems contradictory to common sense and absurd on its face. > >Some on r.g.b felt that partner's ethical reputation was in fact UI >that you have to take into account; that didn't make any sense to me >either. My feeling was that you should be entitled to assume >partner's actions are legal, regardless of his reputation. The >question in my mind was similar to yours: if you assume that partner's >actions are legal, and that therefore his 2D will not be borderline, >is this an inference drawn from the UI that you created, and is it >therefore one that you must bend over backwards not to take advantage >of? Barry Margolin didn't think so, because otherwise it would lead >to a cascade of Nth-order inferences from UI that would be impossible >to adjudicate, and that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Consider the opposite case, in which your partner's dubious ethical reputation suggests to you that his 2D bid may have been based largely on your huddle. *That* would be a far clearer case for "bending over backwards" to avoid letting your knowledge of partner's ethics influence your call! But if you "bend over backwards" when you know partner's ethics are dubious, and do the same when you know partner's ethics are unimpeachable, wouldn't you similarly need to avoid taking advantage of the knowledge that his ethics were, well, typical or ordinary? It wouldn't matter; whatever they were would be functional UI (as the term is apparently being misused here); long-time BLMLers will recognize that situation as yet another variation on the "illegal to huddle" theme. So Adam's feeling "that you should be entitled to assume partner's actions are legal" is not only right, but, I submit, doesn't go far enough; you should be *required* to presume that partner's actions are legal! Not only *may* you use the assumption that partner is acting in an entirely ethical manner, but you *must*, and must do so even (especially!) when you know or suspect it not to be true. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 5 23:03:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:03:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45EC4496.7060908@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Superficially, asking about the meaning of the unalerted opener, for >the benefit of partner, is a "Kaplan question". WBF Laws Committee minutes 1st September 1998: "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." Nigel Guthrie: >No sane director would so rule, however, because you are drawing >attention to a *prior* irregularity: Either the convention card is >wrong or LHO has failed to alert. Presumably, though, you should call >the director *before* asking? Law 9A1: "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call." Richard Hills: As a sane Director, I would rule the above WBF LC minute an official interpretation of Law. I would consequently sanely rule that Nigel's suggestion falls within the "unless prohibited by law" category, so it is not permitted to immediately draw attention to this particular irregularity of failure to alert. Nigel Guthrie: >Some pairs seem to adopt a cunning* tactic of doubtful legality over >a "failure to alert" infraction. They ask if they want to trot out >their conventional defence to an artificial bid; otherwise, they just >make their normal call, without asking. Are any laws specifically >relevant to this ploy? Or is this yet another case of "profiting >legitimately from opponent's infraction"? Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate ..... through questions asked or not asked of the opponents ..... " Law 73B2: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." 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 Mar 6 01:02:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:02:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] An opening lead problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01c75da4$1d114800$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >>>1NT 2C - five card Stayman >>>2H 4C - five hearts; splinter >>>4D 4H - cue; sign-off >>>4S 4NT - cue; waiting >>>5D 6H - cue; sign-off >>> >>>10xxx >>>A10 >>>Jx >>>KQxxx >>> >>>What would you lead? Richard Hills: >>King of clubs, perhaps pard has the ace of clubs, >>perhaps a passive club lead means that pard wins >>their doubleton queen of spades for the setting >>trick. Wayne Burrows: >>>Would you make a different lead on the identical >>>auction but with the explanation that 4NT was RKCB? Richard Hills: >>No, I would still lead the king of clubs. Keycard >>Blackwood is often misused, so pard may still hold >>the ace of clubs. >> >>Anyway, 4C may have been intended as Gerber when >>systemically a splinter, so even if pard lacks the >>ace of clubs dummy may hold two or more clubs. John Probst: >I agree with Richard, but if told 4N is waiting then >DJ becomes a bit more attractive. I'd still lead the >CK though. John Richard Hills: My logical alternative to the king of clubs lead is not the jack of diamonds lead, but rather a spade lead. It is possible that the 1NT opener holds three spades and five hearts, while the five-card Stayman responder holds five spades and four hearts. If so, repeated spade leads will defeat 6H via a spade ruff. 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 Mar 6 01:45:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:45:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c75e5e$7e9cf1e0$39ca403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ This is a question that has lodged in my mind for over twenty >>years. It happened that the bidding went >> 1S - p - 2S - 3C >> p* - p - 3S - p >> 4S all pass. Ten tricks. >>(* ages ) The Director was not called. Perhaps he should have >>been. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Eric Landau: >The notion that your actions may be constrained due to the fact >that your partner is known to maintain an extremely high standard >of ethics seems contradictory to common sense and absurd on its >face. Richard Hills: But what may be commonsense in Poker may be an infraction in Duplicate Bridge. In Grattan's example, the extraneous information transmitted by responder's 3S is not merely that responder has a high standard of ethics, but also that responder holds maximum values for a reopening bid (since with minimum values for a reopening bid, responder had a logical alternative of passing which Law 16 required responder to choose). In effect, this debate is about the Principle of Restricted Choice, and consequent deductions which can be made. If opener had not hesitated, responder's choices would not have been restricted, and therefore opener would have less specific information about the wide-ranging strength of responder's 3S reopening. But is the extraneous information about responder's narrower range unauthorised information? Law 16: "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls ..... " If opener bases their raise to 4S on the assumption that their partner's 3S call is a legal call, then it seems to me that that use of the Principle of Restricted Choice is specifically permitted by Law 16, as an exception to the general rule that extraneous information is also unauthorised 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. 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 Tue Mar 6 04:24:16 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:24:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ECDEE0.1030309@NTLworld.com> [nigel guthrie] Superficially, asking about the meaning of the unalerted opener, for the benefit of partner, is a "Kaplan question". [Richard Hills quotes WBF Laws Committee minutes 1st September 1998] "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." [nigel] No sane director would so rule, however, because you are drawing attention to a *prior* irregularity: Either the convention card is wrong or LHO has failed to alert. Presumably, though, you should call the director *before* asking? [Richard also quotes Law 9A1] "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call." [Richard Hills] As a sane Director, I would rule the above WBF LC minute an official interpretation of Law. I would consequently sanely rule that Nigel's suggestion falls within the "unless prohibited by law" category, so it is not permitted to immediately draw attention to this particular irregularity of failure to alert. [nige2] We have asked UK national tournament directors whether it is OK to ask when your action is contingent on the answer. Apparently, it is OK and the a director will overlook the unauthorised information that may be generated if you subsequently take no action when you learn the actual meaning. In this case, arguably you are asking for your *own* benefit. It is coincidental that partner will benefit too. In the general case, unless you ask about every call, a question will *always* create unauthorised information. Convention cards aren't always clear or legible -- especially if, like us -- you have poor eyesight. It is my understanding that it is the *using* of UI rather than the *generating* of UI, on which the law frowns. In Australia, is it really illegal to ask if partner may benefit too? If you keep mum (not asking and hence not taking appropriate action) this may well damage your side. OK. You must not summon the director at the time. May you call the director to point out the infraction, however, at the end of the auction or at the end of the hand? In Australia, how should the director rule when you belatedly complain about the damage caused by opponent's failure to alert? As a separate issue, IMO the WBFLC minute about "Pro questions" seems ill-conceived, superfluous, and adds no value to the game. The rules of a game should concentrate on *what* you do not *why* you do it. Few people have enough insight into their own motives to admit that they asked a question for partner's benefit. Fewer still would volunteer such self-incrimination. Without an admission, the director who accuses you of a Kaplan question is on thin ice. Another unnecessary law that rewards truth economists. [nigel] Some pairs seem to adopt a cunning* tactic of doubtful legality over a "failure to alert" infraction. They ask if they want to trot out their conventional defence to an artificial bid; otherwise, they just make their normal call, without asking. Are any laws specifically relevant to this ploy? Or is this yet another case of "profiting legitimately from opponent's infraction"? [Richard quotes Law 73B1] "Partners shall not communicate ..... through questions asked or not asked of the opponents ..... " [and Law 73B2] "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." [nige2] Thanks Richard. I agree that 73B1 does seem to cover my second question. Again, in my experience, it is hard to be confident of the motives of the questioner. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 6 05:26:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:26:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45ECDEE0.1030309@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >We have asked UK national tournament directors whether it is OK to >ask when your action is contingent on the answer. Apparently, it >is OK and the director will overlook the unauthorised information >that may be generated if you subsequently take no action when you >learn the actual meaning. In this case, arguably you are asking for >your *own* benefit. It is coincidental that partner will benefit >too. Richard Hills: (1) In this thread's original case under discussion, you already know what the opponents' methods are, so asking is exclusively - not merely coincidentally - for partner's benefit (so that partner will not misinterpret your forthcoming overcall). (2) The paraphrase "overlook the unauthorised information" is either a misquotation or a misstatement. For example, your action may be "contingent on the answer" to the question, "Was 2C Stayman?", but then "you subsequently take no action when you learn the actual meaning". EBU White Book clause 16.9 (WBF LC minute 30th Oct 2001 paraphrase): "A question about the meaning of a call (even of an alerted call) may provide unauthorised information to partner. For example, suppose a Stayman 2C response to 1NT is alerted in accordance with the regulations for the tournament and a player then asks its meaning. A partner of the enquirer who subsequently leads a club against an ensuing 3NT may well be called upon to demonstrate that he has a hand from which very few players would choose an opening lead in a different suit. The point is that it is not safe to assume that a question provides no unauthorised information just because it is about an alerted call." 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 adam at tameware.com Tue Mar 6 06:25:30 2007 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:25:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted Message-ID: The ACBL has posted the Honolulu appeals casebook: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Honolulu2006.html There were only eight cases in all, easily besting the previous low of 18 cases in Chicago -- fantastic! I've updated my casebook summaries page: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ My "improvement ratio" is showing some flaws. It doesn't deal well with various combinations that have come up recently. Unless anyone has something better to suggest I plan to replace it with a simple "rulings improved minus rulings worsened" metric. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 06:45:39 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:45:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45EC4496.7060908@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703052145g6fd0b9daj41d41e3a97511fa8@mail.gmail.com> WBF Laws Committee minutes 1st September 1998: "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." The answer to the original question seems simple to me. Don't ask a question to make partner aware. Instead, call the director because there has been an irregularity: There is MI that may well damage your side. When you are aware of a failure to alert, protect yourself like you should. Get this simple category of MI corrected before you call. It seems some of you have more fun lawyering or taking double shots than playing bridge. It seems to me, if you don't get this kind of MI corrected before you call, if you instead proceed and hope for an adjustment later, then your equity on the deal falls to about 35%---at least in the ACBL. ACBL alert regulation: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." So, protect yourself, call the director, end the MI, and get on with playing real bridge, and you won't have to stay up for three hours that night on an appeal, which, as we saw in Cincinnati 2000, case 29 (unalerted 1D), may well lead to no redress. I can't believe that the quoted WBF Laws Committee minutes were meant to prevent a pair from protecting themselves after such obvious MI. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 6 07:05:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:05:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Failure to see alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01f601c75ef9$011ffe10$55331d53@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: The Appeal from East/West: >>In the opinion of some members, East/West did not do >>enough to protect their own interests. East might well >>have suspected that an auction of 4C-Pass-4H indicated >>Namyats, and it was not certain that he did check the >>Convention Card. >> >>However in the end, it was decided that the infractions >>that were committed by North/South were too severe not >>to give East/West the benefit of the doubt. Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >3. How often have you seen a natural 4C - 4H sequence? >I haven't seen it even once in my entire life. If you're >saying that looking at KJT752 South from the second case >should have got a clue that 2C was artificial and at the >same time you're saying that if your opponents bid 4C - >4H then there is no reason so suspect Namyats then puh- >leeze... 4C - 4H smells Namyats from 100 miles. [snip] Richard Hills: A confusion of "a priori" and "a posteriori" chances. An opening bid of 4C is "a priori" likely to be a Namyats strong 4H transfer in expert circles. It is a faddishly popular expert convention. But "a posteriori", after the failure to alert 4C, the odds change For example, in the expert Ali-Hills partnership, the "a posteriori" meaning of a 4C opening and a 4H response is that: (a) the opener has a preempt with long clubs, and (b) the responder does not care, since the responder has strong values with equally long hearts. And, of course, my partnership has naturally seen the auction 4C (natural) - 4H (natural) more than once in a lifetime, since that is our own personal agreement which comes up every so often. It seems that Konrad does not use a natural 4C in his own partnerships, so his "not once in my entire life" experience is distorted by his own personal failure to use the sensible natural method. 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 Tue Mar 6 08:11:32 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:11:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45ED1424.6040800@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] (1) In this thread's original case under discussion, you already know what the opponents' methods are, so asking is exclusively - not merely coincidentally - for partner's benefit (so that partner will not misinterpret your forthcoming overcall). [nige1] Richard can't help contradicting me even when he knows he is in the wrong :( In the original case, you do *not* know what opponents methods are. Their card said 1C may show a doubleton. The alert-failure contradicted that meaning. In such cases, in the UK, you are enjoined to "protect yourself". I don't like that rule, either :( But it is the rule. So I comply :) From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 6 08:42:16 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:42:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to see alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007501c75fc2$f748b560$79031d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: > And, of course, my partnership has naturally seen the > auction 4C (natural) - 4H (natural) more than once in a > lifetime, since that is our own personal agreement which > comes up every so often. It seems that Konrad does not > use a natural 4C in his own partnerships, I wasn't talking about my partnerships. I have never ever seen a natural 4C - 4H sequence by any pair I have ever played against. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 6 08:48:12 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:48:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45EC4496.7060908@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0703052145g6fd0b9daj41d41e3a97511fa8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007d01c75fc3$cb9d65e0$79031d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > WBF Laws Committee minutes 1st September 1998: > > "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be > aware of the information in the reply." > > The answer to the original question seems simple to me. Don't ask a > question to make partner aware. Instead, call the director because > there has been an irregularity: LOL! It amounts to the same thing. Your LHO opens 1C, not alerted. Partner suddenly calls the TD. - What? - 1C should have been alerted. - Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot. - So what is it? - 1C shows 2+C. - OK, thank you. Now partner bids 1S. A dead man would wake up and realize that partner's 1S bid is artificial. The fact that ACBL made this their official rule is beyond me but if they want make it legal to transmit and use UI after opponents' infraction then hey, - not my monkeys, not my circus. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Tue Mar 6 08:50:45 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Steffens?=) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:50:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <000101c75f24$23183980$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200703060750.l267oliZ004412@smtp40.hccnet.nl> It reminds me of a team called West Lvov who once played in the Polish Third Division (more than 10 years ago, so no screens were used). There was a 1H opening and the Ukrainian guy gasped at it and asked his LHO in Polish, with this inimittable Ukrainian accent: "do you psyche?". This reminds me of the time that I still was a beginner. I was declarer in a trump contract and LHO led the deuce of diamonds. Dummy had KJxx and I held AQx. I went into a trance and finally asked: "How do you lead from a singleton?" LHO answered, without missing a beat: "The middle one". -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 6 09:19:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:19:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <001e01c75f5d$52b52930$79031d53@k827b8a5159344> References: <20070305133433.88A822334E3@poczta.interia.pl> <45EC4E41.8010306@skynet.be> <001e01c75f5d$52b52930$79031d53@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <45ED241E.1040606@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>> The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an unalerted >>> call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals) >>> would wake up a dead man. >>> >> No Conrad, you are treating non-offenders like offenders. > > No - *you* are. By refusing to give NOS redress > when they followed the law to the letter. > While you are letting the OS keep their score when > *they* broke the law. > Ehm, who is the OS here? Surely it's the side that gave the original MI? Their opponents tried clearing that up rather than get a bad score and having to ask the TD to help out. >> I have seen many cases where a player claimed he had been misinformed, >> when his own system depended very heavily on a slight change of >> meaning of the opponents' bidding. It feels wrong > > Please provide a number of the law that allows to knowingly transmit UI to > partner. > No "feels wrong", please. Law number. > I'm really confused. Are you on my side in the DeWael School debate? In that one, everyone seems to believe it is worse to give MI to opponents than UI to partner. Yet here you are thinking the worst crime is to give UI to partner. When the UI is not even UI at all, but information he is entitled to. The player who asks if something should have been alerted is of course just showing intrest in the bid. But is that valuable UI? Let's first judge the content of the I before we rule against the UI, ok? >> in such case not to >> impose on the side that needs to know some more responsability about >> the asking of the system. >> >> After all, the one pair are showing either 2 or 3 clubs, but quite >> often they have 4 or more. The other pair are wishing their 1S >> overcall to show either spades or diamonds and hearts. If they don't >> ask (and even be certain both get the same answer) then it is up to >> them to have the misunderstanding. > > No, it is not - L73B1 prohibits them to ask if doing so would create > UI. > Indeed, IF! Here we have a player who is going to show his spades regardless of the answer. The fact that he's interested is obvious from the moment he later shows his spades (surely his partner also knows that with a different reply, he would have shown his spades in some other manner). > >> I guess it all depends on the level they play at. It seemed to me that >> in the original question, there was no question of the opponents not >> knowing their system, while it seemed to me that the 1Cl bidder was >> more distracted. > > Of course they will claim that there was no question of knowing > the system. Everybody claims that afterwards. That why do we see > all those tranzillion of "Ghestem strikes back" threads, huh? > But in all those cases you see some evidence of them not knowing their system - there is no evidence of that here. > Seeing someone forget artificial agreement of the first round of > bidding is quite common - don't let anybody tell this doesn't > happen at high level. In the Polish First Division where I play > I rembember seeing a few disasters like that (usually involving transfers) > this season only. Or even if the partnership _is_ on the > same wavelength the uncertainty about it affects their > bidding. > OK, but that is not the problem here. This player did not forget his system, he realizes that he has 2 ways of showing his spade suit. In order to choose the correct one, he needs to know opponents' system. So he asks. He's entitled to know it, he asks it. He's allowed to do so. And he's allowed to make doubly sure that opponents did not make an alert mistake. > The vast majority of those cases are not sensu stricto "forgets" - > it is not the player forgets that he agreed. He remembers very > well but simply "the hand was faster". Lapses of concentration after a few > hours of playing. > All those Ghestem cases are also of that very kind. The player > simply automatically raises 3C to 5C. If you asked him > away from the table he would tell you 3C was Ghestem > but at the table he instinctively raises to 5C. > In the case we are discussing it is a legitimate possibility that playing > with screens > North would raise 1S to 3S for the same reason (even > if 1C were alerted by his own screenmate). > Usually 10 seconds later the player fully realizes what he has done. > It is thus *enormous* help (at every level) to receive an extra reminder > before partner makes an artificial bid. > Look at what you're saying: even if 1C were alerted, partner might get it wrong. So why should he not get it wrong if 1C is alerted after a question? OK, maybe he will be slightly more awake. But why should he be judged to be asleep? After all, it's his opponents who created this opportunity for him to be "woken up". They have already proven they're asleep! > Sending such a reminder to partner so is a very severe infraction. > Not alerting is also considered a very severe infraction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 6 11:50:11 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 06 Mar 2007 11:50:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 Message-ID: <20070306105011.8CCE75C207D@poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > >>> The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an unalerted > >>> call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals) > >>> would wake up a dead man. > >>> > >> No Conrad, you are treating non-offenders like offenders. > > > > No - *you* are. By refusing to give NOS redress > > when they followed the law to the letter. > > While you are letting the OS keep their score when > > *they* broke the law. > > > > Ehm, who is the OS here? The ones who failed to alert. So why do let them keep their good score just because the opponents (NOS) went out of their way not to transmit UI? > Surely it's the side that gave the original > MI? Their opponents tried clearing that up ... by giving UI to partner. You are not allowed to do that. > rather than get a bad score > and having to ask the TD to help out. > > >> I have seen many cases where a player claimed he had been misinformed, > >> when his own system depended very heavily on a slight change of > >> meaning of the opponents' bidding. It feels wrong > > > > Please provide a number of the law that allows to knowingly transmit UI > to > > partner. > > No "feels wrong", please. Law number. > > > > I'm really confused. Are you on my side in the DeWael School debate? Yes, I am and have always been. Check the BLML archives. And I can hardly believe that you, who believe giving UI is almost the gravest possible offense, tell players to volutarily trasmit of UI in order to CYA. Are you on your own side in the DeWael School debate? > In that one, everyone seems to believe it is worse to give MI to > opponents than UI to partner. Yet here you are thinking the worst > crime is to give UI to partner. When the UI is not even UI at all, but > information he is entitled to. The player who asks if something should > have been alerted is of course just showing intrest in the bid. But is > that valuable UI? Let's first judge the content of the I before we > rule against the UI, ok? > > >> in such case not to > >> impose on the side that needs to know some more responsability about > >> the asking of the system. > >> > >> After all, the one pair are showing either 2 or 3 clubs, but quite > >> often they have 4 or more. The other pair are wishing their 1S > >> overcall to show either spades or diamonds and hearts. If they don't > >> ask (and even be certain both get the same answer) then it is up to > >> them to have the misunderstanding. > > > > No, it is not - L73B1 prohibits them to ask if doing so would create > > UI. > > > > Indeed, IF! > Here we have a player who is going to show his spades regardless of > the answer. No, he wants to show his clubs. And by asking "shouldn't 1C have been alerted, fellas?" he tells his partner "in case you don't remember, 1S doesn't show spades in our system?" > > > >> I guess it all depends on the level they play at. It seemed to me that > >> in the original question, there was no question of the opponents not > >> knowing their system, while it seemed to me that the 1Cl bidder was > >> more distracted. > > > > Of course they will claim that there was no question of knowing > > the system. Everybody claims that afterwards. That why do we see > > all those tranzillion of "Ghestem strikes back" threads, huh? > > > > But in all those cases you see some evidence of them not knowing their > system - there is no evidence of that here. If you let me wake up my partner every time before I make an artificial bid there will never be any evidence of us not knowing our system, I assure you. > > > Seeing someone forget artificial agreement of the first round of > > bidding is quite common - don't let anybody tell this doesn't > > happen at high level. In the Polish First Division where I play > > I rembember seeing a few disasters like that (usually involving > transfers) > > this season only. Or even if the partnership _is_ on the > > same wavelength the uncertainty about it affects their > > bidding. > > > > OK, but that is not the problem here. This player did not forget his > system, he realizes that he has 2 ways of showing his spade suit. In > order to choose the correct one, he needs to know opponents' system. > So he asks. I have already replied to Sven about it. Does a player know 100% that 1C should have been alerted or not? If he knows 100% that any question would be solely for the benefit of his partner, agreed? And if he is not sure he has to assume that 1C shows 3+C. You are not allowed to transmit UI just because you have a feeling that they committed an infraction. > He's entitled to know it, he asks it. He's allowed to do > so. And he's allowed to make doubly sure that opponents did not make > an alert mistake. He's not as long as doing so transmits UI. A player is not allowed to deliberately trasmit UI! 73B1 says that. Consider this analogy. My opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. No alerts so 1NT is supposed to be 15-17. I lead something, dummy tables 10 HCP. I hold 13 HCP myself. Partner wins the first trick with the ace. Now I know that that the opening bidder doesn't hold a 15-17 hand. Am I allowed to "make doubly sure that opponents did not make an alert mistake"? Even though this will tell my partner who may not been paying attention that I hold significant values myself? > > > The vast majority of those cases are not sensu stricto "forgets" - > > it is not the player forgets that he agreed. He remembers very > > well but simply "the hand was faster". Lapses of concentration after a > few > > hours of playing. > > All those Ghestem cases are also of that very kind. The player > > simply automatically raises 3C to 5C. If you asked him > > away from the table he would tell you 3C was Ghestem > > but at the table he instinctively raises to 5C. > > In the case we are discussing it is a legitimate possibility that > playing > > with screens > > North would raise 1S to 3S for the same reason (even > > if 1C were alerted by his own screenmate). > > Usually 10 seconds later the player fully realizes what he has done. > > It is thus *enormous* help (at every level) to receive an extra > reminder > > before partner makes an artificial bid. > > > > Look at what you're saying: even if 1C were alerted, partner might get > it wrong. So why should he not get it wrong if 1C is alerted after a > question? OK, maybe he will be slightly more awake. Exxxactly. Partner asking about a meaning of an alerted call is nothing unusual. Partner suddenly expressing interest in a natural, unalerted call is a flashing, warning sign. What did he... ah, he's going to bid something according to this weird defense we have! I got it! > But why should he > be judged to be asleep? Yes, why is bidding Blackwood in ringing tones ("4NT?") considered cofeehousing? If partner can always recognize 4NT when 4NT is Blackwood ("why should he be judged to be asleep") then one might as well bid in ringing tones. > After all, it's his opponents who created this > opportunity for him to be "woken up". They have already proven they're > asleep! Agree. So? > > > Sending such a reminder to partner so is a very severe infraction. > > > > Not alerting is also considered a very severe infraction. > I have never said it is not. I only say that it is TD's job to restore equity and give redress for infractions. It is not a player's job. Strictly from practical standpoint it is much better for the purity of the game if you simply educate players "NEVER voluntarily transmit UI. NEVER EVER! Period." than if you tell them "Basically you shouldn't voluntarily transmit UI but in certain, justified cases, when you think your opponents committed an infraction, and in your judgment transmitting UI doesn't matter, then you might do it in a manner that..." Is anybody reading this or is it only me and Herman left in this thread? -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 6 12:53:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:53:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <20070306105011.8CCE75C207D@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000701c75fe6$10707230$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski ............. > > > No, it is not - L73B1 prohibits them to ask if doing so would create > > > UI. ............. > > OK, but that is not the problem here. This player did not forget his > > system, he realizes that he has 2 ways of showing his spade suit. In > > order to choose the correct one, he needs to know opponents' system. > > So he asks. > > I have already replied to Sven about it. Does a player > know 100% that 1C should have been alerted or not? > > If he knows 100% that any question would be solely > for the benefit of his partner, agreed? > > And if he is not sure he has to assume that 1C shows > 3+C. You are not allowed to transmit UI just > because you have a feeling that they committed > an infraction. There is a common misunderstanding that Law 73B1 prohibits asking questions when such asking can create UI. That is not what L73B1 says, and it is not what is intended. An otherwise legal action is never illegal because "it can create UI". What L73B1 prohibits is to communicate with partner by other means than legal calls and plays (excluding the manners in which such calls and plays are made). Law 16 recognizes that extraneous information will exist in many situations, for instance as the result of (legal) questions asked. What is prohibited is not the creation of UI (e.g. extraneous information) but the (illegal) use of such information. So back to our situation under discussion: If you have a legal bridge reason for asking a clarifying question on opponents' auction then by all means do ask it. Your questioning will most certainly create extraneous information but this is not your problem; it is your partner's duty to avoid making use of such extraneous information from you. And please note that I have here carefully refrained from using the term "UI", instead I use the correct term "extraneous information". If you are ruled against with L73B1 after asking question(s) it is not because your question(s) created extraneous information (questions almost always do), but because you are judged to having had no legal bridge reason for asking such question(s) and rather used your question(s) as a means for communicating with your partner. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 6 13:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] player overruling the TD ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070305142308.02150ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Some TDs assume that the reason they have been called is because you didn't want to accept the IB. Careless, but probably correct in 95% of such cases. I'd have thought a simple "Am I allowed to accept the 1S call?" (regardless of what opp may have done subsequently) would normally suffice to rectify the situation. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 6 13:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070305093008.02aedeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > The notion that your actions may be constrained due to the fact that > your partner is known to maintain an extremely high standard of > ethics seems contradictory to common sense and absurd on its face. I > guess the regular posters on BBO have even more idle time on their > hands than we do. Your choice of action is not constrained by your knowledge of partner's ethics (unimpeachable or otherwise). The knowledge that partner has a clear-cut 2D is based not only on his ethics but also on an inference based on your own break in tempo and "inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent" (L75d1). This doesn't actually cause a problem very often since one would tend to assume (if it mattered) that partner was mainstream for his call. Tim From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 6 13:22:21 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:22:21 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__L9A_vs_L73B1?= References: <000701c75fe6$10707230$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45ED5CFB.000001.99369@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 06/03/2007 12:53:41 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 > If you have a legal bridge reason > for asking a clarifying question on opponents' auction then by all means do > ask it. Your questioning will most certainly create extraneous information > but this is not your problem; it is your partner's duty to avoid making use > of such extraneous information from you. AG : agree. But what can the extraneous information be ? "partner, I'm awake and know we play different defenses" ? Every player will act as if I were, anyway. And once again : the fact that some rulings included the terms "failed to protect oneself" is an unmistakable sign that you *are* allowed to ask (requested, in fact) with the only purpose of protecting yourself. IOW, "protecting yourself" is a legal bridge reason. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070306/bfa922b6/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/20070306/bfa922b6/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070306/bfa922b6/attachment-0001.gif From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Mar 6 14:34:34 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 06 Mar 2007 14:34:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-2?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__L9A_vs_L73B1?= Message-ID: <20070306133434.B152F5C207E@poczta.interia.pl> > "the fact that some rulings included the terms "failed to protect > oneself" The vast majority of such rulings are made when screens are used which is a totally different kettle of fish. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oficjalne konto pocztowe europejskich internautow! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f19e8 From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 6 14:37:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:37:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <20070306105011.8CCE75C207D@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070306105011.8CCE75C207D@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <45ED6E7D.8000406@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Is anybody reading this or is it only me and Herman > left in this thread? > > > Apparently not, considering it already has 2 responses. Konrad makes a very good case for his argument. I can only say that I know the situation about 1Cl (and others) not being alerted quite well. It's the kind of infraction that almost always goes unnoticed, and which often creates "don't you need to alert that?". It is in such an environment that I deem it better to indeed confirm. In more serious play, Konrad is quite correct in letting all hell go loose and rely solely on the alert or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 6 15:18:51 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:18:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__L9A_vs_L73B1?= In-Reply-To: <45ED5CFB.000001.99369@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <001801c75ffa$5e663dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> If you have a legal bridge reason for asking a clarifying >> question on opponents' auction then by all means do ask it. >> Your questioning will most certainly create extraneous >> information but this is not your problem; it is your >> partner's duty to avoid making use of such extraneous >> information from you. ? > agree. But what can the extraneous information be ? > "partner, I'm awake and know we play different defenses" ? > Every player will act as if I were, anyway. ? "What can the extraneous information be?" - Be aware that not every "extraneous information" is synonymous with "UI"! "Extraneous information" is almost always present in some way or other. >From Law 16: "to base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law". (Note the use of the word "may"!) It is up to the Director in the first hand to judge if he considers your partner's action to be illegally based upon "extraneous information" from you, and I should be very surprised if any Director will rule against your partner on the ground that he has received extraneous information from you, information that he is legally entitled to have, unless it is fairly obvious that your partner would not have been aware of this information without your question. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 6 16:46:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:46:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <20070306105011.8CCE75C207D@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070306105011.8CCE75C207D@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070306100348.03463eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:50 AM 3/6/07, Konrad wrote: > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > > > >>> The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an > unalerted > > >>> call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals) > > >>> would wake up a dead man. > > >>> > > >> No Conrad, you are treating non-offenders like offenders. > > > > > > No - *you* are. By refusing to give NOS redress > > > when they followed the law to the letter. > > > While you are letting the OS keep their score when > > > *they* broke the law. > > > > Ehm, who is the OS here? > >The ones who failed to alert. So why do let them >keep their good score just because the opponents >(NOS) went out of their way not to transmit UI? > > > Surely it's the side that gave the original > > MI? Their opponents tried clearing that up > >... by giving UI to partner. You are not allowed to do that. Had the opponents fulfilled their disclosure obligations, partner would have the information, and it would be ordinary AI. Here it's the same I; should the fact that partner elicted it rather than its having been volunteered make it U? The sequence of events that "unauthorized" it started with an MI infraction by the opponents; absent the infraction, it could not have "transformed itself" into UI, and would be unquestionably authorized. That seems a bit perverse. 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 Mar 6 22:49:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:49:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c75f03$8f2f97b0$fcbc87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills asked: [snip] >>Law 81C6 permits the TD to "rectify" an irregularity, >>but is he permitted to _prevent_ the irregularity of >>playing on after a claim? Or was the TD's >>intervention permitted by the broader and more >>general Law 82A power "maintain the progress of the >>game"? Grattan Endicott replied: >+=+ I think Law 81C5 suffices. +=+ Law 81C5: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Richard Hills asks: What is the distinction between a Director preventing the irregularity of playing on after a claim (Law 68D) and preventing the irregularity of a revoke (Law 44C)? :-) 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 ljtrent at adelphia.net Wed Mar 7 01:06:59 2007 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:06:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <001d01c75f25$af9d9fc0$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> References: <004301c75d40$fd7c4b60$0701a8c0@john> <001d01c75f25$af9d9fc0$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <000001c7604c$88594040$990bc0c0$@net> EXACTLY!! It is a mistake to focus on what you might bid. Personally, I would bid 4H. But, if N/S get -170 the cards are just slipped into the board and they smile. If N/S end up -140 or -420 they call the cops. That is the whole point -- in this particular case what does 3C demonstrably suggest when it is just Noise and not even a real bid? How can it suggest anything? East probably just panicked (UI confusion) and in a knee-jerk reaction bid 3H This to me is just like 1NT pass (very slow and natural) 2NT What does it demonstrably suggest? NOTHING!! Therefore East can bid whatever he wants. We should be getting these right by now. (Also appalling but not particularly relevant to The case as you can make up a 12 count for West and Slam is cold, E/W were playing Precision. I can't Believe that wasn't in the write up.) ***Aside: I am now using Windows Vista -- not so bad But I hate that Outlook makes a capital letter every Time I hit the enter key -- why can't it watch for a Period, etc. I haven't figured out how to turn it off. The what used to be drop down menus are Gone and I am still very confused with the Office products. (cut a bunch of stuff) >> > >> > The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), >> > Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin >> > and Jim Thurtell. >> > I've had enough! IF East had bid 4H and it had MADE, NS would have been spitting chips as the 4H bid was 'obviously' suggested by the UI. And the appeal committee would have been arguing that 3H (making 4) was the ONLY possible LA. This is getting ridiculous. I agree Linda, SCARY. Double Shots rule in Bridge if this sort of thing stands. regards, Noel From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 7 01:08:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:08:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c75f0c$53673ef0$11b287d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] > We have to consider our position with >regard to the possibility of a purposeful >action, of whatever kind, to alert partner >to his irregularity (Law 73A1). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Except that it seems to me that a Law 25A inadvertent call is not an irregularity. Law 25A specifies "without penalty" when an originally intended legal call replaces an unintended (inadvertent) call. It seems to me that if a Law 25A inadvertent call is null and void, it matters not if the null and void call was notionally an illegal insufficient bid, so therefore Law 73A1 is not applicable to Law 25A. 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 adam at irvine.com Wed Mar 7 01:18:53 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:18:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:06:59 PST." <000001c7604c$88594040$990bc0c0$@net> Message-ID: <200703070017.QAA05228@mailhub.irvine.com> Linda wrote: > That is the whole point -- in this particular case > what does 3C demonstrably suggest when it is just > Noise and not even a real bid? > > How can it suggest anything? I think you're on the wrong track here. The question isn't what the 3C bid demonstrably suggested; the question is what the UI demonstrably suggested, and the UI is the mistaken explanation of the 2NT bid. And given that East knows that 3C should be some sort of game try in hearts, but the UI (the mistaken explanation) suggests that 3C isn't a game try at all, the UI demonstrably suggests that West has less than East would otherwise think, and thus the UI demonstrably suggests that East should bid less. I think this part is clear. What's not clear is whether 4H by East is a logical alternative. (John doesn't even think 2NT was a logical alternative.) -- Adam From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 7 03:55:54 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:55:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] player overruling the TD ? In-Reply-To: <200703051912.l25JCeZt024077@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703051912.l25JCeZt024077@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45EE29BA.5080103@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Note: Your reason for accepting the IB and your stated purpose for you > bidding 1NT a second time is UI to your partner and particularly should not > be evident to him/her from agreements between you. Why do you say that? While some SOs have regulations on the subject, I don't see anything in the Laws that prohibits agreements after opponents' IBs. In fact, as long as such agreements don't constitute conventions or light initial actions, it looks to me as though the Laws give no authority for SOs to regulate them (except as to disclosure, of course). Of course you mustn't say, at the table, "I want to accept the IB to show (whatever)...," but we all know that! From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 7 04:00:57 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:00:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: <200703052253.l25MraBp003874@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703052253.l25MraBp003874@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45EE2AE9.3050504@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an > ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this > information UI to you? BLML has discussed this question at least twice before. In the first round, Linda Trent gave cogent reasons for treating the information as AI as "operation of Law." I note that David Stevenson seems to be agreeing on r.g.b. (Perhaps he remembers the earlier BLML discussion.) One thing we should always keep in mind: there is no guarantee the side committing an irregularity will get a bad score. The odds favor it, of course, but it's far from certain. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 7 04:08:20 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:08:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <200703061617.l26GH2qd001725@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703061617.l26GH2qd001725@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45EE2CA4.9070004@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jan Peter Pals" > East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a > 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. ... > Is south allowed to ask the meaning, If he does, it would be a "Kaplan question," not a "pro question" and certainly not an "informatory question." The defining feature of a Kaplan question is that an opponent has already given MI. In the ACBL, based on my personal experience, South would be well- advised to ask. The chance of getting redress later is remote. I suppose another possibility is to _always_ look at the opponents' CC after a 1C opening. That seems advisable for a pair whose agreements depend so critically on whether 1C promises 3 cards or not. Of course this paragraph may be irrelevant to rulings and procedures in Holland. If EW are worried about South "waking up" North, let them alert properly next time. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 7 04:16:24 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 19:16:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 1 References: Message-ID: <004201c76067$011379a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Yet another example of an AC overturning an easy and correct TD ruling. It appears that the AC was influenced by irrelevant testimony from the offending side. The case can be viewed at http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Honolulu2006.html Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 7 04:22:07 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:22:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Incomplete Swiss matches In-Reply-To: <200703052311.l25NBKMP006173@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703052311.l25NBKMP006173@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45EE2FDF.7080706@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John Probst" > My online site had a > massive crash tonight, thus killing off a number of swiss matches in > progress. I don't have an answer, but here are a few thoughts. 1. As Richard commented, you need to consider whether the event can continue at all. If the problem is only one Swiss round out of many, cancelling the event seems too extreme. 2. If you have regulations in effect, you must follow them, even if in retrospect you would rather have had different regulations. 3. One option to consider, if hardly anyone finished the full complement of boards, is to retroactively make the round in question a short one. If, for example, nobody finished more than 9 boards, you could score on a 9-board VP scale, then "weight" the round by 9/18 because fewer boards than normal were played. Thus the final result of a blitz would be 10-0, not 20-0. But see also item 5, which will have essentially the same effect. > an award of 2 imps a board is appropriate if you're awarding average > plus. 4. I think this regulation is a poor one, though you may be forced to follow it. If there are N unplayed boards, awarding 3*sqrt(N) IMPs seems better. Yes, this will make the VPs > 20, but I don't see that you have a choice. Alternatively, see item 5, which will have much the same effect. > What do we do about matches that have played fewer than 9 boards? Our > default VPs for a "no fault of your own" is 14. Can we adjust this based on > such results as we have, and if so, how? Taking the case where only 3 > boards or 8 boards have been played, it's unfair to adjust the VPs purely on > scores attained, but something might be possible. 5. I'd _tentatively suggest_ scoring the boards played on the scale for that number of boards. Suppose the VP score is V1 for N boards. For the unplayed boards, the score is 14 VPs. Then make the final score [N*V1+(18-N)*14]/18 . This seems fair to both teams, at least at first glance, but maybe someone else will have a better idea. Hope you get the software fixed! From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 04:26:17 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:26:17 -0600 Subject: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 1 In-Reply-To: <004201c76067$011379a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004201c76067$011379a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703061926j62729da9l6ddaf5a36871bdff@mail.gmail.com> >From case 1: "The table director's decision of an adjustment to 3NT making four, N/S plus 630 was upheld." Perhaps you mean a different case? From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 04:35:51 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:35:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 1 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703061926j62729da9l6ddaf5a36871bdff@mail.gmail.com> References: <004201c76067$011379a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2b1e598b0703061926j62729da9l6ddaf5a36871bdff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703061935h2692a312u4dcc471bab281faa@mail.gmail.com> > From case 1: "The table director's decision of an adjustment to 3NT > making four, N/S plus 630 was upheld." > > Perhaps you mean a different case? > Sorry, my mistake, Marvin said NABC+ case 1, which is the fourth case listed. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 7 05:04:56 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:04:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] An opening lead problem In-Reply-To: <200703021536.l22FaNQ9021628@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703021536.l22FaNQ9021628@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45EE39E8.5000100@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Wayne Burrows" > 1NT 2C - five card Stayman > 2H 4C - five hearts; splinter > 4D 4H - cue; sign-off > 4S 4NT - cue; waiting > 5D 6H - cue; sign-off > > 10xxx > A10 > Jx > KQxxx > > What would you lead? A club is last on my list: too likely to be into AJT with the known stiff on board. There's a case for ace and another trump, hoping to cut down on club ruffs, but I'm afraid partner might have Qx. I'd lead a diamond, hoping this might take out a reentry prematurely. The x might work, but I'd lead a pedestrian J. Second choice is a spade, which is safe but unproductive. > Would you make a different lead on the identical auction but with the > explanation that 4NT was RKCB? Trump (ace and another) is now much more attractive; opponents are much less likely to be missing the Q. I think I'd probably still lead the diamond but the x this time; we aren't going to find declarer misguessing trumps. Spade drops to distant third; club is still last. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 7 07:27:57 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:27:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 4 (the real one) Message-ID: <005401c76081$c2313180$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> The discussiions of "Hawaii Appeal 4" have really been about No. 3, as I look at the cases on the ACBL website No. 4 deals with whether a negative double of 1H that denies four spades is Alertable. Of course it is. My summary of the Alert Procedure (under Bridge Laws & Regulations on my website) includes in the list of Alertable calls: - Negative double that does not imply an unbid major suit (e.g., 1C-1H-Dbl denying, or not implying, four spades) And where did I get this from? From the ACBL Alert Procedure, which says: "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert." In this case the TDs declared that a negative double of 1H that denied four spades was not Alertable. Like the AC, they seem to have concentrated on the words "highly unusual," ignoring the word "unexpected." Now, while the meaning of this double is not highly unusual (perhaps), it is certainly unexpected by the vast majority of players, so it's Alertable, despite what the AC wrote: ##### The majority of the committee concluded that the ACBL regulations do not require Alerts [sic] for this negative double. The wording of the regulation suggests that an Alert is only required for highly unusual meanings of a double. The committee majority decided that this was not a highly unusual meaning of the negative double of 1H. Accordingly, the committee did not resubmit the issue to the directors, but merely affirmed the decision that there had been no infraction. ###### The majority of the committee can't read, either. They left out "unexpected," perhaps reading the text as "highly unusual *and* unexpected." "Or" does not mean "and." Good for chairman Jeff Goldsmith for dissenting from the AC's majority opinion, although he considered the regulation to be at fault, not its interpretation. I say it's vice versa. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 7 07:28:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:28:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] A player's view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: 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 Professor Stephen Bartos, The Public Sector Informant, March 2007 (monthly supplement to The Canberra Times), page 14: [snip] >In the early years of the Howard Government, there was a >strong commitment to reducing internal regulation. One of >the crowning achievements was the introduction of the new >Public Service Act 1999, a brief, principles-based Act that >replaced not only the cumbersome 1922 Act (described in the >explanatory memorandum as "a mechanism of control ... riddled >with unnecessary restrictions and arcane details") but >literally hundreds of detailed subordinate rules and >regulations. The new Public Service Act was recognised not >only in Australia but worldwide as a model of its kind for >brevity and precision. [snip] >All these reforms relied on an important insight about how to >regulate: that principles work better than detailed rules. >It might not be readily apparent, but experience shows that >principles are actually more effective in guiding behaviour: >because they are less likely to be contradictory, apply to >more situations, and are easier to understand. > >By contract, detailed rules have the perverse effect of >encouraging officials to develop immense expertise in finding >loopholes and exceptions. They stifle innovation and >creativity, and prevent public servants who find better ways >to achieve objectives from doing so. [big snip] Richard Hills: An uppity colonial who is the descendant of convicts might rudely describe the latest iteration of the English Bridge Union alert regulation as "riddled with unnecessary restrictions and arcane details". See: http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/articles/orangebook/default.htm Meanwhile that same uppity colonial might parochially sing the praises of the ABF Alert Regulation, noting that the ABF has had a vast reduction in rulings and appeals involving players' misinterpretation of the alert regs since the introduction of its "principles-based" alert policy over a decade ago. See: http://www.abf.com.au/members/alertingregs.html 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 7 07:36:30 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:36:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 1 References: <004201c76067$011379a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2b1e598b0703061926j62729da9l6ddaf5a36871bdff@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0703061935h2692a312u4dcc471bab281faa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006301c76082$f2964da0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 1 > > From case 1: "The table director's decision of an adjustment to 3NT > > making four, N/S plus 630 was upheld." > > > > Perhaps you mean a different case? > > > > Sorry, my mistake, Marvin said NABC+ case 1, which is the fourth case listed. > Marvin got the subject line wrong, it was "non-NABC+" case No. 1 Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 7 11:16:54 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 05:16:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070129160153.02b1d130@pop.starpower.net> References: <001701c73ff6$206393d0$0101a8c0@rebecca> <6.1.1.1.0.20070126102625.02b33370@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701290647i75148c28td844d62794482ece@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129113502.02a2d0c0@pop.starpower.net> <2b1e598b0701291144w269aga968eade146c9bcc@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070129160153.02b1d130@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > just as O.J. Simpson was framed by the LAPD but "may" still be guilty. A nit: I think you mean by your quotes around "may" that he really is guilty. But he is not. The jury said so. And since he can't be tried again for the same crime(s), he won't ever be guilty. Which is not the same as saying he didn't do it. :-) I think a lot of people would have been happier if the jury had had available the Scottish verdict "not proven". :-) From geller at nifty.com Wed Mar 7 11:26:19 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:26:19 +0900 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200703071026.AA07652@geller204.nifty.com> The jury didn't say OJ didn't do it, just that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. He was later found guilty of the murder in a civil suit by the relatives of the deceased, and had to pay damages. -Bob Ed Reppert ????????: > >On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> just as O.J. Simpson was framed by the LAPD but "may" still be guilty. > >A nit: I think you mean by your quotes around "may" that he really is >guilty. But he is not. The jury said so. And since he can't be tried >again for the same crime(s), he won't ever be guilty. Which is not >the same as saying he didn't do it. :-) > >I think a lot of people would have been happier if the jury had had >available the Scottish verdict "not proven". :-) > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 7 16:14:19 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:14:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Incomplete Swiss matches References: <200703052311.l25NBKMP006173@cfa.harvard.edu> <45EE2FDF.7080706@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002e01c760cb$47c6d8b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Incomplete Swiss matches >> From: "John Probst" >> My online site had a >> massive crash tonight, thus killing off a number of swiss matches in >> progress. > > I don't have an answer, but here are a few thoughts. thanks for an excellent answer. I left out one important fact. the matches can be played any time in the week. they're a "secure" set of 18 boards you play sometime in the week. only about 4 of 40 matches are affected. > > 1. As Richard commented, you need to consider whether the event can > continue at all. If the problem is only one Swiss round out of many, > cancelling the event seems too extreme. > > 2. If you have regulations in effect, you must follow them, even if in > retrospect you would rather have had different regulations. > > 3. One option to consider, if hardly anyone finished the full complement > of boards, is to retroactively make the round in question a short one. > If, for example, nobody finished more than 9 boards, you could score on > a 9-board VP scale, then "weight" the round by 9/18 because fewer boards > than normal were played. Thus the final result of a blitz would be > 10-0, not 20-0. But see also item 5, which will have essentially the > same effect. > >> an award of 2 imps a board is appropriate if you're awarding average >> plus. > > 4. I think this regulation is a poor one, though you may be forced to > follow it. If there are N unplayed boards, awarding 3*sqrt(N) IMPs > seems better. Yes, this will make the VPs > 20, but I don't see that > you have a choice. Alternatively, see item 5, which will have much the > same effect. I had never thought of this, but it's obvious. There are strong reasons why imps=2 in Butler, but 2 * sqrt(N) is an excellent solution. > >> What do we do about matches that have played fewer than 9 boards? Our >> default VPs for a "no fault of your own" is 14. Can we adjust this based >> on >> such results as we have, and if so, how? Taking the case where only 3 >> boards or 8 boards have been played, it's unfair to adjust the VPs purely >> on >> scores attained, but something might be possible. > > 5. I'd _tentatively suggest_ scoring the boards played on the scale for > that number of boards. Suppose the VP score is V1 for N boards. For > the unplayed boards, the score is 14 VPs. Then make the final score > [N*V1+(18-N)*14]/18 . This seems fair to both teams, at least at first > glance, but maybe someone else will have a better idea. Again a brilliant idea. > > Hope you get the software fixed! it was our supplier's hardware (part of the comms) that crashed; the software's pretty good. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 7 17:33:59 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:33:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45ECDEE0.1030309@NTLworld.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070307173204.02828d00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:24 6/03/2007 +0000, Nigel wrote: >[ >In Australia, is it really illegal to ask if partner may benefit too? >If you keep mum (not asking and hence not taking appropriate action) >this may well damage your side. And of course, the fact that you didn't ask -or point to the irregularity- , in a situation where you might well have decided to do so, gives out UI too. What's the way out of that ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 7 17:37:48 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:37:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <001e01c75f5d$52b52930$79031d53@k827b8a5159344> References: <20070305133433.88A822334E3@poczta.interia.pl> <45EC4E41.8010306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070307173659.0282ccf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:34 5/03/2007 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Sending such a reminder to partner so is a very severe infraction. Insisting that opponents send the reminder they had to send in the first place isn't. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 7 17:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard postulated > Except that it seems to me that a Law 25A > inadvertent call is not an irregularity. L18d: A bid that fails to supersede the immediately previous bid is an insufficient bid. No exceptions there for inadvertency. Tim From adam at irvine.com Wed Mar 7 17:41:08 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:41:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 4 (the real one) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:27:57 PST." <005401c76081$c2313180$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703071639.IAA13231@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > No. 4 deals with whether a negative double of 1H that denies > four spades is Alertable. Of course it is. My summary of the > Alert Procedure (under Bridge Laws & Regulations on my > website) includes in the list of Alertable calls: > > - Negative double that does not imply an unbid major suit > (e.g., 1C-1H-Dbl denying, or not implying, four spades) > > And where did I get this from? From the ACBL Alert > Procedure, which says: > > "Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected > meanings, doubles do not require an Alert." > > In this case the TDs declared that a negative double of 1H > that denied four spades was not Alertable. Like the AC, they > seem to have concentrated on the words "highly unusual," > ignoring the word "unexpected." > > Now, while the meaning of this double is not highly unusual > (perhaps), it is certainly unexpected by the vast majority > of players, so it's Alertable, despite what the AC wrote: > > ##### > The majority of the committee concluded that the ACBL > regulations do not require Alerts [sic] for this negative > double. The wording of the regulation suggests that an Alert > is only required for highly unusual meanings of a double. > The committee majority decided that this was not a highly > unusual meaning of the negative double of 1H. Accordingly, > the committee did not resubmit the issue to the directors, > but merely affirmed the decision that there had been no > infraction. > ###### > > The majority of the committee can't read, either. They left > out "unexpected," perhaps reading the text as "highly > unusual *and* unexpected." "Or" does not mean "and." > > Good for chairman Jeff Goldsmith for dissenting from the > AC's majority opinion, although he considered the regulation > to be at fault, not its interpretation. I say it's vice > versa. I do fault the ACBL for this. If memory serves, it used to be spelled out explicitly that a negative double of 1H that denies four spades was alertable. Somewhere in between then and now, they've simplified the regulations but done so in a way that a case that used to be clear is apparently no longer clear (even if you read it correctly, whether it's "unexpected" is still somewhat a subjective judgment). At least, the ACBL should have avoided adding confusion when they changed the regulations, by providing a list of things (in an "official" place) that used to be clear-cut "alertable" or "not alertable" and indicating whether those are now alertable or not alertable, so that they're still clear-cut. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 7 18:52:36 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:52:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c760e1$6477f640$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Richard postulated > > > Except that it seems to me that a Law 25A > > inadvertent call is not an irregularity. > > L18d: A bid that fails to supersede the immediately previous bid is an > insufficient bid. > > No exceptions there for inadvertency. > > Tim A call that has been accepted under Law 25A as an inadvertent call is considered null and void. Consequently it has never been made, conveyed no information and was no more an irregularity than for instance a casual cough or sneeze would be. Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Mar 7 19:05:17 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:05:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:36:30 PST." <006301c76082$f2964da0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703071803.KAA14218@mailhub.irvine.com> > Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 1 > > > > > From case 1: "The table director's decision of an > adjustment to 3NT > > > making four, N/S plus 630 was upheld." > > > > > > Perhaps you mean a different case? > > > > > > > Sorry, my mistake, Marvin said NABC+ case 1, which is the > fourth case listed. > > > Marvin got the subject line wrong, it was "non-NABC+" case > No. 1 Now I'm totally confused. Your original post said "Yet another example of an AC overturning an easy and correct TD ruling"---but in non-NABC+ case 1, the AC upheld the director's ruling, and in NABC+ case 1, they overruled the TD. In fact, non-NABC+ case 1 doesn't appear to be controversial at all. So may we assume that you got it right the first time, and that your attempt to correct your "error" was the mistake? -- Adam From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Wed Mar 7 19:08:26 2007 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:08:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss matches Message-ID: <00a301c760e3$9a4f9d20$3ea1ec51@admin> Have the players not used private score cards? Ude them to get the results! From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 7 19:58:48 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:58:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Gone to St Louis Message-ID: <000501c760ea$a69bf180$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> I am unsubscribed from BLML until I get back from the St Louis NABC in a couple of weeks. Those wishing to discuss a subject with me are free to send a private e-mail. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 8 00:52:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:52:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <200703071026.AA07652@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200703071026.AA07652@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2A60591E-15AD-4337-9CD2-835B9E33B6A0@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 7, 2007, at 5:26 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > The jury didn't say OJ didn't do it, just that the prosecution > had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. > He was later found guilty of the murder in a civil suit by > the relatives of the deceased, and had to pay damages. Since we're picking nits (or at least I am :)), the criterion for a guilty verdict in a criminal trial is indeed "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil trial, one finds for the plaintiff if the preponderance of the evidence is in his favor. Not quite so stringent a criterion. A civil trial cannot have found him guilty of murder - that's not within their purview, especially when he was acquitted in the criminal trial. The civil jury found him "liable" for the death of Ron Goldman and for battery against his ex-wife, and awarded some $8.5 million in damages. Non-sequitur: I don't think a treecat would like Mr. Simpson much. 'Nuf said on this subject. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 8 02:18:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:18:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45EC4EE9.1040008@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >But the original was about a player who knew he was going to >show his spade suit. Either by 1S or by 1NT, depending on the >system. So his asking could not, ever, create any UI to partner. W.S. Gilbert: "What never?" "No never." "What never?" "Hardly ever." Richard Hills: It seems to me that knowledge of your system is authorised only to the opponents. The footnote to Law 40E2 prohibits aids to memory. Ergo, if the sole purpose of a question is to inform partner of the opponents' agreements and consequently remind partner of our agreements, then that question seems to me to be a UI infraction of the Law 40E2 footnote. For newbies to blml, an exploration of the October 2002 thread "the Kaplan question" in the blml archives might be enlightening. See: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-October/date.html 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 Mar 8 07:04:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:04:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703052145g6fd0b9daj41d41e3a97511fa8@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >as we saw in Cincinnati 2000, case 29 >(unalerted 1D), may well lead to no redress. Richard Hills: Actually the 1D opening was alerted, but the subsequent explanation was incomplete since it was not described as a limited Precision Diamond. I found this casebook statement remarkable: "Precision was not pre-Alerted but this is not an ACBL requirement." Surely describing your systemic approach is one of the classic reasons for a pre-Alert? Indeed, an American blmler once related how - many years ago before pre-Alerts were officially introduced - an American expert doubled the blmler "on the auction", only to discover (after the redouble) that the blmler was using a system influenced by the British style, so what sounded like a weak auction to the opponent's ears was actually a slam try auction. So that blmler then chose to _voluntarily_ pre-Alert his stylish methods, following the Law 75A principle of full disclosure, despite such a pre-Alert not being officially required then or now by the ACBL. This Cincinnatti 2000 case 29 non-pre-Alert is yet another example of the advantage of the "principles" approach to alert regulations (see the "A player's view" thread for more rigorous analysis of "principles" versus "details"). 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 Mar 8 07:37:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:37:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Honolulu wereWolff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Honolulu casebook comment, NABC+ appeal 1, Bobby Wolff: >I had brought this type of case before the ACBL Laws >Commission where a hesitation was made by a player who (as >far as she was concerned) was in the pass out position >making it such that there is no chance she was committing >what I call hesitation disruption (HD) which would impart >UI to a partner who was certain to be advantaged by it. >Here, if her LHO now passed that would end the auction. In >spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on >West competed further therefore, at least to me, >forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage >to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made >no comment and certainly did not pursue it. Honolulu casebook comment, Non-NABC appeal 3, Bobby Wolff: [snip] >(1) The revoke was entirely meaningless with the bridge of >the matter - an easy 4S making four, +620 N/S. [snip] >(3) The equity of the matter is that E/W wanted something >for nothing and while that may be barely acceptable at >times, the circumstances of this particular case cried out >for "No revoke". > >To me this case should be decided "No revoke" with an >admonition to E/W - "In the future, please do not pursue >wanting something for nothing." [snip] Richard Hills: And the imaginary infraction of "Convention Disruption" was also mentioned ad nauseam by Bobby Wolff in his casebook commentary. It seems to me that if one holds a semi-official role as an ACBL casebook commentator, one should carefully inform the readers of the casebook when one is discussing Law, and when one is discussing pet theories one would like to be incorporated into the next Lawbook. Otherwise inexperienced ACBL TDs might be bitten by the wereWolff, and then start ruling in weirdly werewolf ways. :-( 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 8 16:55:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:55:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <175D850E-2881-48B4-B7DB-E64857F6A9B3@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 8, 2007, at 1:04 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Actually the 1D opening was alerted, but the > subsequent explanation was incomplete since > it was not described as a limited Precision > Diamond. Using the word "Precision" in one's description of this bid is, IMO, neither necessary nor desirable. The regulation specifies that naming a convention is insufficient; surely naming a system is equally so. Stating "Precision" may paint a misleading picture in an opponent's mind, depending what he thinks "Precision" means, which may bear little resemblance to the system actually in use. I note that currently, this opening requires an announcement ("could be short"). > I found this casebook statement remarkable: > > "Precision was not pre-Alerted but this is > not an ACBL requirement." > > Surely describing your systemic approach is > one of the classic reasons for a pre-Alert? Perhaps so, but the current (effective 2001, iirc. I don't know if the previous regulation differed substantially, but I think not) regulation says: "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. The forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening of 1 club or 2 clubs. 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." So the statement is at least currently (and probably then, too) correct. I wonder why the comment even appears. Certainly the fact the system was not pre-alerted should not affect the ruling. > This Cincinnatti 2000 case 29 non-pre-Alert is > yet another example of the advantage of the > "principles" approach to alert regulations (see > the "A player's view" thread for more rigorous > analysis of "principles" versus "details"). I don't disagree, but rulings have to be made on the basis of the regulations in force, not what they perhaps ought to be. From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 8 17:59:06 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:59:06 -0800 Subject: [blml] Honolulu wereWolff In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:37:10 +1100." Message-ID: <200703081657.IAA25373@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Honolulu casebook comment, NABC+ appeal 1, Bobby Wolff: > > >I had brought this type of case before the ACBL Laws > >Commission where a hesitation was made by a player who (as > >far as she was concerned) was in the pass out position > >making it such that there is no chance she was committing > >what I call hesitation disruption (HD) which would impart > >UI to a partner who was certain to be advantaged by it. > >Here, if her LHO now passed that would end the auction. In > >spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on > >West competed further therefore, at least to me, > >forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage > >to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made > >no comment and certainly did not pursue it. I had to reread the whole appeal carefully, because my first reaction upon reading the above comment by Wolff was, "Ingles, por favor?" Really, with this convoluted English, it took a fair amount of effort just to figure out what he was saying. West had T3 9653 KT743 K5. At favorable vulnerability, East dealt and opened 1D, South overcalled 2C, West bid 2D. That wouldn't have been my choice, but maybe their system didn't allow a preemptive raise here. North bid 2S, pass, South hesitated then passed. West then bid 3D, leading to a situation where North's next call was influenced by the UI. North bid 4C, and it appears that the committee ruled that North's bid was illegal but did not cause damage (the damage part is the controversial aspect). But Wolff is saying it's West's fault for bidding on. With unshown 5-card support, West is supposed to keep silent (and let them play a 2-level contract at matchpoints) or else "condone" the hesitation, i.e. make it legal for North to take advantage of it???????? I'll remember that next time I'm in South's position, and I would like to buy the contract and stop West from competing. I'll just hesitate before passing, and then West will be constrained either to let us have the contract, or else he will be at a disadvantage because I've just passed extra information to partner and he can use it legally. I think Wolff really went off the deep end on this one. If you're only going to bid 2D to start with, then competing to 3D is a 102% action, and it is unimaginable to me that Wolff say that West forfeited her rights by doing so. It seems pretty bizarre. I think it's also bizarre to suggest (as Wolff seems to be saying) that if you hesitate and then pass in an auction that you think is going to be passed out, then you're not really transmitting UI, even if the auction doesn't get passed out as you expected it to. It's a little like saying that if I drive my car forward because I don't expect you to try to cross the street, but you cross it anyway and I run over you, then you're not really injured. -- Adam From jrmayne at mindspring.com Thu Mar 8 18:26:14 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:26:14 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [blml] Honolulu wereWolff Message-ID: <19354709.1173374775078.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Beneschan >Sent: Mar 8, 2007 8:59 AM >To: blml at rtflb.org >Cc: adam at irvine.com >Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu wereWolff > > >Richard wrote: > >> Honolulu casebook comment, NABC+ appeal 1, Bobby Wolff: >> >> >I had brought this type of case before the ACBL Laws >> >Commission where a hesitation was made by a player who (as >> >far as she was concerned) was in the pass out position >> >making it such that there is no chance she was committing >> >what I call hesitation disruption (HD) which would impart >> >UI to a partner who was certain to be advantaged by it. >> >Here, if her LHO now passed that would end the auction. In >> >spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on >> >West competed further therefore, at least to me, >> >forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage >> >to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made >> >no comment and certainly did not pursue it. > >I had to reread the whole appeal carefully, because my first reaction >upon reading the above comment by Wolff was, "Ingles, por favor?" >Really, with this convoluted English, it took a fair amount of effort >just to figure out what he was saying. > >West had T3 9653 KT743 K5. At favorable vulnerability, East dealt and >opened 1D, South overcalled 2C, West bid 2D. That wouldn't have been >my choice, but maybe their system didn't allow a preemptive raise >here. North bid 2S, pass, South hesitated then passed. > >West then bid 3D, leading to a situation where North's next call was >influenced by the UI. North bid 4C, and it appears that the committee >ruled that North's bid was illegal but did not cause damage (the >damage part is the controversial aspect). > >But Wolff is saying it's West's fault for bidding on. With unshown >5-card support, West is supposed to keep silent (and let them play a >2-level contract at matchpoints) or else "condone" the hesitation, >i.e. make it legal for North to take advantage of it???????? I'll >remember that next time I'm in South's position, and I would like to >buy the contract and stop West from competing. I'll just hesitate >before passing, and then West will be constrained either to let us >have the contract, or else he will be at a disadvantage because I've >just passed extra information to partner and he can use it legally. I agree with this, but.... > >I think Wolff really went off the deep end on this one. If you're >only going to bid 2D to start with, then competing to 3D is a 102% >action, and it is unimaginable to me that Wolff say that West >forfeited her rights by doing so. I think that's fairly severe overbid. I *would* pass on this auction, and with the tank, I'd pass fast. Again: 1D-2C-(2D)-2S-P-P- to you. It looks to me that my timid 2D has bought the sucker, and if I'm going to bid this way (not my choice either, but we're here now) one of the wins is when the wheels fall off and they end up short of their spade game. Whatever their agreements, if 2S isn't forcing, I don't think this sounds like an intelligent auction and I'm ready to take my win right here, thanks. With the hesitation, this makes it more likely that 2S isn't the winning spot, but that 4S might be. I might be wrong. I still come to the same conclusion Adam does: 3D is surely not prohibited by the opponents' hesitation, and does not forfeit rights. That's... well, that's misguided. But I disagree with Adam that 3D is a 102% action in general, and I don't think it's even the indicated action with the tank. And if I pass 2D and lose because of the tank, well that's on my dime. On this hand, Adam will outscore me whatever the appeals committee rules (spades plays better than clubs, so Adam will be -130 at worst where I'll be -140) but it's not the first time he's gotten a better board than I have. I'm still lightly confident that I'm right on the bridge issue. --JRM From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 8 18:41:42 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:41:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Honolulu wereWolff In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:26:14 PST." <19354709.1173374775078.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <200703081740.JAA25791@mailhub.irvine.com> John Mayne wrote: > Again: 1D-2C-(2D)-2S-P-P- to you. It looks to me that my timid 2D > has bought the sucker, and if I'm going to bid this way (not my > choice either, but we're here now) one of the wins is when the > wheels fall off and they end up short of their spade game. Whatever > their agreements, if 2S isn't forcing, I don't think this sounds > like an intelligent auction and I'm ready to take my win right here, > thanks. I guess it depends on how light the 2S could be and what I think of the opponents' expertise. If my opponents are Cohen and Berkowitz then the chance that the wheels have fallen off doesn't seem too high. But I see your point---if it seems like the opponents are having a brain cramp then I shouldn't give them another chance to find their game. (I've made that mistake countless times.) Of course, if my opponents are Cohen and Berkowitz then there probably wouldn't have been a hesitation in the first place, so maybe my argument doesn't make sense. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 8 22:21:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:21:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu wereWolff In-Reply-To: <200703081657.IAA25373@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200703081657.IAA25373@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070308161419.02ac6870@pop.starpower.net> At 11:59 AM 3/8/07, Adam wrote: >Richard wrote: > > > Honolulu casebook comment, NABC+ appeal 1, Bobby Wolff: > > > > >I had brought this type of case before the ACBL Laws > > >Commission where a hesitation was made by a player who (as > > >far as she was concerned) was in the pass out position > > >making it such that there is no chance she was committing > > >what I call hesitation disruption (HD) which would impart > > >UI to a partner who was certain to be advantaged by it. > > >Here, if her LHO now passed that would end the auction. In > > >spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on > > >West competed further therefore, at least to me, > > >forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage > > >to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made > > >no comment and certainly did not pursue it. > >I had to reread the whole appeal carefully, because my first reaction >upon reading the above comment by Wolff was, "Ingles, por favor?" >Really, with this convoluted English, it took a fair amount of effort >just to figure out what he was saying. > >West had T3 9653 KT743 K5. At favorable vulnerability, East dealt and >opened 1D, South overcalled 2C, West bid 2D. That wouldn't have been >my choice, but maybe their system didn't allow a preemptive raise >here. North bid 2S, pass, South hesitated then passed. > >West then bid 3D, leading to a situation where North's next call was >influenced by the UI. North bid 4C, and it appears that the committee >ruled that North's bid was illegal but did not cause damage (the >damage part is the controversial aspect). > >But Wolff is saying it's West's fault for bidding on. With unshown >5-card support, West is supposed to keep silent (and let them play a >2-level contract at matchpoints) or else "condone" the hesitation, >i.e. make it legal for North to take advantage of it???????? I'll >remember that next time I'm in South's position, and I would like to >buy the contract and stop West from competing. I'll just hesitate >before passing, and then West will be constrained either to let us >have the contract, or else he will be at a disadvantage because I've >just passed extra information to partner and he can use it legally. > >I think Wolff really went off the deep end on this one. If you're >only going to bid 2D to start with, then competing to 3D is a 102% >action, and it is unimaginable to me that Wolff say that West >forfeited her rights by doing so. It seems pretty bizarre. I think >it's also bizarre to suggest (as Wolff seems to be saying) that if you >hesitate and then pass in an auction that you think is going to be >passed out, then you're not really transmitting UI, even if the >auction doesn't get passed out as you expected it to. It's a little >like saying that if I drive my car forward because I don't expect you >to try to cross the street, but you cross it anyway and I run over >you, then you're not really injured. It's really sad. Mr. Wolff has been a top-flight player, a major contributor to ACBL and world bridge, and an all-around fine fellow. Now he is at most only the last of those. He has been losing it for quite some time, and may have gone off the deep end a fair bit ago. Adam's attempts to make sense out of what appear to be incoherent ramblings show dedication and fortitude; personally, I was unable to make it past "hesitation disruption {HD}" [sic]. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 8 22:58:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 08:58:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Red tapeworm (was L9A...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <175D850E-2881-48B4-B7DB-E64857F6A9B3@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>This Cincinnati 2000 case 29 non-pre-Alert is >>yet another example of the advantage of the >>"principles" approach to alert regulations (see >>the "A player's view" thread for more rigorous >>analysis of "principles" versus "details"). Ed Reppert: >I don't disagree, but rulings have to be made on >the basis of the regulations in force, not what >they perhaps ought to be. Adam Wildavsky (Hawaii casebook NABC+ appeal 4): It scarcely matters what I think of this ruling, since it's a matter of regulation. For what it's worth the regulation seems a poor one. If the double might either show or deny spades then advancer will have to ask every time. This risks conveying unauthorized information. A broader point is that stealthy regulation is poor regulation. Whatever the rules are the ACBL must make them easily available to the players. The Alert regulations ought to be simple and unambiguous. To the extent that they are not, decisions in specific cases must be well publicized. At a minimum they should be published in one spot on the ACBL web site. Were this rule documented then N/S would likely not have appealed. As things stand players may believe that the ruling varies based on the director's whim or the players' influence or reputations. This is bad for all concerned. 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 Fri Mar 9 02:41:10 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:41:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu wereWolff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004b01c761ec$0658af80$6400a8c0@rota> Richard Hills writes: > Honolulu casebook comment, NABC+ appeal 1, Bobby Wolff: > >>I had brought this type of case before the ACBL Laws >>Commission where a hesitation was made by a player who (as >>far as she was concerned) was in the pass out position >>making it such that there is no chance she was committing >>what I call hesitation disruption (HD) which would impart >>UI to a partner who was certain to be advantaged by it. >>Here, if her LHO now passed that would end the auction. In >>spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on >>West competed further therefore, at least to me, >>forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage >>to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made >>no comment and certainly did not pursue it. Wolff's point makes no sense. He wants to deny an adjustment to West because she is taking a double shot, although he is avoiding those specific words. (West's action on the actual hand looks like a normal action, which means that it should not be judged a double shot.) In addition, he is saying that it is ethical for North to use UI if South could have expected that the UI would be harmless, and it was only West's action that made the UI relevant. Here's a simpler case which illustrates what is wrong with his position. Both vul, matchpoints S W N E 1S P 2S P ..P 3H X AP Both sides can make eight tricks, and neither West's 3H nor North's X is an automatic decision, but both are reasonable absent any UI. If West chose not to bid 3H, there would be no UI issue and N-S would be +140. If West chose to bid 3H and there had been no hesitation, North could reasonably have passed and N-S would be +100. However, with South's slow pass, West can no longer get +100 if North is allowed to double, and thus N-S get a plus position as an indirect result of the hesitation. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 8 13:28:51 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:28:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c760e1$6477f640$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000901c761ee$7de9bf10$3ba787d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Richard postulated > > > > > Except that it seems to me that a Law 25A > > > inadvertent call is not an irregularity. > > > > L18d: A bid that fails to supersede the > > immediately previous bid is an insufficient bid. > > > > No exceptions there for inadvertency. > > > > Tim > > A call that has been accepted under Law 25A > as an inadvertent call is considered null and void. > Consequently it has never been made, conveyed > no information and was no more an irregularity > than for instance a casual cough or sneeze would > be. > > Sven > +=+ Are you saying that, for the purposes of Law 16, no unauthorized information can result from what has occurred? If so, when partner draws an inference and bases ensuing action upon it? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 8 12:39:30 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:39:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major References: <200703071026.AA07652@geller204.nifty.com> <2A60591E-15AD-4337-9CD2-835B9E33B6A0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000801c761ee$7d09bf50$3ba787d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Minor/Major > > Non-sequitur: I don't think a treecat would like > Mr. Simpson much. > > 'Nuf said on this subject. > +=+ 'Treecat' - is this some kind of cougar/puma? And what has the animal in question done to offend you? ~ G ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 9 03:22:47 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:22:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <200703071505.l27F5qJx002123@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703071505.l27F5qJx002123@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45F0C4F7.2070403@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > The question isn't what the > 3C bid demonstrably suggested; the question is what the UI > demonstrably suggested, Clearly correct. The AI (the systemic meaning of the 3C bid) determines the LAs, and the UI may make some of them illegal. > and the UI is the mistaken explanation of the > 2NT bid. And given that East knows that 3C should be some sort of > game try in hearts, but the UI (the mistaken explanation) suggests > that 3C isn't a game try at all, The UI suggests the 3C bid is a meaningless noise that opener would make on all hands he might hold. I think we agree up to here. > the UI demonstrably suggests that > West has less than East would otherwise think, But you've lost me here. According to system, opener must be middle of his original range. With more, he would have bid 4H; with less signed off in 3H. The return game try -- according to system -- shows something in between (and something useful in clubs). The UI tells us that opener could have anything from bottom to top of range. How does that suggest bidding less rather than more? Further, the UI tells us that opener is unaware of responder's heart support. Doesn't that, if anything, suggest bidding more rather than less? I may be analyzing this wrong, but I still don't see how the UI suggests 3H over 4H. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 9 03:38:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 21:38:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c761ee$7de9bf10$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001301c760e1$6477f640$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000901c761ee$7de9bf10$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <08051FBC-3357-4AF8-A664-4D5FD2D87C0C@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:28 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Are you saying that, for the purposes of Law 16, > no unauthorized information can result from what has > occurred? If so, when partner draws an inference and > bases ensuing action upon it? Sounds to me like what he's saying is that if the withdrawn call was truly inadvertant, any conclusion the partner draws from it is not an inference at all, being based on no useful information. For example, a player bids one 1H, says "oops, I didn't mean to make that call", TD is called rules that 25A applies, player changes his call to 1S. To "infer" that the player has hearts is ludicrous, for inferences rest on truth, and there is no truth to the proposition that the inadvertent 1H call showed hearts. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 9 03:40:34 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:40:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <200703081511.l28FBUa7027884@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703081511.l28FBUa7027884@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45F0C922.2070204@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > W.S. Gilbert: > > "What never?" > "No never." > "What never?" > "Hardly ever." I have another quote for you: "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." In present context, there are more Laws in the FLB than 16A and 73F1. > It seems to me that knowledge of your system is authorised only > to the opponents. The footnote to Law 40E2 prohibits aids to > memory. I'm going to have quite a problem on most deals if knowledge of my system is unauthorized! > Ergo, if the sole purpose of a question is to inform partner of > the opponents' agreements and consequently remind partner of our > agreements, then that question seems to me to be a UI infraction > of the Law 40E2 footnote. Even if so, the UI rules are not the way to deal with it. If a question is illegal, it will typically violate L73B1, and the remedy will be in L12A1 and 12C2. The _effect_ will be similar but not identical. LAs and "suggested over another" don't come into the matter; the TD merely has to determine what would have happened if the irregularity had not occurred. Let me remind readers of _petitio principii_. Further, I'll suggest that the _only_ information that can _ever_ become UI is knowledge of the cards one has not yet seen in the normal course of play. Sometimes that information will be AI (for example if it comes from an opponent or from partner's legal calls and plays), other times UI (if it comes from partner's mannerisms, etc.). However, AI (my system or cards I _have_ seen) should never become UI because of how the information is brought to attention. Infractions that serve as reminders should be dealt with another way; it's the creation of the problem, not the use of information, that's wrong. L45F gives a specific example. I won't even mention the impossibility of enforcing any rule that deals with the "purpose" of a question or other action. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 9 03:51:20 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 21:51:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Minor/Major In-Reply-To: <000801c761ee$7d09bf50$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200703071026.AA07652@geller204.nifty.com> <2A60591E-15AD-4337-9CD2-835B9E33B6A0@rochester.rr.com> <000801c761ee$7d09bf50$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Mar 8, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> Non-sequitur: I don't think a treecat would like >> Mr. Simpson much. >> >> 'Nuf said on this subject. >> > > +=+ 'Treecat' - is this some kind of cougar/puma? > And what has the animal in question done to > offend you? > Sorry. Not only a non-sequitur, but obscure. Treecats don't offend me, they fascinate me. :-) I'm in the midst of re-reading David Weber's excellent "Honorverse" space opera series. Honor Harrington is an officer in the Royal Manticoran Navy, ca. 2000 years from now. She's a native of Sphinx, one of the planets of the Star Kingdom of Manticore. Sphinx has an indigenous sapient species called "treecats". Arboreal, six limbed, and resembling cats, hence the name. Treecats are empaths, and very simple people. If they don't like somebody, they have no problem showing it. And they can usually tell very quickly what kind of person they're seeing. The series has great space battles, interesting politics (the People's Republic of Haven, the bad guys, is ruled through most of the series by a "Committee of Public Safety" chaired by one Robert Stanton Pierre :-)) and some fascinating technology. I highly recommend it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 9 07:07:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:07:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Treecat (off topic) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Sorry. Not only a non-sequitur, but obscure. Treecats don't offend >me, they fascinate me. :-) > >I'm in the midst of re-reading David Weber's excellent "Honorverse" >space opera series. Honor Harrington is an officer in the Royal >Manticoran Navy, ca. 2000 years from now. She's a native of Sphinx, >one of the planets of the Star Kingdom of Manticore. Sphinx has an >indigenous sapient species called "treecats". Arboreal, six limbed, >and resembling cats, hence the name. Treecats are empaths, and very >simple people. If they don't like somebody, they have no problem >showing it. And they can usually tell very quickly what kind of >person they're seeing. > >The series has great space battles, interesting politics (the >People's Republic of Haven, the bad guys, is ruled through most of >the series by a "Committee of Public Safety" chaired by one Robert >Stanton Pierre :-)) and some fascinating technology. I highly >recommend it. Richard Hills: Yes, but. I highly recommend the series up to and including the two-volume story where Honor Harrington is imprisoned on and then escapes from a prison planet. After that the series starts running out of steam. (JRR Tolkien showed more sense. He wrote the first chapter of a sequel to The Lord of the Rings, but then realised that pursuing such a sequel would be a huge anti-climax.) French Revolution fans will note that Rob S. Pierre's emotionless henchman in the Honorverse is named Saint-Just. And Honor Harrington herself shares the initials HH with Horatio Hornblower. The Hornblower naval novels by CS Forester, set during the Napoleonic Wars, are the obvious inspiration for the Honorverse novels set during similar space opera wars. Honorverse fans should enjoy Hornblower novels (and perhaps vice versa). 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 john at asimere.com Fri Mar 9 07:16:04 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:16:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c760e1$6477f640$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000901c761ee$7de9bf10$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001e01c76212$6acece60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> > Richard postulated >> > >> > > Except that it seems to me that a Law 25A >> > > inadvertent call is not an irregularity. >> > >> > L18d: A bid that fails to supersede the >> > immediately previous bid is an insufficient bid. >> > >> > No exceptions there for inadvertency. >> > >> > Tim >> >> A call that has been accepted under Law 25A >> as an inadvertent call is considered null and void. >> Consequently it has never been made, conveyed >> no information and was no more an irregularity >> than for instance a casual cough or sneeze would >> be. well, if LHO has called and that call is withdrawn, then there are UI considerations of course, but there is UI inherent in the call itself IMO; It was never made. John >> >> Sven >> > +=+ Are you saying that, for the purposes of Law 16, > no unauthorized information can result from what has > occurred? If so, when partner draws an inference and > bases ensuing action upon it? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 9 10:38:09 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:38:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c761ee$7de9bf10$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c7622e$a5fdf490$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott .................. > > A call that has been accepted under Law 25A > > as an inadvertent call is considered null and void. > > Consequently it has never been made, conveyed > > no information and was no more an irregularity > > than for instance a casual cough or sneeze would > > be. > > > > Sven > > > +=+ Are you saying that, for the purposes of Law 16, > no unauthorized information can result from what has > occurred? If so, when partner draws an inference and > bases ensuing action upon it? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, see for instance your own book: "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", comment 25.3: "... everyone forgets the first call ever happened". However there is one piece of information (UI?) that still is present: Partner has had a momentary slip of the tongue! But whether any (useful) inference can possibly be drawn from such information is another question. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 9 11:05:14 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:05:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 In-Reply-To: <45F0C922.2070204@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703081511.l28FBUa7027884@cfa.harvard.edu> <200703081511.l28FBUa7027884@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309105503.0281e5f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:40 8/03/2007 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > It seems to me that knowledge of your system is authorised only > > to the opponents. The footnote to Law 40E2 prohibits aids to > > memory. > >I'm going to have quite a problem on most deals if knowledge of my >system is unauthorized! ;-)) > > Ergo, if the sole purpose of a question is to inform partner of > > the opponents' agreements and consequently remind partner of our > > agreements, then that question seems to me to be a UI infraction > > of the Law 40E2 footnote. When opponents didn't explain, ISTM that the purpose of the question is that partner be aware of their system (which is his right). Not to remember him ours. Illicit communication in L73B2 is about "informing partner, by means other than bids or carding, of some specific piece of information about the deal". The opponents' system falls out of this scope. Barring intonation problems, of course. Now, I repeat, if it is illicit to let partner know (in a neutral way) they failed to alert, *and* if it can happen that you be denied of redress because you didn't ask (and, contrary to some opinions expressed here, this also happens without screens), this constitutes a lose-lose for the NOS, and a big incentive not to explain (or not fully). Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 9 13:36:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <08051FBC-3357-4AF8-A664-4D5FD2D87C0C@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > For example, a player bids one 1H, says "oops, I didn't mean to make > that call", TD is called rules that 25A applies, player changes his Why was the TD called if the inadvertent bid was not an irregularity? > call to 1S. To "infer" that the player has hearts is ludicrous, Agreed. But what of any inferences from the LHO's *reaction* to the 1H, or a bid made by LHO prior to correction? What of the requirement to make bids in the proper form (1H I mean 1S is NOT proper form)? In the vast majority of L25a cases there is no UI, no penalty, and no problem - but they are still irregularities of procedure. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 9 15:15:18 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:15:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <000901c761ee$7de9bf10$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001301c760e1$6477f640$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000901c761ee$7de9bf10$3ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070309090314.02a3c490@pop.starpower.net> At 07:28 AM 3/8/07, Grattan wrote: >From: "Sven Pran" > > > A call that has been accepted under Law 25A > > as an inadvertent call is considered null and void. > > Consequently it has never been made, conveyed > > no information and was no more an irregularity > > than for instance a casual cough or sneeze would > > be. > >+=+ Are you saying that, for the purposes of Law 16, >no unauthorized information can result from what has >occurred? If so, when partner draws an inference and >bases ensuing action upon it? If it were possible for the withdrawn call to have provided any useful information, unauthorized or otherwise, it could not have satisfied the strict inadvertancy criterion of L25A. The TD who allowed the penalty-free correction has, by doing so, implicitly ruled that there was no UI. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Fri Mar 9 18:17:44 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:17:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:22:47 EST." <45F0C4F7.2070403@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200703091716.JAA05837@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > The question isn't what the > > 3C bid demonstrably suggested; the question is what the UI > > demonstrably suggested, > > Clearly correct. The AI (the systemic meaning of the 3C bid) determines > the LAs, and the UI may make some of them illegal. > > > and the UI is the mistaken explanation of the > > 2NT bid. And given that East knows that 3C should be some sort of > > game try in hearts, but the UI (the mistaken explanation) suggests > > that 3C isn't a game try at all, > > The UI suggests the 3C bid is a meaningless noise that opener would make > on all hands he might hold. I think we agree up to here. > > > the UI demonstrably suggests that > > West has less than East would otherwise think, > > But you've lost me here. According to system, opener must be middle of > his original range. With more, he would have bid 4H; with less signed > off in 3H. The return game try -- according to system -- shows > something in between (and something useful in clubs). > > The UI tells us that opener could have anything from bottom to top of > range. How does that suggest bidding less rather than more? Further, > the UI tells us that opener is unaware of responder's heart support. > Doesn't that, if anything, suggest bidding more rather than less? > > I may be analyzing this wrong, but I still don't see how the UI suggests > 3H over 4H. That's a good point. I think there are two answers: (1) The probability of a weak hand is greater than that of the stronger hand. So if an unethical East who is willing to take advantage of the UI has to guess at the final contract, 3H is more likely to work than 4H. (2) If West has a stronger hand, 3H may not end the auction. This one depends on the exact methods involved. The original post said that West confused two auctions, so apparently this pair plays 2NT as a relay to 3C in some other cases. I think the TD probably should have found out what those other cases were and what the exact methods were. The main thing the TD needs to find out is, could West have passed 3H with an above-minimum hand. If so (e.g. if one of the meanings of 2NT is to show a weak raise), then you may be right that 3H is not demonstrably suggested. However, if not (e.g. 2NT showed either a weak club hand, or various invitational-plus hands), then to an unethical East, 3H would have covered all the bases---if West had a weaker hand, 3H was the right place, and if West had a stronger hand, 3H wouldn't be passed. So in a case like this, then I think 3H is still demonstrably suggested (over 4H). But I guess you're right, that based on the information we have (which doesn't include any description of what methods West thought they were playing), perhaps I shouldn't have said 3H was demonstrably suggested. I think we need more info. By the way, if West was confused because of methods he played with a different partner, and if East had no knowledge of what those methods were, I'd still think 3H is demonstrably suggested. Here, the methods played by West with his other partner are irrelevant, since the question is, what is demonstrably suggested from East's point of view. And if I were the hypothetical unethical East in question, I'd assume that West probably would *not* pass my 3H with a stronger hand, since I'd assume that weak raises would just jump raise and not go through a relay that would give the opponents more room. I'm on rather shaky ground here, since I have no idea what 2NT-relay methods are out there. But I'm also willing to rule against the offenders when in doubt, so that would be good enough for me (although I still don't think 4H is a LA so it wouldn't actually matter). -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 9 22:03:26 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Treecat (off topic) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49E782FE-0769-4D9B-989C-22D2E3F0C291@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 9, 2007, at 1:07 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > I highly recommend the series up to and including the > two-volume story where Honor Harrington is imprisoned on and then > escapes from a prison planet. After that the series starts running > out of steam. By the time I got that far (In Enemy Hands, Echoes of Honor) I was well and truly hooked. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 9 22:12:38 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:12:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 9, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Ed wrote: > >> For example, a player bids one 1H, says "oops, I didn't mean to make >> that call", TD is called rules that 25A applies, player changes his > > Why was the TD called if the inadvertent bid was not an irregularity? Who said it wasn't an irregularity? >> call to 1S. To "infer" that the player has hearts is ludicrous, > > Agreed. But what of any inferences from the LHO's *reaction* to > the 1H, > or a bid made by LHO prior to correction? Whose LHO? > What of the requirement to make bids in the proper form (1H I mean > 1S is > NOT proper form)? "1H I mean 1S" is not what I posited the player said. He said "1H", which IS proper form. Then he said "Oops, I didn't mean to make that call." > In the vast majority of L25a cases there is no UI, no penalty, and no > problem - but they are still irregularities of procedure. Okay, so what's your point? From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 10 00:35:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > Who said it wasn't an irregularity? Ummm. Richard - in the post to which I originally responded saying I believed it WAS an irregularity. > >> call to 1S. To "infer" that the player has hearts is ludicrous, > > > > Agreed. But what of any inferences from the LHO's *reaction* to > > the 1H, or a bid made by LHO prior to correction? > > Whose LHO? The LHO of the player making the wrong call - obviously. > > What of the requirement to make bids in the proper form (1H I mean > > 1S is NOT proper form)? > > "1H I mean 1S" is not what I posited the player said. He said "1H", > which IS proper form. Then he said "Oops, I didn't mean to make that > call." Stop being a tosser. "1H, oops I didn't mean to.." is also not the proper form. There was no "pause for thought" between the "1H" and the "oops .." so why try and separate the two statements? > > In the vast majority of L25a cases there is no UI, no penalty, and > > no problem - but they are still irregularities of procedure. > > Okay, so what's your point? My point is that an inadvertent call is an irregularity. Opps may legitimately call the TD. Information gained therefrom is UI to OS, etc, etc. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 10 00:35:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070309090314.02a3c490@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > If it were possible for the withdrawn call to have provided any > useful information, unauthorized or otherwise, it could not have > satisfied the strict inadvertancy criterion of L25A. Why not? In the sequence 1H-(X)- "oops I meant 1S not 1H" becoming "1s-(p)" the information inherent in the double is surely UI to the OS. That doesn't affect the genuine nature of the L25a correction. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 10 01:18:10 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:18:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64E63C75-C344-4812-8A84-7AD4D3728E68@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 9, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Ed wrote: > >> >> Who said it wasn't an irregularity? > > Ummm. Richard - in the post to which I originally responded saying I > believed it WAS an irregularity. Was the question resolved? I'm with Richard - if the inadvertent call is cancelled, then in effect it never happened. How can something that never happened be an irregularity? > The LHO of the player making the wrong call - obviously. Sorry. If it had been obvious to me, I wouldn't have asked the question. Extraneous information from partner's mannerisms is UI. >>> What of the requirement to make bids in the proper form (1H I mean >>> 1S is NOT proper form)? >> >> "1H I mean 1S" is not what I posited the player said. He said "1H", >> which IS proper form. Then he said "Oops, I didn't mean to make that >> call." > > Stop being a tosser. "1H, oops I didn't mean to.." is also not the > proper form. There was no "pause for thought" between the "1H" and > the > "oops .." so why try and separate the two statements? I did not and do not understand what you're getting at here. Can you enlighten me? > My point is that an inadvertent call is an irregularity. Not proven, I think. See above. :-) > Opps may legitimately call the TD. A player (except dummy) may legitimately call the TD at any time (though I suppose if the TD deems the player is wasting the TD's time, he could rule the call an infraction of Law 74B5). > Information gained therefrom is UI to OS, etc, etc. What of Law 16C1? From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 10 01:24:57 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:24:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed wrote: > >> >> Who said it wasn't an irregularity? > > Ummm. Richard - in the post to which I originally responded saying I > believed it WAS an irregularity. > >> >> call to 1S. To "infer" that the player has hearts is ludicrous, >> > >> > Agreed. But what of any inferences from the LHO's *reaction* to >> > the 1H, or a bid made by LHO prior to correction? >> >> Whose LHO? > > The LHO of the player making the wrong call - obviously. > >> > What of the requirement to make bids in the proper form (1H I mean >> > 1S is NOT proper form)? >> >> "1H I mean 1S" is not what I posited the player said. He said "1H", >> which IS proper form. Then he said "Oops, I didn't mean to make that >> call." > > Stop being a tosser. "1H, oops I didn't mean to.." is also not the > proper form. There was no "pause for thought" between the "1H" and the > "oops .." so why try and separate the two statements? > >> > In the vast majority of L25a cases there is no UI, no penalty, and >> > no problem - but they are still irregularities of procedure. >> >> Okay, so what's your point? > > My point is that an inadvertent call is an irregularity. Opps may > legitimately call the TD. Information gained therefrom is UI to OS, > etc, etc. > > Tim It is my understanding that the law makes no provision for penalizing, nor admonishment that a player must change, his inadvertent call. I am inclined to believe that an inadvertent call may, or may not be an irregularity. The determining factor being its legality, which is to say that its status of inadvertent matters not . To further clarify, it is a subsequent change of call, correction of call, or extraneous communication as to the status of the call [eg. I want to correct it to....] that is an irregularity. As such, an inadvertent call is classed as a call not grounded within a partnership system of communication, and law forty grants that such a call may be made [without being an irregularity]. And having said all that, I am at odds as to how an opponent would have knowlege at the time that a call is made that it was inadvertent so as to justify summoning the director to deal with an irregularity . regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Mar 10 02:24:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:24:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070309090314.02a3c490@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Are you saying that, for the purposes of Law 16, >>no unauthorized information can result from what has >>occurred? If so, when partner draws an inference and >>bases ensuing action upon it? Eric Landau: >If it were possible for the withdrawn call to have >provided any useful information, unauthorized or >otherwise, it could not have satisfied the strict >inadvertency criterion of L25A. The TD who allowed >the penalty-free correction has, by doing so, >implicitly ruled that there was no UI. Richard Hills: Yes, when Sean Mullamphy arrived at the table, my partner explained his thumbling inadvertency by stating that his thumb pulled the 1S card from the bidding box because the 1S card was adjacent to the intended 1NT card. The extraneous information that I have gained - that a bidding box is constructed so that the 1S card is next to the 1NT card - is not also unauthorised information, but is instead authorised general bridge knowledge. For what it is worth, the former blmler David Stevenson (once described as "unofficial moderator of blml") is - or was - also a supporter of Eric Landau's view. 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 schoderb at msn.com Sat Mar 10 02:52:09 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:52:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sickness Message-ID: Some of the discussion about an inadvertent call makes me sick. Is it or not UI? What does it show? How far can we extend the English language to come up with some atrocity? Have words lost their meaning, or are they ultimately to be interpreted ad nauseum? The childishness of what BLML has sometimes deteriorated to is revealing. It's entertaining that supposedly intelligent people go to the extremes they have demonstrated to get their names on the "air." I only thank God that our game has so far survived these forays into insanity. And if I can disturb the profound analyses of the gurus, please remember that the FIRST step in adjudicating a result is to determine if there was damage. Ergo: NO DAMAGE = NO RECTIFICATION. Penalties ? Sure, but give me a better reason than to have not called what was clearly intended, and corrected as such. Kojak From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Mar 10 03:37:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:37:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >My "improvement ratio" is showing some flaws. It doesn't deal >well with various combinations that have come up recently. > >Unless anyone has something better to suggest I plan to >replace it with a simple "rulings improved minus rulings >worsened" metric. Richard Hills: GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If the only data measured by Adam is whether rulings are improved, then a stupid AC which makes no changes to a stupid TD's ruling gets the same rating as an intelligent AC which makes no changes to an intelligent TD's ruling. Adam Wildavsky: >There were only eight cases in all, easily besting the >previous low of 18 cases in Chicago -- fantastic! Richard Hills: Perhaps not "fantastic" but instead "catastrophic". The adjective "fantastic" is correct if there has been a fantastic improvement in the accuracy of rulings by TD at ACBL Nationals. The adjective "catastrophic" is correct if in recent times the ACBL has discouraged appeals to such an extent that players who are the victims of incorrect rulings decide that it is not worth bothering to appeal. And the adjective "ridiculous" is correct if anecdotal evidence about ACBL screeners is true. That anecdotal evidence suggests that screeners are exceeding their mandate by acting as a mini-Appeals-Committee-of-one, and altering table Directors' rulings without referring back to the table Director or indeed the other side. That is, the drop in publicly recorded appeals may be due to privately arranged outcomes provided by screeners. 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 Sat Mar 10 06:13:38 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:13:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] Sickness References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: [blml] Sickness > And if I can disturb the profound analyses of the gurus, please remember > that the FIRST step in adjudicating > a result is to determine if there was damage. Ergo: NO DAMAGE = NO > RECTIFICATION. Penalties ? Sure, but give me a better reason than to > have not called what was clearly intended, and corrected as such. > > Kojak It is distressing that the times that I have been called to the table I have always failed to perform first, the first step. I have always first asked, 'May I help?' with the idea of learning the facts in order to determine what irregularity, if any occurred. Unfortunately I feel that I will continue to fail. roger pewick From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Mar 10 08:54:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:54:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F2643A.1050107@NTLworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] The ACBL has posted the Honolulu appeals casebook: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Honolulu2006.html There were only eight cases in all, easily besting the previous low of 18 cases in Chicago -- fantastic! [Richard Hills] Perhaps not "fantastic" but instead "catastrophic". The adjective "fantastic" is correct if there has been a fantastic improvement in the accuracy of rulings by TD at ACBL Nationals. The adjective "catastrophic" is correct if in recent times the ACBL has discouraged appeals to such an extent that players who are the victims of incorrect rulings decide that it is not worth bothering to appeal. And the adjective "ridiculous" is correct if anecdotal evidence about ACBL screeners is true. That anecdotal evidence suggests that screeners are exceeding their mandate by acting as a mini-Appeals-Committee-of-one, and altering table Directors' rulings without referring back to the table Director or indeed the other side. That is, the drop in publicly recorded appeals may be due to privately arranged outcomes provided by screeners. [Nige1] Thank you Adam. Instructive and amusing. But just as well that there were so few appeals because most of your information is in pdf. Paupers like myself cannot afford broadband and life is too short to wait for bulky pdf files to ponderously download and slowly display. [Adam Wildavsky] I've updated my casebook summaries page: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/ My "improvement ratio" is showing some flaws. It doesn't deal well with various combinations that have come up recently. Unless anyone has something better to suggest I plan to replace it with a simple "rulings improved minus rulings worsened" metric. [Richard Hills] GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If the only data measured by Adam is whether rulings are improved, then a stupid AC which makes no changes to a stupid TD's ruling gets the same rating as an intelligent AC which makes no changes to an intelligent TD's ruling. [nige1] I'm sure Adam would condemn a committee decision to uphold a bad director ruling. I would also like him to high-light cases where the law itself is at fault. I agree with Richard's earlier points. It would be better if there were fewer appeals but not at any cost. The most efficient and sensible means to that end would be make the rules as simple, objective, clear and complete as possible. What is the *intended* role of ACBL screeners? It does seem a good idea for would-be appellants to consult an independent advisor before going ahead. IMO other methods of reducing appeals are bad for the game. Equity rulings seem designed to placate and encourage law-breakers and to make it harder for victims to appeal; and if the ACBL ever adopt 12C3 it will give directors and/or committees more scope to decide competitions on a whim. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Mar 10 11:24:55 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:24:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: <000a01c75e5e$7e9cf1e0$39ca403e@Mildred> References: <94A4CC5E-A983-49FC-896D-255409E6C841@rochester.rr.com> <000a01c75e5e$7e9cf1e0$39ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <45F28777.3020403@NTLworld.com> [Ed Reppert] A question was raised on the BBO forums. Here's the scenario: You're dealer. The auction goes 1S-(P)-P-(2C)-....P-(P)-2D-(3C). You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this information UI to you? (A poll in the BBO thread was split 50=50). Reference was made to Law 73D1, in particular the last clause "inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be an opponent, and at his own risk," with the claim that this "clearly" shows that you *are* constrained by UI here. It ain't clear to me. :-) One further question: if you *are* constrained by UI, where does it stop? Will partner be further constrained if you bid? Will it ever be possible to arrive at a reasonable contract? [Grattan Endicott] +=+ This is a question that has lodged in my mind for over twenty years. It happened that the bidding went 1S - p - 2S - 3C p* - p - 3S - p 4S all pass. Ten tricks. (* ages ) The Director was not called. Perhaps he should have been. [nige1] IMO.... Perhaps Grattan should have called the director. Certainly, players should not have to wait another twenty years for law-makers to clarify this issue. I agree with Tim West-Mead's argument: TFLB L16A: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of ...unmistakable hesitation..., the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. This means that if partner chooses a suggested action then it must be the only popular logical alternative. TFLB L73A1 mandates "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves". This clearly states that You you may base your actions only on your hand and the calls and plays of others. In this case, you must not base a call on the *unusual situation* that you have created by your tempo-break. Pretty conclusive. TFLB 73D1 ends with ".. inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." Thus, you must not a draw direct or indirect inference from a tempo-break unless by an opponent. Icing on the cake. Finally.... TFLB L73D1 starts "it is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." Hence a tempo-break is not always an *infraction* of the law. TFLB L73a2, however, tells us "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste". So a tempo-break is always a procedural *irregularity* and a potential source of unauthorised information. In natural justice, it seems wrong that a player profit by his irregularity (although, admittedly, there are plenty of precedents among other Bridge rules). Anyway, Tim is right. But that is not the end of the matter. Players enjoy the simple challenges of the game of Bridge: bidding and play. They should not be forced to wrestle with super-sophisticated arguments created by unnecessary and ultra-complex rules. [A] Most players (and many directors) seem to find it hard to distinguish authorised from unauthorised information. [B] Few players can perform the contortions of imagination needed to avoid using unauthorised information from clearly remembered events. For example, the above interpretation implies that an early item of unauthorised information can have an inhibiting effect on every subsequent action by either partner, in a hand. That way madness lies. [C] Perhaps it could be an (unenforceable) *propriety* that player should not generate or use unauthorised information. When Bridge players were *Ladies and Gentlemen* the purpose of the proprieties was to remind them of expected behaviour :) [D] A more realistic answer may be to crack down on (or possibly just to ignore) the unauthorised information itself. [E] But if a director decides the hand should be continued after unauthorised information, then the penalty for creating it should be adequate to compensate the non-offenders for authorising the information to all. From schoderb at msn.com Sat Mar 10 13:48:40 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:48:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sickness References: Message-ID: I stand corrected. My unfortunate use of First Step was not what I intended. Roger is, off course, correct in the action he takes. My intent was that once you have the "facts" of why you are at the table, and you are pondering what your proper action should be, it is paramount that your underlying basis for any further action is to determine if there was damage caused by the irregularity, infraction, or circumstances. Reading my posting, I realize that is not what it says. I meant to stress that above all there has to be damage to the opponents in arriving at their result before the TD should enter into changing it. Too often I have seen TDs go off on tangential routes where there is no reason to do so. My apologies. Thank you, Roger. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sickness > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:52 PM > Subject: [blml] Sickness > > > > And if I can disturb the profound analyses of the gurus, please remember > > that the FIRST step in adjudicating > > a result is to determine if there was damage. Ergo: NO DAMAGE = NO > > RECTIFICATION. Penalties ? Sure, but give me a better reason than to > > have not called what was clearly intended, and corrected as such. > > > > Kojak > > It is distressing that the times that I have been called to the table I > have > always failed to perform first, the first step. I have always first > asked, > 'May I help?' with the idea of learning the facts in order to determine > what irregularity, if any occurred. Unfortunately I feel that I will > continue to fail. > > roger pewick > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 10 13:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <64E63C75-C344-4812-8A84-7AD4D3728E68@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Was the question resolved? I'm with Richard - if the inadvertent call > is cancelled, then in effect it never happened. How can something > that never happened be an irregularity? Dealer (North) opens 1D. East overcalls 1H. North then says "That's insufficient - I opened 1S..oh my!.. I meant 1S". The TD is called and establishes that the 1D was inadvertent and allows a correction to 1S. If we say an inadvertent bid is NOT an irregularity then 1H is now an IB and East is OS. The info from the 1H bid is AI to NS and UI to W, EW will face penalties if 1H is not corrected to 2H. If we say that an inadvertent bid IS an irregularity the 1H may be withdrawn but the information is now AI to EW and UI to NS. The situation is similar if East reaches into the bidding box to make an overcall and, at that point, North notices and corrects - East now passes 1S. At no point has East done anything wrong - he is acting in tempo over the apparent call. To me it seems insane that anybody suggests that East be treated as OS (or that NS should have as AI the fact that East was prepared to overcall 1D but not 1S). We *need* an inadvertent bid to be an irregularity in order to be fair to the opponents. Obviously if the irregularity is noticed and corrected before East reaches/bids/otherwise gives away info there will be no UI, no penalty, no problem. Tim From john at asimere.com Sat Mar 10 17:29:31 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:29:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Sickness References: Message-ID: <002401c76331$47f75f90$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sickness > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:52 PM > Subject: [blml] Sickness > > >> And if I can disturb the profound analyses of the gurus, please remember >> that the FIRST step in adjudicating >> a result is to determine if there was damage. Ergo: NO DAMAGE = NO >> RECTIFICATION. Penalties ? Sure, but give me a better reason than to >> have not called what was clearly intended, and corrected as such. >> >> Kojak > > It is distressing that the times that I have been called to the table I > have > always failed to perform first, the first step. I have always first > asked, > 'May I help?' with the idea of learning the facts in order to determine > what irregularity, if any occurred. Unfortunately I feel that I will > continue to fail. Not often one can lgitimately say blml 7; Kojak 0 :) John (ACBL scoring!) > > roger pewick > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 10 18:47:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:47:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <324FEA62-7618-454A-9141-BB64B299A606@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 10, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Ed wrote: > >> Was the question resolved? I'm with Richard - if the inadvertent call >> is cancelled, then in effect it never happened. How can something >> that never happened be an irregularity? > > Dealer (North) opens 1D. East overcalls 1H. North then says "That's > insufficient - I opened 1S..oh my!.. I meant 1S". The TD is called > and > establishes that the 1D was inadvertent and allows a correction to 1S. > > If we say an inadvertent bid is NOT an irregularity then 1H is now > an IB > and East is OS. The info from the 1H bid is AI to NS and UI to W, EW > will face penalties if 1H is not corrected to 2H. > > If we say that an inadvertent bid IS an irregularity the 1H may be > withdrawn but the information is now AI to EW and UI to NS. > > The situation is similar if East reaches into the bidding box to > make an > overcall and, at that point, North notices and corrects - East now > passes 1S. > > At no point has East done anything wrong - he is acting in tempo over > the apparent call. To me it seems insane that anybody suggests that > East be treated as OS (or that NS should have as AI the fact that East > was prepared to overcall 1D but not 1S). We *need* an inadvertent > bid to > be an irregularity in order to be fair to the opponents. > > Obviously if the irregularity is noticed and corrected before East > reaches/bids/otherwise gives away info there will be no UI, no > penalty, > no problem. Good point. But... I must be getting senile. I've always accepted that if a player's RHO makes a Law 25A change to his call after the player has called (but before LHO has called, of course) the player may change his own call without penalty. But I just spent a few minutes looking for the law that says so, and I can't find it. Can't find a general one that says a player may change his call after an irregularity, either. Help! From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 10 19:18:10 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:18:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c76340$75f9f240$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > Dealer (North) opens 1D. East overcalls 1H. North then says "That's > insufficient - I opened 1S..oh my!.. I meant 1S". The TD is called and > establishes that the 1D was inadvertent and allows a correction to 1S. > > If we say an inadvertent bid is NOT an irregularity then 1H is now an IB > and East is OS. The info from the 1H bid is AI to NS and UI to W, EW > will face penalties if 1H is not corrected to 2H. > > If we say that an inadvertent bid IS an irregularity the 1H may be > withdrawn but the information is now AI to EW and UI to NS. > > The situation is similar if East reaches into the bidding box to make an > overcall and, at that point, North notices and corrects - East now > passes 1S. > > At no point has East done anything wrong - he is acting in tempo over > the apparent call. To me it seems insane that anybody suggests that > East be treated as OS (or that NS should have as AI the fact that East > was prepared to overcall 1D but not 1S). We *need* an inadvertent bid to > be an irregularity in order to be fair to the opponents. Tim has obviously found a glitch in the laws here. East can never be an offender in this scenario but L25A does not explicitly say so. (Curiously L25B is OK in this respect!) I trust that no Director has ever ruled or would ever rule against an East in such a situation, and let us just hope that WBFLC is aware of this glitch so that it is fixed with the coming law revisions. Regards Sven From david.g.martin at btinternet.com Sat Mar 10 19:43:02 2007 From: david.g.martin at btinternet.com (David Martin) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:43:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <00a601c76343$ef0b6ad0$0200a8c0@David> To bid 1D when you mean 1S is clearly misinformation covered by Law 21B1 so East can change his call without penalty. WTP? Regards ? David Martin -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:18 PM To: blml Subject: [SPAM]Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > Dealer (North) opens 1D. East overcalls 1H. North then says "That's > insufficient - I opened 1S..oh my!.. I meant 1S". The TD is called and > establishes that the 1D was inadvertent and allows a correction to 1S. > > If we say an inadvertent bid is NOT an irregularity then 1H is now an IB > and East is OS. The info from the 1H bid is AI to NS and UI to W, EW > will face penalties if 1H is not corrected to 2H. > > If we say that an inadvertent bid IS an irregularity the 1H may be > withdrawn but the information is now AI to EW and UI to NS. > > The situation is similar if East reaches into the bidding box to make an > overcall and, at that point, North notices and corrects - East now > passes 1S. > > At no point has East done anything wrong - he is acting in tempo over > the apparent call. To me it seems insane that anybody suggests that > East be treated as OS (or that NS should have as AI the fact that East > was prepared to overcall 1D but not 1S). We *need* an inadvertent bid to > be an irregularity in order to be fair to the opponents. Tim has obviously found a glitch in the laws here. East can never be an offender in this scenario but L25A does not explicitly say so. (Curiously L25B is OK in this respect!) I trust that no Director has ever ruled or would ever rule against an East in such a situation, and let us just hope that WBFLC is aware of this glitch so that it is fixed with the coming law revisions. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Mar 10 21:20:38 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:20:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another wereWolff Message-ID: <004901c76351$9218fb40$6400a8c0@rota> Non-NABC+ case 3 is another case in which the comments were unanimous except for Wolff, who suggested a ruling which might preserve his sense of equity but which both questions the ethics of the NOS and creates a situation in which the OS may gain from an infraction. South may have made a revoke which had no effect on the play, but mixed the cards before the revoke could be ascertained. The TD and Panel both ruled a one-trick penalty, in accordance with the Law because a player who mixes his cards prematurely could conceal the only evidence of a revoke. Here are the comments: "(1) The revoke was entirely meaningless with the bridge of the matter - an easy 4S making four, +620 N/S. "(2) Some disagreement as to what cards were played, allowed for in the laws with the stipulation that a mixing of the discard pile would normally be suggestive of deciding against the mixer-upper. "(3) The equity of the matter is that E/W wanted something for nothing and while that may be barely acceptable at times, the circumstances of this particular case cried out for "No revoke". "To me this case should be decided "No revoke" with an admonition to E/W - 'In the future, please do not pursue wanting something for nothing." That decision, at least to me, fits in well with our Zero Tolerance principle extending it to rewarding good sportsmanship and denouncing poor sportsmanship. Second choice would be, in this match point tournament, to award N/S -100 for poor execution but E/W -620 so that the field is protected.' That quote, "please do not pursue wanting something for nothing," suggests that it is improper to call the TD to impose the penalty for a revoke. The TD ruling went against N/S when E/W called the TD, so that would have been the time for the admonition to be given, possibly when E/W became aware of the revoke (South revoked at trick four and claimed at trick five). If South had left his cards intact, the penalty would have been imposed (assuming that the revoke had occurred), and E/W could not give back the one-trick penalty. From john at asimere.com Sun Mar 11 04:24:02 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:24:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000801c76340$75f9f240$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c7638c$b7bfa570$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............. >> Dealer (North) opens 1D. East overcalls 1H. North then says "That's >> insufficient - I opened 1S..oh my!.. I meant 1S". The TD is called and >> establishes that the 1D was inadvertent and allows a correction to 1S. >> >> If we say an inadvertent bid is NOT an irregularity then 1H is now an IB >> and East is OS. The info from the 1H bid is AI to NS and UI to W, EW >> will face penalties if 1H is not corrected to 2H. >> >> If we say that an inadvertent bid IS an irregularity the 1H may be >> withdrawn but the information is now AI to EW and UI to NS. >> >> The situation is similar if East reaches into the bidding box to make an >> overcall and, at that point, North notices and corrects - East now >> passes 1S. >> >> At no point has East done anything wrong - he is acting in tempo over >> the apparent call. To me it seems insane that anybody suggests that >> East be treated as OS (or that NS should have as AI the fact that East >> was prepared to overcall 1D but not 1S). We *need* an inadvertent bid to >> be an irregularity in order to be fair to the opponents. > > Tim has obviously found a glitch in the laws here. East can never be an > offender in this scenario but L25A does not explicitly say so. (Curiously > L25B is OK in this respect!) Oh for heaven's sake! 25a Isn't relevant in that sense. How do we play bridge? John > > I trust that no Director has ever ruled or would ever rule against an East > in such a situation, and let us just hope that WBFLC is aware of this > glitch > so that it is fixed with the coming law revisions. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From david.g.martin at btinternet.com Sat Mar 10 19:25:59 2007 From: david.g.martin at btinternet.com (David Martin) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:25:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] [SPAM]Re: By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAhZSnPDbuBMjmoYOELU6yLkMjIA References: AAAAAAhZSnPDbuBMjmoYOELU6yLkMjIA Message-ID: <009c01c76341$8d964c90$0200a8c0@David> To bid 1D when you mean 1S is clearly misinformation covered by Law 21B1 so East can change his call without penalty. WTP? Regards ? David Martin -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:18 PM To: blml Subject: [SPAM]Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > Dealer (North) opens 1D. East overcalls 1H. North then says "That's > insufficient - I opened 1S..oh my!.. I meant 1S". The TD is called and > establishes that the 1D was inadvertent and allows a correction to 1S. > > If we say an inadvertent bid is NOT an irregularity then 1H is now an IB > and East is OS. The info from the 1H bid is AI to NS and UI to W, EW > will face penalties if 1H is not corrected to 2H. > > If we say that an inadvertent bid IS an irregularity the 1H may be > withdrawn but the information is now AI to EW and UI to NS. > > The situation is similar if East reaches into the bidding box to make an > overcall and, at that point, North notices and corrects - East now > passes 1S. > > At no point has East done anything wrong - he is acting in tempo over > the apparent call. To me it seems insane that anybody suggests that > East be treated as OS (or that NS should have as AI the fact that East > was prepared to overcall 1D but not 1S). We *need* an inadvertent bid to > be an irregularity in order to be fair to the opponents. Tim has obviously found a glitch in the laws here. East can never be an offender in this scenario but L25A does not explicitly say so. (Curiously L25B is OK in this respect!) I trust that no Director has ever ruled or would ever rule against an East in such a situation, and let us just hope that WBFLC is aware of this glitch so that it is fixed with the coming law revisions. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: David Martin.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 754 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070310/2005f1fd/attachment-0001.vcf From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 11 23:57:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <324FEA62-7618-454A-9141-BB64B299A606@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Good point. But... I must be getting senile. I've always accepted > that if a player's RHO makes a Law 25A change to his call after the > player has called (but before LHO has called, of course) the player > may change his own call without penalty. But I just spent a few > minutes looking for the law that says so, and I can't find it. Can't > find a general one that says a player may change his call after an > irregularity, either. Help! Oops - you are right I was thinking L16C "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." (I think L16C would be improved by using "irregularity" rather than "infraction" BTW). I thus note that I should rule an inadvertent call as being an "infraction" (slightly stronger than an "irregularity"). As before it's an infraction that carries no penalty and seldom creates UI. Obviously it's an accidental infraction (or I wouldn't allow a L25a change) but most mechanical infractions are accidental. As to what law has been infracted, David Martin suggested L21b (which is fine by me) and I would also offer L18 (two denominations having been used) or an infraction of bidding box regulations (depends what they say). Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 12 01:00:07 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Another wereWolff In-Reply-To: <004901c76351$9218fb40$6400a8c0@rota> References: <004901c76351$9218fb40$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <45F49807.9050500@NTLworld.com> [David Grabiner] > Non-NABC+ case 3 is another case in which the comments were unanimous > except for Wolff, who suggested a ruling which might preserve his > sense of equity but which both questions the ethics of the NOS and > creates a situation in which the OS may gain from an infraction. > > > > South may have made a revoke which had no effect on the play, but > mixed the cards before the revoke could be ascertained. The TD and > Panel both ruled a one-trick penalty, in accordance with the Law > because a player who mixes his cards prematurely could conceal the > only evidence of a revoke. Here are the comments: > > > > "(1) The revoke was entirely meaningless with the bridge of the matter > - an easy 4S making four, +620 N/S. > > > > "(2) Some disagreement as to what cards were played, allowed for in > the laws with the stipulation that a mixing of the discard pile would > normally be suggestive of deciding against the mixer-upper. > > > > "(3) The equity of the matter is that E/W wanted something for nothing > and while that may be barely acceptable at times, the circumstances of > this particular case cried out for "No revoke". > > > > "To me this case should be decided "No revoke" with an admonition to > E/W - 'In the future, please do not pursue wanting something for > nothing." That decision, at least to me, fits in well with our Zero > Tolerance principle extending it to rewarding good sportsmanship and > denouncing poor sportsmanship. Second choice would be, in this match > point tournament, to award N/S -100 for poor execution but E/W -620 so > that the field is protected.' > > > > That quote, "please do not pursue wanting something for nothing," > suggests that it is improper to call the TD to impose the penalty for > a revoke. The TD ruling went against N/S when E/W called the TD, so > that would have been the time for the admonition to be given, possibly > when E/W became aware of the revoke (South revoked at trick four and > claimed at trick five). If South had left his cards intact, the > penalty would have been imposed (assuming that the revoke had > occurred), and E/W could not give back the one-trick penalty. > > [nige1] The revoke law could be simpler but it is objective and fair. I'm sure that Bobby Wolff has no special relationship with North or South so his comments illustrate again that legal gurus often reveal ignorance of Bridge rules and how the rules of a game should work, even in basic cases. In such circumstances, it seems daft to continue defending other legislation that is over-sophisticated and unnecessarily subjective. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 12 02:36:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Sickness [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not for punishment of irregularities, but rather for redress of damage." William Schoder: > ... My intent was that once you have the "facts" of >why you are at the table, and you are pondering what >your proper action should be, it is paramount that >your underlying basis for any further action is to >determine if there was damage caused by the >irregularity, infraction, or circumstances. ... I >meant to stress that above all there has to be >damage to the opponents in arriving at their result >before the TD should enter into changing it. Too >often I have seen TDs go off on tangential routes >where there is no reason to do so. ... Richard Hills: Umm. As the Laws are currently written "paramount" is an over-statement, and one cannot describe as "tangential" Law 65D (Agreement on Results of Play): "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim a revoke." In the parallel "Another wereWolff" thread it was revealed how under Law 65D South was deemed to have revoked, and how the deemed revoke had zero effect on the play, but the undamaged East-West were given a bonus trick. Bobby Wolff shares the belief of Kojak and myself that "redress of damage" should be the way revokes are resolved once the 2016 Lawbook comes into effect (with my only quarrel with Bobby Wolff on this issue being the impression he gives that "redress of damage" equity rulings are legal rulings for all infractions under the current 1997 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. 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 Mar 12 04:00:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:00:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] CEO Report ACBL Sept/Oct 2006 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Extracts from CEO Report ACBL September/October 2006: [snip] >I have been asked to make sure we all understand the >relationship that exists between the WBF and the ACBL. >ACBL is the zonal authority for Zone 2. ACBL IS NOT a >member of the WBF. The WBF membership is comprised of >National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) only. In Zone 2, >we have the Canadian Bridge Federation (CBF), United >States Bridge Federation (USBF) and the Mexican Bridge >Federation (MBF). The ACBL elects to pay the dues for >these Federations from general fund revenues. > >At the Board of Governors meeting in Chicago, a >proposal was made to fund these NBOs from general >funds to insure their viability and cover many >expenses related to international competitions. > >Management believes it is time to look seriously at >how we want to proceed in the future. While the vast >majority of ACBL members may be unconcerned with >international competitions, we need to determine our >responsibility to the NBOs given that our mission is >to promote and sustain the game of bridge. We think >discussion needs to take place and the responsibility >for international competition defined and supported. [snip] >1.05 Develop club sanction that does not require >strict adherence to Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. > >Discontinued based on club feedback. [snip] >4.02 Develop quarterly electronic communications to >NBOs and international bridge organizations. > >After much consideration, this should be abandoned. >While occasionally there have been discussions with >other NBOs, there is no need for regular communication, >except to continue to notify the ACBL NBOs of items >from BoD meetings that have an impact on them. [snip] >5.02 Require continuing education and retesting of TDs. > >Training sessions for Tournament Directors are held at >NABCs. A continuation of this program, in a more modest >form, will be conducted in 2007. TD.EDU, a testing >program for junior staff members, was well received >during the first half of 2006. This program is >currently in hiatus, with hopes of re-starting it in a >more expanded fashion in January 2007. Retesting on the >Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (open book test) will >begin in 2007. These will be unannounced. [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 jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 05:42:09 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:42:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@mail.gmail.com> On 3/7/07, in the thread "[blml] L9A vs L73B1", Richard wrote: > > For newbies to blml, an exploration of the October 2002 thread > "the Kaplan question" in the blml archives might be enlightening. > > See: > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-October/date.html > Here is a precis of that thread for other newbies like me. After the long double line below, all of the sentences are from the October 2002 thread. I found that it was easy to arrange the posts as if they were in a conversation. I am surprised to see that I left out much of Herman's writing, but that is probably because I find his position the most persuasive. Instead, I made sure to include mostly David Burn's words, for that is supposed to be what the newbies should focus on to learn the error we are making about 1C in the thread "L9A vs L73B1." ============================================== 1. David Burn: If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in which you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also positions in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to rectify the situation at the table. But you must not use questions either to communicate with partner, or to deceive an opponent. You're supposed to ask your opponents to explain their methods, not tell them what you think their methods are and see if they agree with you. > In the case I talk of, with the Belgian AC, the fellow asking > the question told me he did not realize he had the queen when > he asked about her. He should not have been asking about the queen of trumps. He should have been asking what 5H meant; when he was told, he should have accepted the explanation he was given; and if his side was damaged because the explanation was incorrect, he should have sought redress. Now, I know that in the real world, people don't do this. They ask all sorts of improper questions, they are given (and accept) a lot of partial or wrong explanations, because they do not treat every situation at the bridge table with a high degree of formality. And no more they should, of course; not every event is a World Championship, and most of the time, a less than strictly legal approach will do no harm and will contribute to a more enjoyable game. But if you ask the wrong question, it is no defence to claim that you then asked another wrong question because you thought you might have been given the wrong answer to the first wrong question. And you must be extremely careful not to ask questions (or do anything else) that might imply anything about the contents of your hand. Just because your opponents may be doing wrong, that does not give you licence to do wrong yourself. ============================================== 2. David Burn: When the first question was wrongly put, and the second question was manifestly absurd, the person who asked both questions should not benefit from that either. ============================================== 3. Eric Landau: To set the record straight, in the case reported in the Bulletin it was clear that the original question was *not* "wrongly put". The original "question" was in fact a request for a full review of the auction accompanied by explanations of the calls. In the ACBL, that has been officially stated to be the "most preferred" form of inquiry at the end of the auction. ============================================== 4. Herman: Just to make one small point, the first question was not wrongly put, it was "what is 5He?". The player thought he knew the answer, because he knew his opponent (he was from the same club). The answer "two" surprised him. So he inquired further "of five?". ============================================== 5. David Burn: Oh, well. Presumably, then, there were three questions, one of which was the not entirely correct "what is 5H?" and the other two the innocuous "of five?" and the entirely illegal and misleading "does it deny the queen of trumps?" >Again, you are ruling against the wrong offender. I am ruling against a player who broke Law 75 and perpetrated an illegal deception. If the question arose: did North-South cause damage by their inadequate explanations? then I would consider a score adjustment if the answer proved to be "Yes". If the question arose: should North-South be penalised for errors in procedure by giving inadequate explanations? then I would consider so doing if the nature of the event and the experience of North-South made this appropriate. In other words: North-South have committed an infraction. I do not know whether this resulted in damage to be redressed, or whether it would be considered serious enough to result in a procedural penalty; but if this turned out to be the case, I would rule against North-South in both respects. East-West have also committed an infraction. This certainly resulted in damage to be redressed, and was certainly serious enough to warrant an additional procedural penalty. I will therefore also rule against East-West in both respects. If this leads to an adjustment in which North-South fail in their slam while East-West have it made against them, and both sides are then fined several victory points for abuse of procedure, splendid. That, after all, is what they deserve. Where more than one side has offended, one rules against more than one set of offenders; they are both the "right" offenders against whom to rule and neither is the "wrong" offender. But one does not say: "Well, these offences seem to have cancelled one another out, so we will rule against no one." I think, though, that provided the facts regarding the question as to the queen of trumps were as reported in the original message to BLML, I am unlikely to be persuaded from my original view that it was a question that should not have been asked, and that if it deceived an opponent, redress was due. ============================================== 6. David Burn Whatever your opponents do, you must behave correctly. You may ask questions at your turn to call. But these questions must conform to a prescribed format, must not amount to harassment, and above all must never be asked either for the purpose of communicating with partner or of deceiving an opponent. ============================================== 7. Eric Landau: Once again, David asserts the unarguable but irrelevant. The opponents have a long auction to a slam, which includes a 4NT-5H sequence. Now if E had merely said, "Did 5H show the queen of trump?" we would (at least almost) all agree that that would violate L73E. But he didn't; he asked for a full review with explanations. That *was* "behav[ing] correctly" and "conform[ing] to [the] prescribed format". When the information about the queen of trumps was not forthcoming, he continued to "conform to [the] prescribed format" by asking about it specifically with a follow-up question, which got him the answer he was legally entitled to on the basis of his original request. ============================================= 8. David Burn If, despite your best intentions, it is held that your question could have communicated with partner, or could have deceived an opponent, then you are subject to penalty and your score may be adjusted. Infractions committed by the opponents are *not* mitigating circumstances in judging infractions committed by your side. ============================================= 9. Eric Landau: That is a good, logical argument, but is not responsive to Herman's. Because it rests on a fundamental premise with which all (or at least most) of us agree: "it is [not] OK to commit an infraction of your own to avoid damage from an infraction by an opponent". The argument isn't over whether it's OK for E to commit an infraction; it's over whether what E did should be considered an infraction. David B. (along with David S. and Norman) obviously believe that it should (L73E); Herman (along with Mr. Gerard and the AC that heard the actual case) believe that it should not (L20F). IMHO, the jury is still out, although so far I'm finding Herman's argument more convincing. One side offers examples which at least suggest that the holder of the trump queen may have a genuine need to know what his opponents' actual agreement is; the other side merely asserts that this cannot be so. ============================================= 10. David Burn I assert only that I do not consider anything an "example" of what might constitute a "demonstrable bridge reason" unless the so-called example consists of, at a minimum, a 13-card hand and an auction. And I am frankly a little surprised that Eric considers what he has received so far to be anything resembling an example of when one might legitimately want to know that the opponents thought they had the queen of trumps, knowing oneself that they did not. Both sides have so far done nothing but make assertions. But when one side asserts that X exists, and the other side that X does not, it is irrational (as well as impractical) for the second side to have prove its case by showing that everything in the world is not-X. However, thanks to Roger's kindness, I have been able to read the original article, which has proved yet another confirming instance of one of my hypotheses. If there is a proposition p such that: p has to do with the rules of bridge, and Ron Gerard believes p, then p is false. ============================================= 11. You know who: > > So the question at issue remains whether a player > holding the queen of trump who asks about it can be > presumed to be doing so "for the purpose of communicating > with partner or of deceiving an opponent". Which in > turn depends on whether it is possible that he might have > a valid "bridge reason" for obtaining the answer. > +=+ If the Director is summoned and protest made that the question was deceptive and caused protester to draw an incorrect inference the player who asked the question will be required to show that he did indeed have a bridge reason for asking it. There does not have to be any presumption - a set of circumstances exists in which if it becomes an issue the player may be required to show that he had a valid bridge reason for the question. The point that seems to have been little stressed in this correspondence is that defender has asked a question that is capable of misleading declarer. If in fact declarer is misled, the defender is required to show that he had good reason in bridge terms to ask the question which he knew could mislead. If he has no demonstrable bridge reason for his action in asking the question then the Director is required, say again 'required', to adjust the score under Law 73F2. Law 73F2 stands upon three legs: that the action could work to the player's benefit, that the player could know this was the case, and that having done it he is unable to show that he had a bridge reason for doing it. Aside from this there is a further question arising in parallel under Law 73D2: was the action an attempt to mislead? On another tack the player's question may convey UI to partner; if this is the case Law 73C applies and Law 16A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ============================================= 12. Eric Landau: This is the most sensible thing that has been written in this thread since I raised what I thought was a side-issue of "two aces" and that nasty queen of trumps. Let's see if it can settle the original question. We can stipulate the following: (a) Defender's question was capable of misleading declarer. (b) Declarer was in fact misled. (c) The action could work to the player's benefit ("on balance" is required here, but met). (d) The player could know that this ((a) and (c)) was the case. (e) The action was not an attempt to mislead. We are reduced to "the player who asked the question will be required to show that he did indeed have a bridge reason for asking it". When I wrote the reply to David B. cited above, I replied to the assertion that the question was ipso facto illegal by saying that it "depends on whether it is possible that he might have a valid 'bridge reason' for obtaining the answer". Grattan and I are in total agreement. So what have we learned from all this? I think we've actually achieved some consensus, albeit not an overwhelming one. We have rejected the AC's reasoning (at least as Mr. Gerard reported it): we do not believe that the mere fact that the information was withheld in reply to the original, correctly formulated line of questioning, by itself, is sufficient to establish a valid bridge reason for asking for it. We shall never know whether justice was done, because it would appear that the key question was never asked. We perforce reject even more forefully Mr. Gerard's "new view" opinion; he would actually encourage *always* asking under the circumstances (with or without the queen, of course). And we've all picked up some practical advice: if you find yourself in the situation faced by that lady in Washington and you really want to know what five hearts said about the queen of trump, you'd better know who's going to be on the appeals committee. If it's David B., David S. and Norman, you'd better keep your mouth shut. If it's Ron Gerard and the folks on the Washington committee, feel free to ask away. If it's Grattan, Alain, Herman and me, be prepared to convince us that you had a legitimate reason for wanting to know the answer. And, to make it all complete, we may actually have learned something about (gasp!) the subject of the thread. For if we do indeed agree that the mere fact of information withheld doesn't justify asking a question without a valid bridge reason for wanting to get the answer, that settles Mr. Kaplan's hash, does it not? It's been a very nice discussion, folks, and I thank you all. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 05:42:36 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:42:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 2 of 2) Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703112142t41e1bb73y1427d16664435da2@mail.gmail.com> Continuing on my precis of the Kaplan Question topic from October 2002: ================================================== 13. David Burn: You may ask questions. But you may ask questions only of a certain type, and that type can be categorised by the word "neutral". You may not ask questions that offend, or questions that inform, or questions that deceive. ================================================== 14. Eric Landau: We're discussing unusual circumstances here, debating whether they presumptively "legalize" an action that would be illegal under typical circumstances. The laws of bridge do not lend themselves to being reduced to simplistic, categorical rules (if they did, BLML probably wouldn't exist), but ISTM that that is what David is doing here. Consider... > You may not ask questions that offend, Of course you may. Humans are funny; one cannot be held responsible for knowing what would offend someone else. You may not, of course, ask a question that you expect will give offense, or that a reasonable person would assume might give offense (L74A2). > or questions that inform, Of course you may. You may not, of course, ask for the purpose of communicating the information (L73B), and partner may not take any possible advantage from information obtained by virtue of your having asked (L73C). > or questions that deceive. Of course you may. You may not, of course, as Alain suggests, ask for the purpose of deceiving or, indeed, for any purpose which lacks a "demonstrable bridge reason" (L73F2). ================================================== 15. David Burn ogan at fas.harvard.edu (apologies for referring to you in this somewhat impersonal fashion, but I'm afraid I don't know who you are) wrote: > I'm pretty new to serious bridge, but this situation has confused > me since I started. The idea that there can be something wrong > with asking what opps' bidding has shown, no matter what I'm > holding, could ever be wrong makes no sense to me. I can understand that. It is a fundamental assumption in the Laws that information possessed by the opponents should be available in equal measure to you. Since you don't play their methods, the only ways in which this information can be made available to you are: they write it all down beforehand and you commit it to memory; or they impart it to you as the need arises at the table. Of these, the latter is considered the more practical in most situations. But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence is illegal communication with partner. Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices, something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the gravest possible offence", then anything that might be used as a means of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not allowed to transmit information to partner by means of questions. Also, you are not allowed to deceive the opponents except by a call or play (or, more strictly, if you do deceive your opponents in such a manner, redress may be given them). Hence, you are not allowed to deceive an opponent by means of questions - whether you do so wittingly or not. Because of these conflicts between rules, a compromise is generally reached: you may do anything to obtain knowledge of the enemy methods, provided that it does not: convey information to partner; deceive an opponent; cause offence; unduly prolong the game; or any one of a lot of other things that you're not allowed to do. Now, the opponents are supposed to respond fully and accurately to questions properly phrased. If they conceal information from you, as by giving wrong or incomplete answers to questions, then they have offended and they are subject to penalty; moreover, damage done you by their offence is redressed. But nowhere in the Laws is there any support whatsoever for what we will call the Gottcheiner Assumption, which is that if they break the rules by not telling you their methods, some immunity is thereby conferred on you for breaking the rules by asking misleading questions. It is not. > Is it "convoluted" or "ridiculous" to want to try to reconstruct > declarer's hand based on all available information from the bidding? No. But some information may, through no fault of your own, not become available to you. It is an imperfect world, and as I have said, there are principles in conflict here. If you do not have enough information through your opponents' fault, and you are damaged thereby, then you may seek and will usually be given redress. But you may not seek further information except by means of questions that do not communicate with partner and do not deceive an opponent. It really is every bit as simple as that, and I am getting a bit weary of pointing this out. Whoever you are, ogan at fas, I am glad that you are among us, but I fear that after a while, you may find yourself echoing the words of the immortal Yogi Berra: "It's deja vu all over again". > I just don't understand the argument. Then the chairmanship of the Laws Commission of any major country is yours for the asking, provided that you can also show that you don't understand several others. ================================================== 16. Tim West-Meads: > But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; > among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence > is illegal communication with partner. Somehow the word "prearranged" has gone missing from this presumption. If my opponents place me in a position where I cannot obtain proper disclosure through a neutral question then I have to ask a non-neutral one (or call a TD to the same effect). ================================================== 17. David Burn No, you don't. It is not for you to enforce the Laws. If the opponents place you in a position where you cannot obtain proper disclosure, then you accept their improper disclosure and, if you have been damaged thereby, you obtain redress. You do not have to break the Laws regarding illegal communication, or deception by means other than a call or play, just because you think that the opponents have broken the Laws regarding disclosure of methods. They may not disclose their methods less than fully. But you may not ask non-neutral questions, and their failure in no way excuses yours. All he had to do, all he should have done, was ask his opponents what their bidding meant. If they lied to him, and if he misdefended in consequence, avenues for redress were wide open to him. It's really got nothing to do with "justifiable bridge reason", though in the current climate I can accept the argument of a man who says: "The WBF expects me to protect myself, so I had better make sure that I do so by asking any relevant question." This is another one of those conflicts that I was talking about when I responded to ogan's message, and one that I confess I have not (because it would not have supported my arguments) considered until now. Neither has anybody else, which surprises me. This is not, however, because I do not believe that the conflict exists. It does, and I can understand players being wary of it and being confused by it. The Laws create these conflicts and do nothing to resolve them - that much is true, and that is why there is something to discuss. But the main point is this: you do not have to ask your opponents any more than you need to know; and - however great your need to know something, and however great your suspicion that the opponents have not in fact told you the truth - you *may not* ask your opponents anything that might fool them or tell partner anything that he did not know before you asked. If the opponents do not tell you what they know and you might need to know, when they should have told you, then they have misinformed you; the penalties and liability for score adjustment arising from misinformation are well understood. What Wally says above is what Herman and Alain and others have said before. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the duties of players and the functions of the Laws. Your duty at the table is never to "squeeze an explanation" out of your opponents. If they don't give you a full and accurate explanation when you ask at your proper turn, by means of properly constituted questions, for an explanation, then you may claim redress for any ensuing damage. What you may never do is ask improperly constituted questions. But the plain and simple fact is this: no matter what your provocation, you must not break the rules. If your properly asked questions do not receive full and accurate answers, your remedy - and your only remedy - is to seek redress for damage done. You do not have the option of asking improper questions just because the proper ones don't seem to be working. And if you damage your own side's interests by asking such questions, you must suffer the consequences. ================================================== 18. Tim West-Meads: > No, you don't. It is not for you to enforce the Laws. If the opponents > place you in a position where you cannot obtain proper disclosure, then > you accept their improper disclosure and, if you have been damaged > thereby, you obtain redress. Unless deemed unworthy of redress due to a lack of self-protection - as you pointed out. The combination of self-protection and not being allowed to ask does seem likely to reward improper disclosure > You do not have to break the Laws regarding > illegal communication, In the absence of screens even "correct" questions (or looking at a CC) can make UI available to partner - that doesn't make such questions (or looking) illegal. The "Kaplan" question was rendered illegal by Lille 98 - a fact I have acknowledged several times, while pointing out that I believe their decision to be flawed and unnecessary. > or deception by means other than a call or play, Opponent's draw inferences *at their own risk*. If, by improper disclosure, they create a situation where they are likely to draw incorrect inferences from necessary questions they increase those risks substantially. > just because you think that the opponents have broken the Laws regarding > disclosure of methods. They may not disclose their methods less than > fully. But you may not ask non-neutral questions, and their failure in > no way excuses yours. I may ask any questions necessary to achieve disclosure (L20F1). If these questions create UI for partner then L16 may apply - that's just something we have to live with. ================================================== 19. Eric Landau: But a player holding the queen of hearts (leaving aside for the moment the fact that the actual question at issue was about the queen of *trump* in an RKC auction where it may not have been clear what the opponents thought the presumed trump suit was) *doesn't* presumptively know the answer to "Does it deny the queen of hearts?" or the even better, more neutral, "Does it say anything about the queen of hearts?", and David would disallow the latter as well. > Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they > will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices, > something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the gravest > possible offence", then anything that might be used as a means > of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not allowed > to transmit information to partner by means of questions. Come on, David. "The gravest possible offense" is *intentional* illegal communication with partner. But that's not been at all an issue in this thread. ================================================== 20. David Burn: Come on yourself, Eric. You know as well as I do that intent is never an issue. What matters is not what you meant to do; what matters is whether what you do is the same thing as someone who meant to do wrong. > What we're talking about here is the everyday garden variety > of "illegal communication", which isn't really illegal at all Of course it is. Law 73B1 says: Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. Whereas you are (almost) correct in saying that there are forms of illegal communication which are not "the gravest possible offence", that does not mean that there are some forms of illegal communication that are not an offence at all. So serious are such offences that *anything* which follows as a consequence of *any* communication between partners other than by calls or plays must be annulled, and any advantage therefrom removed. I would indeed not allow anyone to ask any question at all containing the words "queen of hearts". The only questions I would allow anyone to ask are of these forms: Format 1 [words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation of..." followed by [words meaning] "...the auction" or "...the call of X" (in a context where it is permitted to ask about a specific call); Format 2 The same as Format 1, with the words "an explanation of" replaced by "some more information about". ================================================== 21. Richard Hills: David Burn wrote: >>You are not supposed to transmit unauthorised >>information, just as you are not supposed to steal. [snip] Not so. Because the Laws wrote: >inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a >call or play is made does not in itself constitute a >violation of propriety Therefore, transmission of UI is not necessarily comparable to stealing. >>The only questions I would allow anyone to ask >>are of these forms: >> >> >>Format 1 >>[words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation >>of..." followed by [words meaning] "...the >>auction" or "...the call of X" (in a context >>where it is permitted to ask about a specific >>call); >> >>Format 2 >>The same as Format 1, with the words "an >>explanation of" replaced by "some more >>information about". >> >>David Burn >>London, England The Laws permit a third format; L20F1 states: >questions may be asked about [snip] >relevant calls available but not made That is, the Laws themselves rule that non-generic questions are in some circumstances legal. ================================================== 22. Richard H: Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction commenced: LHO Pard RHO 1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) (1) Weak (2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted The next player took over-optimistic action, and was carted out for a big penalty. The ACBL AC ruled that that player had failed to protect their side, as they had not asked a question about RHO's Pass. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 05:43:00 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:43:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45EC4EE9.1040008@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703112143w44dbc92i5f09281030ff443f@mail.gmail.com> On 3/7/07, richard.hills wrote: > > For newbies to blml, an exploration of the October 2002 thread > "the Kaplan question" in the blml archives might be enlightening. > > See: > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-October/date.html > Richard H and Konrad are still on record stating that calling the director about the MI (of the unalerted 1C bid that is alertable on the convention card and that affects the meanings of your partnership's calls) is not permitted under the laws, citing Law 9A1 and the WBF Laws Committee minutes 1st September 1998: "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." They feel this way even though the information in the reply is authorized. And they also believe that the quoted minutes somehow forbids calling the director to clear up the MI before proceeding with the auction. Konrad says you must assume that 1C is natural and ask nothing and call no one---even if you are not sure and you see a conflict with the convention card. He said that you are not allowed to give UI to partner. I think that last idea is clearly wrong. Partners can't help but give each other UI. If I take 30 seconds to select my call, that is UI to my partner. If I call in perfect tempo, that is also UI. Both cases are clearly I, and both are clearly U. Every question causes UI, and every nonquestion does to. The tone of your voice when you call the director transmits UI. Not all UI is infractional---most is just extraneous. Even when UI demonstrably suggests nothing, it is still UI. If the only questions that can be asked are the ones that cannot possibly transmit UI, then no questions can be asked. Anyway, on the other side of this issue seems to be just about everyone else who responded in the thread. I said that, at least in the ACBL, you had better protect yourself, and that calling the director is probably the best way to do so. Here is the ACBL regulation: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." The Orange Book has these similar regulations: "3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled." "5 H 1 A player's claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side's interests at risk." I see from the Kaplan question thread that almost the same Orange Book regulation was in effect in 2002. Where ever these kinds of regulations govern, you are specifically called upon to protect yourself and ask even if you are aware of an unalerted bid's most likely meaning. Probably Sven puts it much better: "There is a common misunderstanding that Law 73B1 prohibits asking questions when such asking can create UI. That is not what L73B1 says, and it is not what is intended." "An otherwise legal action is never illegal because "it can create UI". What L73B1 prohibits is to communicate with partner by other means than legal calls and plays (excluding the manners in which such calls and plays are made)." "Law 16 recognizes that extraneous information will exist in many situations, for instance as the result of (legal) questions asked. What is prohibited is not the creation of UI (e.g. extraneous information) but the (illegal) use of such information." Nigel wrote, "In the original case, you do *not* know what opponents methods are. Their card said 1C may show a doubleton. The alert-failure contradicted that meaning. In such cases, in the UK, you are enjoined to `protect yourself'." Herman and Sven say asking for an explanation of 1C is somewhere between fine and required. Alain says to ask, or better yet, call the director when the CC has different information and it affects a call you are considering. Eric: "Had the opponents fulfilled their disclosure obligations, partner would have the information, and it would be ordinary AI. Here it's the same I; should the fact that partner elicted it rather than its having been volunteered make it U? The sequence of events that "unauthorized" it started with an MI infraction by the opponents; absent the infraction, it could not have "transformed itself" into UI, and would be unquestionably authorized. That seems a bit perverse." Steve W: "In the ACBL, based on my personal experience, South would be well-advised to ask. The chance of getting redress later is remote." Alain says, "... the fact that some rulings included the terms "failed to protect oneself" is an unmistakable sign that you *are* allowed to ask (requested, in fact) with the only purpose of protecting yourself. IOW, "protecting yourself" is a legal bridge reason." "Now, I repeat, if it is illicit to let partner know (in a neutral way) they failed to alert, *and* if it can happen that you be denied of redress because you didn't ask (and, contrary to some opinions expressed here, this also happens without screens), this constitutes a lose-lose for the NOS, and a big incentive not to explain (or not fully)." But Richard Hills and Konrad are apparently unconvinced. Richard even offers the Kaplan question thread of October 2002 to bolster his position. But I don't think the thread does that. Obviously, Richard wants us to focus especially on the arguments of David Burn to see why the meaning of the unaltered 1C cannot be clarified by a question or a director call. But I fail to see that in David Burn's arguments. See my posting today called "the Kaplan Question (precis)," where I have assembled (I hope) relevant quotes from that very long thread in 2002. In David Burn 1, we find "If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in which you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also positions in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to rectify the situation at the table....He should not have been asking about the queen of trumps. He should have been asking what 5H meant." David Burn explicitly said that neutral questions to rectify the MI are lawful. In David Burn 5, he says two questions about the underexplained 5H are fine---but not the third question, which he calls "the entirely illegal and misleading `does it deny the queen of trumps?'" And in David Burn 17, "If your properly asked questions do not receive full and accurate answers, your remedy - and your only remedy - is to seek redress for damage done." Again, neutral questions to clear up MI can be fine. And, oddly, Richard Hills 21 and 22 seem to me to undermine his position today. In any case, I see no argument of David Burn's that would ban clarifying the situation about 1C with a neutral question, such as "What does 1C show?" Richard and Konrad, have you changed your position? Or perhaps you can show the error on the other side? Also, any chance that this issue will be clarified in the next law book? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 12 06:00:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:00:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45F28777.3020403@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >TFLB L73a2, however, tells us "Calls and plays should be made >without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without >undue hesitation or haste". > >So a tempo-break is always a procedural *irregularity* [big snip] Richard Hills: No, Nigel's use of the word "always" is incorrect. Nigel has failed to pay attention to the qualifying adjective "undue". If one breaks tempo because one has a genuine bridge problem, and the amount of time spent thinking about that hesitation is proportionate to the difficulty of the genuine bridge problem, then that hesitation is not "undue", so that particular tempo- break is not of itself a procedural irregularity. Of course, if partner can deduce the nature of one's genuine bridge problem, then partner's selection of calls from among logical alternatives is restricted. But if one has an ethical partner, then no irregularity - procedural or otherwise - will occur. 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 Mar 12 09:06:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:06:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F50A18.6030603@NTLworld.com> TFLB L73a2, however, tells us "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste". [Richard Hills] No, Nigel's use of the word "always" is incorrect. Nigel has failed to pay attention to the qualifying adjective "undue". If one breaks tempo because one has a genuine bridge problem, and the amount of time spent thinking about that hesitation is proportionate to the difficulty of the genuine bridge problem, then that hesitation is not "undue", so that particular tempo- break is not of itself a procedural irregularity. Of course, if partner can deduce the nature of one's genuine bridge problem, then partner's selection of calls from among logical alternatives is restricted. But if one has an ethical partner, then no irregularity - procedural or otherwise - will occur. [nige1] I fear that Richard may be right but for the sake of a fairness, I hope he is wrong. When the law talks about "undue hesitation or haste" I thought it meant you must try to keep an even tempo *whatever problem you face*. Justifiable exceptions may be at trick one and after a stop bid. I didn't believe that it meant that you may spend the amount of time that is appropriate to the problem you face. For instance, suppose Partner opens 4H, RHO bids 4S and you double with *due haste* --- i.e. forthwith -- because you hold a stack of spades with a void in hearts and you have nothing to think about. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 12 11:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > No, Nigel's use of the word "always" is incorrect. Nigel has > failed to pay attention to the qualifying adjective "undue". Certainly not a failure to pay attention to the word. It is a matter of when one considers hesitations "due" and "undue". I don't regard thinking about a bidding/play problem as something which makes a hesitation due/expected (indeed if player has a bidding problem that is the very moment when the maintenance of regular tempo is most important). There are certain positions where we *expect* hesitations (e.g. when players are still settling in at the table, sorting their cards at the start of a hand, when dummy goes down, when required to do so by SO regulation). There are also external factors which may make a hesitation "due" such as a TD announcement, a waitress bringing drinks or whatever. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 12 13:25:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c7649f$d731eee0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > You putting down dummy has that effect on me :) John Luckily the effect is mitigated by the fact that opps expect a degree of hesitation at that time. Our cause would be assisted if you could refrain from *indicating* the extent to which the dummies I put down fail to resemble the hands I have bid:) It should be noted that if *I* am putting down dummy while John is declaring the hand is known to have been misbid (as evidenced by the contract having been wrong-sided). Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 12 15:38:04 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 2 of 2) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703112142t41e1bb73y1427d16664435da2@mail.gmail.co m> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312152606.0281f3e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:42 11/03/2007 -0600, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >But nowhere in the Laws is there any support whatsoever for what >we will call the Gottcheiner Assumption, which is that if they >break the rules by not telling you their methods, some immunity >is thereby conferred on you for breaking the rules by asking >misleading questions. It is not. The guy who took my answers to mean this didn't read the? with all due care. What I mean is that, when an important item of information is missing from their explanation, and you've got some bridge reason for asking, you're allowed to fetch this item by asking specific questions. If they guess your motives wrongly (provided you have some), too bad for them ; it'll teach them to explain correctly. One example was when I asked whether their weak 2-bid showed 6 cards or only 5 (unmentioned on the CC). Screens were present. I needed that information to know the meaning of partner's double (TO over 6-card ; optional over 5-card) and the associated response scheme. LHO took this to mean that I had some trumps and that I thought about passing. Too bad. They should have filled their CC better. If those questions transmt UI to partner, the TD and AC should avoid being unnecessarily harsh, because : 1) not asking, when you could be expected to ask, also transmits UI, so opponents' infraction causes you to transmit UI whatever you do. 2) some TDs and ACs have been known to demand that you take necessary steps to enquire when needed ("protecting yourself"). If, after their infraction, both asking and not asking put you at a (legal) disadvantage, something is rotten. Best regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 12 15:57:52 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:57:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004701c764b6$e7417280$93cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John wrote: > > > You putting down dummy has that effect on me :) John > > Luckily the effect is mitigated by the fact that opps expect a degree of > hesitation at that time. Our cause would be assisted if you could > refrain from *indicating* the extent to which the dummies I put down fail > to resemble the hands I have bid:) It should be noted that if *I* am > putting down dummy while John is declaring the hand is known to have > been misbid (as evidenced by the contract having been wrong-sided). > > Tim > +=+ Occasioned, that is, by a measure of disbelief? +=+ From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 12 18:02:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:02:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <004701c764b6$e7417280$93cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001901c764c8$40f5b5f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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. > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:25 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> John wrote: >> >> > You putting down dummy has that effect on me :) John >> >> Luckily the effect is mitigated by the fact that opps expect a degree of >> hesitation at that time. Our cause would be assisted if you could >> refrain from *indicating* the extent to which the dummies I put down fail >> to resemble the hands I have bid:) It should be noted that if *I* am >> putting down dummy while John is declaring the hand is known to have >> been misbid (as evidenced by the contract having been wrong-sided). >> >> Tim >> > +=+ Occasioned, that is, by a measure of disbelief? +=+ It's probably time for the obligatory Jewish rubber bridge humour. "OK, partner, that's very funny; now put down the real dummy." "Where's the hand you've just been bidding?" "30 years I play with you, you bid worse every day, but today you bid like it's tomorrow" "I know you only learnt today, was it this morning or this afternoon?" "We won't be needing these" etc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 18:19:52 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:19:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 2 of 2) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312152606.0281f3e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312152606.0281f3e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703121019q78aba784t40ffd117bd744faf@mail.gmail.com> On 3/12/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 22:42 11/03/2007 -0600, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > >But nowhere in the Laws is there any support whatsoever for what > >we will call the Gottcheiner Assumption, which is that if they > >break the rules by not telling you their methods, some immunity > >is thereby conferred on you for breaking the rules by asking > >misleading questions. It is not. > > The guy who took my answers to mean this didn't read the? with all due care. > Well, it wasn't me. I was quoting David Burn here. I really wish David would return to BLML! However, on this issue I currently agree with you completely. > 2) some TDs and ACs have been known to demand that you take necessary steps to enquire when needed ("protecting yourself"). In the ACBL, I think we can safely substitute "most" for "some." I also believe that in the ACBL, underdescriptions of your agreements increases, on average, your equity on the deal. One of the clearest examples here is a game try. -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 12 22:52:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:52:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45F50A18.6030603@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >When the law talks about "undue hesitation or haste" I >thought it meant you must try to keep an even tempo >*whatever problem you face*. [snip] >I didn't believe that it meant that you may spend the >amount of time that is appropriate to the problem you >face. > >For instance, suppose Partner opens 4H, RHO bids 4S >and you double with *due haste* --- i.e. forthwith -- >because you hold a stack of spades with a void in >hearts and you have nothing to think about. Richard Hills: I am not saying that "due hesitation" or "due haste" will not create unauthorised information and therefore restrict partner's options under Law 16. So in Nigel's example, if partner has a logical alternative to a pass of 4Sx (for example 5D if pard's 4H opening was based on a 0-7-5-1 shape), then pard is required to select that logical alternative since your "due haste" double demonstrably suggested a pass. I usually avoid "due hesitation" or "due haste" myself, preferring to choose the second-best call in uniform quick tempo, rather than choose the perfect call after a break in tempo. Calling with celerity and panache also avoids giving authorised information to the opponents that I have a problem, thus increasing the chance that they guess wrong in the subsequent auction. But my calling with celerity and panache is not because hesitating is illegal, but because a break in tempo is bad strategy, since it may restrict partner's options under Law 16. WBF Code of Practice, Guidelines for Rulings, number 5: >>An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit >>well with WBF thinking in relation to what they >>called "hot seat" auctions. It is desirable to >>exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a "hesitation" >>when a player encounters an unprecedented situation >>in the auction. [bidding with screens advice snipped] >>An aspect that has special significance, when a >>player meets a quite unusual bidding situation and >>takes time to deliberate, is how clearly it is >>apparent to partner what is the nature of his >>problem. In such a situation a player may have to >>think from scratch what action is appropriate, and it >>is not altogether rare that he may have all three >>options - pass, double (redouble), and bid, and a >>choice to make. If a Director is inclined to find >>that the partner's subsequent bid is suggested by the >>breach of tempo, the first consideration is to judge >>whether it can truly be said that one action is >>suggested over another, or whether the message from >>the "hesitation" is unclear. A sympathetic treatment >>of the law here should be an aim and it is an area in >>which regulating authorities may find it helpful to >>give guidance. 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 Mar 13 01:48:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:48:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau (October 2002 posting): [snip] >If it's Grattan, Alain, Herman and me, be prepared to >convince us that you had a legitimate reason for wanting to >know the answer. > >And, to make it all complete, we may actually have learned >something about (gasp!) the subject of the thread. For if we >do indeed agree that the mere fact of information withheld >doesn't justify asking a question without a valid bridge >reason for wanting to get the answer, that settles Mr. >Kaplan's hash, does it not? > >It's been a very nice discussion, folks, and I thank you all. Richard Hills: In this posting, Eric Landau was discussing a subordinate case, a Law 73F2 "could have known" deceptive question, which was: "Does your 5H response deny the queen of trumps?" when the questioner held the queen of trumps as one of her thirteen cards. Eric Landau used discussion of this "could have known" deceptive question on blml to draw a general principle which is also applicable to the non-deceptive "Kaplan question". That is, you must have a legitimate bridge reason for wanting to know the answer before asking a question. Bouncing a question off an opponent so that partner knows what you already know is not, in my opinion, a legitimate bridge reason. A case in point occurred in an Aussie country congress some years ago. Blmler Noel Bugeia uses a variant of my Symmetric Relay system (system notes emailed on request), and he and his partner misbid to 6C missing the ace and king of diamonds. As soon as dummy appeared, I knew that dummy had misbid. But I was not permitted to ask a question awakening pard to the fact that a wheel had fallen off in the opponents' auction. So, partner chose the "expert" defence of smoothly ducking his ace of diamonds when a diamond was led from dummy to the closed hand queen. -920. (Perhaps I should have risen with the king of diamonds in second seat, but an advantage of Noel's relay methods was that declarer's hand was totally unknown, so rising could have turned +50 into -920 on a slightly different lie of the cards.) Of course, if I had asked a question in the above example, that would be a "pro question", not a "Kaplan question". A "pro question" is asking a question when the opponents have not previously given MI, and you are aware of their agreed methods but partner is not. A "Kaplan question" is asked when the opponents have indeed previously given MI, and you are aware of their agreed methods but partner is not. If a blmler believes that the "pro question" is illegal but also believes that the "Kaplan question" is legal, then it seems to me that that blmler is saying Yes to the question: "Do two wrongs make a 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 anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Mar 13 02:39:40 2007 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:39:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <004701c764b6$e7417280$93cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001901c764c8$40f5b5f0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001201c76510$78f765f0$805b0d52@AnnesComputer> I always tell my babies that if I can't teach them to play bridge I will teach them to look as though they can. One thing they get taught is to never look as though Dummy's cards are a surprise to them. Say "Thank you pard" as though it is exactly what they were expecting :-)) I must admit I myself have one partner who always says "Thank you partner, it's a beautiful Dummy" and I know from the emphasis on 'beautiful' that the better it sounds, the worse it is. I suspect that this is gamesmanship and could be construed as intending to mislead defenders. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:57 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> 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. >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tim West-Meads" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:25 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> John wrote: >>> >>> > You putting down dummy has that effect on me :) John >>> >>> Luckily the effect is mitigated by the fact that opps expect a degree of >>> hesitation at that time. Our cause would be assisted if you could >>> refrain from *indicating* the extent to which the dummies I put down >>> fail >>> to resemble the hands I have bid:) It should be noted that if *I* am >>> putting down dummy while John is declaring the hand is known to have >>> been misbid (as evidenced by the contract having been wrong-sided). >>> >>> Tim >>> >> +=+ Occasioned, that is, by a measure of disbelief? +=+ > > It's probably time for the obligatory Jewish rubber bridge humour. > > "OK, partner, that's very funny; now put down the real dummy." > "Where's the hand you've just been bidding?" > "30 years I play with you, you bid worse every day, but today you bid like > it's tomorrow" > "I know you only learnt today, was it this morning or this afternoon?" > "We won't be needing these" > > etc. > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 13 03:40:37 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:40:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <200703121436.l2CEar5C004472@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703121436.l2CEar5C004472@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45F60F25.8060804@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jerry Fusselman" >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-October/date.html Thanks, Jerry. I don't remember the thread; perhaps I was away at the time. Or perhaps there's a more worrisome explanation. :-( >...to learn the error we are making about 1C in the thread "L9A > vs L73B1." There's a very significant difference between the 2002 case and the recent one, if I understand correctly. In the old thread, the issue seems to be that the question may have misled an opponent in violation of L73F2. I don't think Kaplan or anyone else condones that; one infraction doesn't justify another. (There seems to have been some uncertainty over whether the question was in fact a violation of L73F2, but I don't see any doubt that L73F2 is fully in effect despite prior MI from an opponent.) In the more recent case, a player has discovered an apparent conflict between the opponents' CC and (absence of) an alert. In the circumstances -- an opening 1C bid on his right -- it's hard for me to see how asking a neutral question could either expose anything about the asker's hand (especially because the asker is about to show his suit with his bid) or mislead an opponent. And he most certainly has a valid bridge reason for clarifying the opponents' agreement: his bid depends on the answer. The issue here is whether the question could be an illegal attempt to communicate with partner (L73B1). I think the answer must be "no." If the deal were played with screens, where communication with partner is impossible, wouldn't the question be certain? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 13 03:42:02 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:42:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c76510$78f765f0$805b0d52@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Probst: >>It's probably time for the obligatory Jewish rubber bridge humour. >> >>"OK, partner, that's very funny; now put down the real dummy." >>"Where's the hand you've just been bidding?" >>"30 years I play with you, you bid worse every day, but today you bid >>like it's tomorrow" >>"I know you only learnt today, was it this morning or this afternoon?" >>"We won't be needing these" >> >>etc. Anne Jones: >I must admit I myself have one partner who always says "Thank you >partner, it's a beautiful Dummy" and I know from the emphasis on >'beautiful' that the better it sounds, the worse it is. Richard Hills: When my partner is female, as declarer I announce "beautiful dummy", then after a pause I add, "and the cards are nice too". When dummy has passed throughout, and unsurprisingly displays a yarborough, as declarer I triumphantly announce, "No wasted values!" Plus, of course, I illegally communicate with dummy via Cooper Echoes and Psychic Cooper Echoes, both of which are fully disclosed, which causes some sociable hilarity at the table amongst all three of my 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. 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 Tue Mar 13 06:56:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:56:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703122256t73b03b65la3a335c917fe1584@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills wrote: > That > is, you must have a legitimate bridge reason for wanting to > know the answer before asking a question. > That translates to this: "You cannot ask a question without your hand being such that you need to know." And that translates to this: "A legal question must reveal something about your hand to partner and opponents alike." Why not consider wanting to understand the auction a valid bridge reason? Do bridge authorities have some peculiar definition of "information" that no mathematician would recognize? Undeniably, if your hand must have certain characteristics to warrant asking a question, then asking the question reveals that your hand has those characteristics. That is, your question conveys information. Apparently, Richard and many others want your questions to always convey this kind of information. If, like Ron Gerard recommends, you don't require certain characteristics in your hand to ask a question, then your question no longer conveys that information. -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 13 07:32:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:32:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45F0C922.2070204@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner asserted: [snip] >>Further, I'll suggest that the _only_ information >>that can _ever_ become UI is knowledge of the >>cards one has not yet seen in the normal course >>of play. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: >What about information concerning partner's >intentions? Australian Directors' Bulletin, February 2002: South-West Pacific Teams - Table one. Bd. 5 / N / NS 63 Q7 QT8654 JT09 QJ7 AK2 JT865 K9 973 --- Q8 AK765432 T9854 A432 AKJ2 --- West North East South --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) Pass 2D(3) Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass (1) 0-7 HCP any shape (2) Game Force, but described by West as 15-18 balanced. (3) 6+ HCP with hearts opposite a GF, but 6-9 with hearts opposite a strong NT. Result: E/W +920 N/S are unhappy about East's decision to leap to 6C after the misexplanation. They argue that seven would have been a possibility opposite an unlimited positive response and that East also minimised the chances of any further misunderstandings with his terminal action. 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 Mar 13 07:59:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:59:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45F60F25.8060804@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >In the more recent case, a player has discovered an apparent >conflict between the opponents' CC and (absence of) an alert. [snip] >And he most certainly has a valid bridge reason for >clarifying the opponents' agreement: his bid depends on the >answer. The issue here is whether the question could be an >illegal attempt to communicate with partner (L73B1). I think >the answer must be "no." [snip] Richard Hills: Important note. I have snipped Steve Willner's caveats which pertain to the _particular_ hand at the stem of the parallel "L9A vs L73B1" thread because I wish to highlight the _general_ principle. Suppose 2C as Simple Stayman is written on the opponents' CC, and local regulations require Simple Stayman to be alerted. And suppose a 2C response to 1NT is not alerted. If a double of Stayman shows clubs, but a double of a natural 2C shows the other three suits, could a question about the 2C call be an illegal attempt to communicate with partner (L73B1)? I think the answer must be "yes". My point is that circumstances alter cases, so trivial MI by one side does not automatically allow open slather questions by the so-called "non-offending" other side. 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 Tue Mar 13 11:22:41 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:22:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703122256t73b03b65la3a335c917fe1584@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:56 12/03/2007 -0600, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >Do bridge authorities have some peculiar definition of "information" >that no mathematician would recognize? Undeniably, if your hand must >have certain characteristics to warrant asking a question, then asking >the question reveals that your hand has those characteristics. That >is, your question conveys information. Apparently, Richard and many >others want your questions to always convey this kind of information. Is there any possibility to allow "random questions", like "randoms timings", in such a way as to avoid giving out any information when you ask an important one ? From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 13 12:22:03 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:22:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00bd01c76562$595e4860$f8ae87d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis,part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] . > > Suppose 2C as Simple Stayman is written on the opponents' CC, > and local regulations require Simple Stayman to be alerted. > And suppose a 2C response to 1NT is not alerted. If a double > of Stayman shows clubs, but a double of a natural 2C shows the > other three suits, could a question about the 2C call be an > illegal attempt to communicate with partner (L73B1)? I think > the answer must be "yes". > +=+ I would think the players here are in the hands of the TD and his judgement of the balance of probabilities. Not every TD would reach the same conclusion - which might perhaps even hinge on the purply bloom on the players' cheeks. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 13 12:23:46 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:23:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis,part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Bouncing a question off an opponent so that > partner knows what you already know is not, > in my opinion, a legitimate bridge reason. > +=+ A demonstrable bridge reason? I agree that it is not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 13 12:32:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > But my calling with celerity and panache is not because > hesitating is illegal, but because a break in tempo is And I have not suggested that breaking tempo with a problem is illegal. It is merely "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws" and thus an irregularity. It is precisely because it is an irregularity that information arising therefrom is unauthorised. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 13 12:33:29 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:33:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00c401c76563$82d540d0$f8ae87d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Jerry Fusselman" ; Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Is there any possibility to allow "random questions", > like "randoms timings", in such a way as to avoid > giving out any information when you ask an important > one ? > +=+ A subject debated at length in the WBFLC and other bodies of that ilk. But 'random' achieves nothing because such questions can never be truly random - stress, inflection, mannerisms, you name it, are not controlled by any such concept. Players learn their partners' habits and infer. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 14 02:16:29 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:16:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hawaii Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <200703091942.l29JgVEs029531@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703091942.l29JgVEs029531@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45F74CED.5050309@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > (1) The probability of a weak hand is greater than that of the > stronger hand. ... > (2) If West has a stronger hand, 3H may not end the auction. Those are good arguments; perhaps they were obvious to everyone except me. Nevertheless, I wish the writeup had mentioned them. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 03:42:02 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:42:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703131942w43cb176ctba4278e0ee1747d8@mail.gmail.com> > > > > Bouncing a question off an opponent so that > > partner knows what you already know is not, > > in my opinion, a legitimate bridge reason. > > > +=+ A demonstrable bridge reason? I agree > that it is not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I am not sure what this means exactly, but the topic under discussion is clearing up a case of *possible* MI. Either the lack of alert was wrong, or the convention card was wrong. (In my experience with apparent failures to alert in the first round of bidding, the card is wrong maybe 10% or 20% of the time.) Those who would rather allow the probable MI to stand have not addressed the issues of failing to protect oneself as required under law and taking double shots. I cannot tell which side Grattan is on the issue. It is not a matter of two wrongs making a right, its a matter of one wrong + one right (opponent's probable MI + you attempt to clear it up) vs. two wrongs (opponent's probable MI + let the probably MI remain, guess whether it is MI or not, fail to protect yourself as required under law, and take your double shot). It seems to me that even David Burn recommends clearing up MI as long as it can be done with neutral, nonmisleading, nonoffending questions. What I would really like to know is this: Is this distrust of clearing up probable MI in a proper, neutral way merely an ivory-tower concern, or are there any logged cases where NOs clearing up this kind of MI with a proper question or director call was judged wrong? -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 14 03:58:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:58:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads asserted: >And I have not suggested that breaking tempo with a problem is >illegal. It is merely "A deviation from the correct procedures >set forth in the Laws" and thus an irregularity. Richard Hills quibbles: I dispute that breaking tempo is _necessarily_ a deviation from correct procedures set forth in the Laws, so I dispute Tim's proposition that _all_ breaks in tempo are irregularities. Law 73D1: ".....Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." WBF Code of Practice page 7: "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." Tim West-Meads asserted: >It is precisely because it is an irregularity that information >arising therefrom is unauthorised. Richard Hills quibbles: Incorrect reasoning. What about Law 16B? A non-irregularity of overhearing a spoken-bidding 7NT call at the next table still means that the sharp-eared teenager concerned has received unauthorised information about a possible contract for a board in their next round. 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 Mar 14 07:40:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:40:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 2 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703112142t41e1bb73y1427d16664435da2@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (October 2002): >Some time ago, The Bridge World's editorial >discussed an ACBL appeal where the auction >commenced: > >LHO Pard RHO >1NT(1) Pass Pass(2) > >(1) Weak >(2) Denies 0-5 hcp, not alerted > >The next player took over-optimistic action, and >was carted out for a big penalty. > >The ACBL AC ruled that that player had failed to >protect their side, as they had not asked a >question about RHO's Pass. Richard Hills (March 2007): >From the facts as related by Bridge World editor Jeff Rubens, it seems that that ACBL AC fell into the trap of first deciding what the equitable verdict should be, and only secondarily choosing what Laws they would use to justify the verdict. The player in question chose an action which may well have been chosen by some of that player's peers, but the conservative bidders on the AC believed that that action was irrational, wild or gambling. And, of course, the AC's belief that the action was IWoG may have been subconsciously influenced by the fact that the AC knew all four hands (and the consequent postcode number penalty) when considering its verdict on the rationality of the balancer's jump to a major game. But, as Jeff Rubens noted, even if the action was IWoG, the offending side had increased the chance of the IWoG action occurring by failing to alert. Therefore, Rubens argued (in my opinion correctly) that at the very least the ACBL AC should have awarded a split score, so that the offending side did not benefit from their infraction. Furthermore, it seems to me that the ACBL AC suggestion that a question is required to "protect your side" during a common-or-garden auction which started 1NT - (Pass) - Pass is ridiculous. The "reductio ad absurdum" conclusion of that twisted logic is that "protect yourself" questions are required during _all_ auctions, increasing bridge sessions to interminable length. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 14 10:16:18 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:16:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2b1e598b0703131942w43cb176ctba4278e0ee1747d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00c101c7661e$1925d3f0$1db687d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis,part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > Bouncing a question off an opponent so that > > > partner knows what you already know is not, > > > in my opinion, a legitimate bridge reason. > > > > > +=+ A demonstrable bridge reason? I agree > > that it is not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I am not sure what this means exactly, but the > topic under discussion is clearing up a case of > *possible* MI. Either the lack of alert was > wrong, or the convention card was wrong. (In > my experience with apparent failures to alert in > the first round of bidding, the card is wrong > maybe 10% or 20% of the time.) Those who > would rather allow the probable MI to stand > have not addressed the issues of failing to > protect oneself as required under law and > taking double shots. I cannot tell which side > Grattan is on the issue. > +=+ My position is that the WBFLC interpretation of 1 Sep 1998 ("It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply") precludes a question designed to clear up the meaning of a call for partner. If the player is uncertain himself he is entitled to ask but if he knows the meaning of the call and is asking because he thinks partner may not then he is acting improperly. It is for partner to obtain his own information and not for the player to bounce the information to him in opponent's reply to his question. That is illegal communication with partner. At the higher levels of the game it is expected that a player who has reason to suspect the information he has (and it affects his action) should protect himself to a reasonable degree by enquiry. In the international arena it is not for him to protect partner in that way. I have no knowledge of the ACBL practice in this regard and no comment of mine would be appropriate on that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 14 14:20:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:20:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00c101c7661e$1925d3f0$1db687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2b1e598b0703131942w43cb176ctba4278e0ee1747d8@mail.gmail.com> <00c101c7661e$1925d3f0$1db687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45F7F6A8.1090501@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > +=+ My position is that the WBFLC interpretation > of 1 Sep 1998 ("It is held illegal to ask a question > in order that partner may be aware of the information > in the reply") precludes a question designed to clear > up the meaning of a call for partner. If the player is > uncertain himself he is entitled to ask but if he knows > the meaning of the call and is asking because he > thinks partner may not then he is acting improperly. > It is for partner to obtain his own information and > not for the player to bounce the information to him > in opponent's reply to his question. That is illegal > communication with partner. > At the higher levels of the game it is expected > that a player who has reason to suspect the > information he has (and it affects his action) should > protect himself to a reasonable degree by enquiry. > In the international arena it is not for him to protect > partner in that way. I have no knowledge of the > ACBL practice in this regard and no comment of > mine would be appropriate on that. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > So let's recap: if you believe that they have failed to alert properly, but you are not 100% certain of their system, you are allowed to ask for a clarification; but if you are certain, you are not? How can anyone ever be 100% certain of what system his opponents are playing - even their CC cannot be trusted! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 14 14:53:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > >And I have not suggested that breaking tempo with a problem is > >illegal. It is merely "A deviation from the correct procedures > >set forth in the Laws" and thus an irregularity. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > I dispute that breaking tempo is _necessarily_ a deviation from > correct procedures set forth in the Laws, Of course you do. That is because you interpret the term "undue" in L73a2 differently. Since you believe it is within procedure to hesitate "due to having a bidding problem" and I believe that such hesitations are only "due" in fairly limited circumstances it is unlikely we will come to agreement. Clarification from the WBF would be necessary to resolve how the word "undue" should be interpreted. I'm currently happy with my interpretation as you doubtless are with yours. > WBF Code of Practice page 7: > > "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information > available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or > propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of > the laws." All very well, but not committing an infraction is not the same as conforming to procedure. > Incorrect reasoning. What about Law 16B? A non-irregularity of > overhearing a spoken-bidding 7NT call at the next table still > means that the sharp-eared teenager concerned has received > unauthorised information about a possible contract for a board > in their next round You see, I'd say that overhearing *is* an irregularity (something which isn't supposed to happen), albeit in this case one for which the sharp-eared teenager may be held blameless (if he was listening deliberately he probably wouldn't have then called the TD). The speaker at the next table *may* be to blame - a call of 7NT is often made at a greater volume than is normal. Irregularities can come from outside forces (e.g. the waitress knocking some cards out of your hand). Accidents (you sneeze suddenly and opponent, jumping backwards to avoid the possible output, drops some cards) or carelessness (you take more time to make a bid/play than procedure allows). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 14 15:45:53 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:45:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070309090314.02a3c490@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314092442.02ad7d10@pop.starpower.net> At 06:35 PM 3/9/07, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > If it were possible for the withdrawn call to have provided any > > useful information, unauthorized or otherwise, it could not have > > satisfied the strict inadvertancy criterion of L25A. > >Why not? In the sequence 1H-(X)- "oops I meant 1S not 1H" becoming >"1s-(p)" the information inherent in the double is surely UI to the OS. >That doesn't affect the genuine nature of the L25a correction. I must have replied out of context, since by "the withdrawn call" I meant the 1H bid itself. Clearly there can be secondary UI, e.g. from the manner in which the call was made (where the EI would be about the intended call), or from the opponents. Question: What happens if the opponents react inappropriately to the initial call, such as by showing obvious surprise? Is this "information arising from [the original OS's] withdrawn action" (UI, L16C2) or information "arising" from the opponents action (usuable at the original OSs "own risk", L73D1)? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 14 16:36:28 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:36:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] correcting false impressions Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> While we're speaking of "correcting" opponents' system ... two live cases. Case I : In Belgium, transfers for majors aren't alertable. North : 1NT East : pass South : 2H North : Alert West : "you shouldn't alert this, guys" It happens that 2H is old-fashioned, natural, in N/S's system, and this *is* alertable. Questions : 1) would you rule that UI can arise from West's remark (as e.g., his hand is compatible with South making a transfer response) 2) is North requested (provided he is absolutely sure transfers aren't alertable) to correct West's false impression ? In practice, North said "sorry", and a TD ruled he "could have done it purposely" to maintain the error in West's mind. Case II : You play Texas-Walsh. North : 1C East : pass South : 1Da (NB : 1D, classical Walsh, denying a major unless ..., is alertable) West : 1H (no alert) (NB : cue-bids "carry their own alert", ie aren't alertable) 1) Is North allowed to enquire about the meaning of 1H ? 2) Is North allowed to ask "is that natural or a cue ?" ? 3) If East shows surprise at North's question (1 or 2), should North volunteer an explanation of 1D ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 14 16:44:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:44:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted In-Reply-To: <45F2643A.1050107@NTLworld.com> References: <45F2643A.1050107@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314103239.02ad7180@pop.starpower.net> At 02:54 AM 3/10/07, Nigel wrote: >What is the *intended* role of ACBL screeners? It does seem a good idea >for would-be appellants to consult an independent advisor before going >ahead. They were supposed to briefly review the case and issue dire warnings about deposit losses and the other terrible things that can happen to those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective appelants with obviously meritless appeals, doing their utmost to convince them not to go forward. In practice, what they seem to do is briefly review the case and issue dire warnings about deposit losses and the other terrible things that can happen to those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective appelants regardless of the merits of their appeals, doing their utmost to convince them not to go forward. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 14 17:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314092442.02ad7d10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > Question: What happens if the opponents react inappropriately to the > initial call, such as by showing obvious surprise? Is this > "information arising from [the original OS's] withdrawn action" (UI, > L16C2) or information "arising" from the opponents action (usuable at > the original OSs "own risk", L73D1)? I allow the "obvious surprise" to be used as a wake-up to the player who has made the inadvertent bid (and thus initiate his L25a change). Thereafter I rule it UI to the OS, AI to the NOS. OK, the opponent shouldn't be reacting inappropriately but he wouldn't have been put in that position if the original offender had taken more care to bid as intended. If one is looking at HAKQJTxx after 1D-(4H)- it's damn hard not to seem surprised (before the correction to 4S). Tim From joanandron at worldnet.att.net Wed Mar 14 19:25:30 2007 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:25:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted References: <45F2643A.1050107@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070314103239.02ad7180@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007201c76666$27740240$5a334c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi, I very rarely respond to e-mails that are written here but I feel I need to say something .. Having been in charge of ACBL Appeals as the Board member whose job it is to work with the Chairman of Appeals - you should know that the ACBL believes strongly in the Screening Process. This process is not to strong arm someone into dropping an appeal but rather to help them understand the nature of what they are bringing before the committee. If it is strictly a matter of law the player needs to know this and unless the director has misinterpreted the law , the player is subject to an appeal without merit . Also, the "Screener" can often help the player to understand obvious things such as misinformation vs. misbid which once explained becomes quite clear.When it is a questions of , let's say " Logical Alternative" where bridge judgment is key - then the Screening Director will simply explain the possibilities, but any opinion offered would be strictly that - an opinion..... The ACBL tries to use some of its most competent directors for this Process. I must say that the Screening Process is a great help to the players and the committees. I don't believe there is any strong arming to get appeals to go away. I believe this is a genuine educational process for most of the players. Directors on the floor often do not have enough time to spend with a player to help the player to understand the reason for the ruling. (and yes, I guess I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!) Anyway, I do believe that what I have described is our goal and we have come a lnog way towards reaching it. Take care. Joan Gerard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted > At 02:54 AM 3/10/07, Nigel wrote: > > >What is the *intended* role of ACBL screeners? It does seem a good idea > >for would-be appellants to consult an independent advisor before going > >ahead. > > They were supposed to briefly review the case and issue dire warnings > about deposit losses and the other terrible things that can happen to > those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective appelants with > obviously meritless appeals, doing their utmost to convince them not to > go forward. > > In practice, what they seem to do is briefly review the case and issue > dire warnings about deposit losses and the other terrible things that > can happen to those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective > appelants regardless of the merits of their appeals, doing their utmost > to convince them not to go forward. > > > 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 14 18:31:59 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:31:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2b1e598b0703131942w43cb176ctba4278e0ee1747d8@mail.gmail.com><00c101c7661e$1925d3f0$1db687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <45F7F6A8.1090501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c7665e$b0448cf0$89c687d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > > +=+ My position is that the WBFLC interpretation > > of 1 Sep 1998 ("It is held illegal to ask a question > > in order that partner may be aware of the information > > in the reply") precludes a question designed to clear > > up the meaning of a call for partner. If the player is > > uncertain himself he is entitled to ask but if he knows > > the meaning of the call and is asking because he > > thinks partner may not then he is acting improperly. > > It is for partner to obtain his own information and > > not for the player to bounce the information to him > > in opponent's reply to his question. That is illegal > > communication with partner. > > At the higher levels of the game it is expected > > that a player who has reason to suspect the > > information he has (and it affects his action) should > > protect himself to a reasonable degree by enquiry. > > In the international arena it is not for him to protect > > partner in that way. I have no knowledge of the > > ACBL practice in this regard and no comment of > > mine would be appropriate on that. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > So let's recap: if you believe that they have failed to > alert properly, but you are not 100% certain of their > system, you are allowed to ask for a clarification; > but if you are certain, you are not? > > How can anyone ever be 100% certain of what > system his opponents are playing - even their CC > cannot be trusted! > +=+ I do not think your premise is in total accord with my statement. If giving a ruling the Director has to determine on the balance of probability whether the player has asked the question out of his own need to know or in order to ensure that partner knows. If, for example, questioner's action will be unaffected by the answer to his question but his partner's action may be, it is open to the Director to deem that logically the probable purpose of enquiry is to inform partner via the response. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 19:01:54 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:01:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@mail.gmail.com> I was declarer as South, and while West was considering her lead, East said, "Wait! What did your (my) 2S bid show?" 2S was alerted, but no one asked during the auction. The director was called and ruled that I should not answer East's question at that time. Then West, who had not yet selected her lead, asked the same question. The director ruled I had to answer and West could base her lead on my answer. Presumably he felt there is nothing in the laws to prevent it. I think you all see the problem, but are the laws truly crystal clear on this? I still think the intent of the laws should be obvious: Since East is forbidden to ask at that time, then West should be not able to ask East's question either. (Also, East's question probably creates UI, but I am ignoring that issue here.) Apparently, 73A or 73B were not clearly applicable to this case for this director, who could cite 75A as more important than 20F2. When I answered the question (fourth-suit forcing to game, says nothing about spades), the director left, satisfied that his work here was done. Then West chose her lead. Is there any existing law I could have asked the director to consider? Will the laws be clearer on this issue next year? Or should I hope this is all moot and the problem is too unlikely to appear again? -Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 14 19:28:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:28:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703122256t73b03b65la3a335c917fe1584@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0703122256t73b03b65la3a335c917fe1584@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314122305.02ab76d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:56 AM 3/13/07, Jerry wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > > > That > > is, you must have a legitimate bridge reason for wanting to > > know the answer before asking a question. > >That translates to this: "You cannot ask a question without your hand >being such that you need to know." And that translates to this: "A >legal question must reveal something about your hand to partner and >opponents alike." > >Why not consider wanting to understand the auction a valid bridge reason? Many (most, I think and hope) of us have never not done so. Nor do I think Richard intends to do so here. One of the things that one must learn to do if one is to become an expert at this game is to pay careful attention to the opponents' actions during the auction, developing and continually refining a picture of their possible holdings, for use in determining potential subsequent actions in the remaining auction or during the play. We do this based on both the agreed meanings of the calls they select (which they are obligated to disclose fully) and the accompanying manner in which they make them (legitimately obtained "table feel" per L73D1). If you do not know what an opponent's bid means, and are not permitted to inquire, you cannot "follow" the auction in an attempt to construct and refine a picture of the entire deal; it puts you at a considerable disadvantage for lack of specific information to which you are legally entitled. How can wanting to do so *not* be a "legitimate bridge reason"? Note that post-auction reviews with complete explanations are inadequate to compensate for lacking the information at the proper time, as the "table feel" component will be lost unless one has an eidetic memory. The context of Richard's remark, however, was "the Kaplan question" issue, in which the key premise above ("if you do not know...") is not satisfied. I suspect what Richard really meant was "elicit" rather than "know". L73F2 supports this reading by associating the "bridge reason" with "the action", suggesting that it is the question itself (which is an "action") rather than the desire for the information (which is not) which requires the "reason". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 14 20:01:25 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:01:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: References: <45F60F25.8060804@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314135051.02ac5140@pop.starpower.net> At 01:59 AM 3/13/07, richard.hills wrote: >Steve Willner: > >[snip] > > >In the more recent case, a player has discovered an apparent > >conflict between the opponents' CC and (absence of) an alert. > >[snip] > > >And he most certainly has a valid bridge reason for > >clarifying the opponents' agreement: his bid depends on the > >answer. The issue here is whether the question could be an > >illegal attempt to communicate with partner (L73B1). I think > >the answer must be "no." > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Important note. I have snipped Steve Willner's caveats which >pertain to the _particular_ hand at the stem of the parallel >"L9A vs L73B1" thread because I wish to highlight the _general_ >principle. > >Suppose 2C as Simple Stayman is written on the opponents' CC, >and local regulations require Simple Stayman to be alerted. >And suppose a 2C response to 1NT is not alerted. If a double >of Stayman shows clubs, but a double of a natural 2C shows the >other three suits, could a question about the 2C call be an >illegal attempt to communicate with partner (L73B1)? I think >the answer must be "yes". I don't see the difference Richard must between his example and the thread case. I would assume that since the asking side has agreed defenses for both Stayman and natural 2C bids, both must be in use in this jurisdiction. With conflicting information and one's prospective call depending on which is correct, it must be legitimate to ask for clarification. How else can one select one's call? Of course one must inquire in a proper and appropriate manner, so the answer to "*could* a question about the 2C call be an illegal attempt to communicate..." is that of course it *could*. It *could* be, "That doesn't really show clubs, does it?"! Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 14 21:23:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:23:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314151117.02acc6f0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:22 AM 3/13/07, Alain wrote: >Is there any possibility to allow "random questions", like "randoms >timings", in such a way as to avoid giving out any information when >you ask >an important one ? Why stop there? L73C covers giving out any information not just with a question, but also with a remark, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation. If it made sense to introduce "random questions" (with sufficient frequency) to obscure the importance of the non-random ones, would we not, for similar reasons, want to introduce random remarks, random explanations, random gestures, random mannerisms, random special emphases, random inflections, random haste and random hesitations, to obscure the importance of the non-random ones? The last, at least, has also been suggested in this forum. I remember when the four little words we all lived by were, "Shut up and play!" Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 14 21:52:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:52:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <45F7F6A8.1090501@skynet.be> References: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2b1e598b0703131942w43cb176ctba4278e0ee1747d8@mail.gmail.com> <00c101c7661e$1925d3f0$1db687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <45F7F6A8.1090501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314153645.02ac4690@pop.starpower.net> At 08:20 AM 3/14/07, Herman wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ My position is that the WBFLC interpretation > > of 1 Sep 1998 ("It is held illegal to ask a question > > in order that partner may be aware of the information > > in the reply") precludes a question designed to clear > > up the meaning of a call for partner. If the player is > > uncertain himself he is entitled to ask but if he knows > > the meaning of the call and is asking because he > > thinks partner may not then he is acting improperly. > > It is for partner to obtain his own information and > > not for the player to bounce the information to him > > in opponent's reply to his question. That is illegal > > communication with partner. > > At the higher levels of the game it is expected > > that a player who has reason to suspect the > > information he has (and it affects his action) should > > protect himself to a reasonable degree by enquiry. > > In the international arena it is not for him to protect > > partner in that way. I have no knowledge of the > > ACBL practice in this regard and no comment of > > mine would be appropriate on that. > >So let's recap: if you believe that they have failed to alert >properly, but you are not 100% certain of their system, you are >allowed to ask for a clarification; but if you are certain, you are not? > >How can anyone ever be 100% certain of what system his opponents are >playing - even their CC cannot be trusted! One can't even be "100% certain" that one's opponents and their system actually exist rather than being delusions originating in one's own deranged mind! For one's "uncertainty" to constitute a "demonstrable bridge reason" one must be able to show a reasonable cause for it. A conflict between the opponents' CC and their verbal disclosure is a reasonable cause to become uncertain about what you had previously been sure (albeit not "100% certain") of; the mere fact that a CC that confirms what you had previously been sure of might conceivably be untrustworthy is not. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 14 22:11:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:11:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314155925.02b6b2d0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:53 AM 3/14/07, twm wrote: >Richard wrote: > > > > I dispute that breaking tempo is _necessarily_ a deviation from > > correct procedures set forth in the Laws, > >Of course you do. That is because you interpret the term "undue" in >L73a2 differently. Since you believe it is within procedure to hesitate >"due to having a bidding problem" and I believe that such hesitations >are only "due" in fairly limited circumstances it is unlikely we will >come to agreement. Clarification from the WBF would be necessary to >resolve how the word "undue" should be interpreted. >I'm currently happy with my interpretation as you doubtless are with >yours. Since L73B-F specify several conditions which would obviously make particular instances of hesitation or haste "undue", the most likely interpretation would seem to be that "undue" in L73A2 refers to those conditions. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 14 22:25:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:25:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001401c7667f$44463500$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > I was declarer as South, and while West was considering her lead, East > said, "Wait! What did your (my) 2S bid show?" 2S was alerted, but no > one asked during the auction. The director was called and ruled that > I should not answer East's question at that time. Then West, who had > not yet selected her lead, asked the same question. The director > ruled I had to answer and West could base her lead on my answer. > Presumably he felt there is nothing in the laws to prevent it. > > I think you all see the problem, but are the laws truly crystal clear > on this? I still think the intent of the laws should be obvious: > Since East is forbidden to ask at that time, then West should be not > able to ask East's question either. (Also, East's question probably > creates UI, but I am ignoring that issue here.) Apparently, 73A or > 73B were not clearly applicable to this case for this director, who > could cite 75A as more important than 20F2. When I answered the > question (fourth-suit forcing to game, says nothing about spades), the > director left, satisfied that his work here was done. Then West chose > her lead. > > Is there any existing law I could have asked the director to consider? > Will the laws be clearer on this issue next year? Or should I hope > this is all moot and the problem is too unlikely to appear again? IMO the relevant law is L16A: 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. East's attempt to ask a question before West has selected her lead is illegal and creates extraneous information to West. Among the two alternative actions now primarily available to West (either ask or not ask) she may not choose the action (to ask) obviously suggested over the other (not ask) suggested by East's illegal activity. Next West may have more than one logical alternative (up to a maximum of thirteen) for her opening lead. Among those alternatives she may not choose any card that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by East's illegal activity. I would as TD have denied West the right to ask any question after East's illegal activity, and in addition I would have warned West that it is now her responsibility to avoid to the best of her ability any suspicion of having chosen her opening lead based on this illegal activity. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 14 23:22:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:22:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314135051.02ac5140@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >I don't see the difference Richard must between his example and the >thread case. I would assume that since the asking side has agreed >defenses for both Stayman and natural 2C bids, both must be in use >in this jurisdiction. With conflicting information and one's >prospective call depending on which is correct, it must be >legitimate to ask for clarification. How else can one select one's >call? Richard Hills: A top Canberra woman player, Sue Coleman, winner of several major Australian Women Championships, owes part of her success to her comprehensive (albeit overly Walter the Walrus) partnership agreements. She has a generic partnership agreement that doubles of low-level natural bids are for takeout, but doubles of artificial calls are always natural and perhaps lead-directing. My point was one of probability. Since 99% of the world's bridge players use a variant of Stayman, on the balance of probabilities a 2C response to 1NT is not natural, therefore on the balance of probabilities it is correct to assume a failure to alert rather than a miswritten system card. Therefore, asking about the meaning of 2C is, in my opinion, an illegitimate attempt at clarification. And, of course, in the unlikely event that 2C was natural and consequent damage results, the TD should then adjust the score due to the miswritten system card. 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 Thu Mar 15 00:22:56 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:22:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314135051.02ac5140@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703141622m36b1cfd7o918251f72da4747a@mail.gmail.com> Richard wrote: > And, of course, in the unlikely event that 2C was natural and > consequent damage results, the TD should then adjust the score due > to the miswritten system card. Unless you are playing in the ACBL or under similar regulations, such as the Orange Book, in which case you may well have goofed by not protecting yourself. -Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 15 01:55:14 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:55:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00c101c7661e$1925d3f0$1db687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00be01c76562$5a518200$f8ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2b1e598b0703131942w43cb176ctba4278e0ee1747d8@mail.gmail.com> <00c101c7661e$1925d3f0$1db687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45F89972.3020908@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ My position is that the WBFLC interpretation of 1 Sep 1998 ("It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply") precludes a question designed to clear up the meaning of a call for partner. If the player is uncertain himself he is entitled to ask but if he knows the meaning of the call and is asking because he thinks partner may not then he is acting improperly. It is for partner to obtain his own information and not for the player to bounce the information to him in opponent's reply to his question. That is illegal communication with partner. At the higher levels of the game it is expected that a player who has reason to suspect the information he has (and it affects his action) should protect himself to a reasonable degree by enquiry. In the international arena it is not for him to protect partner in that way. I have no knowledge of the ACBL practice in this regard and no comment of mine would be appropriate on that. [nige1] Grattan's interpretation seems daft to me. Take the case in point: you "know" that RHO's unalerted 1C bid is conventional and alertable. Asking and failing to ask about a fishy call are equally likely to transmit unauthorised information. If you do *not* ask... In the current context, LHO appears to understand RHO's 1C bid as natural. He should "know" his own system better than you do. Hence, you must treat 1C as "natural". (Have I got that right in law?). Later, if partner asks, your auction may become confused. Hence, you may suffer damage from LHO's failure to alert. You may call the director *now or later*. If *now* then that is to all intents and purposes the same as asking the dreaded "Kaplan Question". If *later*, you may be denied redress by even dafter "fail to protect yourself" legislation. Richard is probably champing at the bit to contradict me but, in the end, it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong! The essential point is that this kind of legislation rewards the secretary bird; but is an intolerable imposition on the average player who just wants to "play bridge". Such rules are unnecessary. They add no value to the game. They are inherently complex and spew confusing ramifications. They ensnare those naive enough to assume that that law is consistent and just. They rely on a director's subjective assessment of a player's intentions. They selectively penalize those with the insight and honesty to*admit* their motives. Plausible hypocrites and liars escape. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 15 02:12:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:12:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703141622m36b1cfd7o918251f72da4747a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>And, of course, in the unlikely event that 2C was natural and >>consequent damage results, the TD should then adjust the score due >>to the miswritten system card. Jerry Fusselman: >Unless you are playing in the ACBL or under similar regulations, >such as the Orange Book, in which case you may well have goofed by >not protecting yourself. Richard Hills: Umm. I may well be accused of Aussie parochialism if I again choose critique the ACBL regulation (or lack thereof) for a non-offending player being required to "protect themself". But the relevant clauses of the Orange Book contain important caveats which are consistent with my view that trivial MI does not permit open slather questions. Orange Book: "3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled." "5 H 1 A player's claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side's interests at risk." Richard Hills: Note the "putting their side's interests at risk" caveat in both clauses, for which clause 3A3 gives the indicative example "eg by transmitting unauthorised information". In my opinion, unless the enquirer is a wet-behind-the-ears beginner, asking "Is 2C Stayman?" is a classic example of such a caveated exception to the general Orange Book requirement to "protect themself". 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 Mar 15 04:25:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:25:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45F89972.3020908@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Hence, you may suffer damage from LHO's failure to alert. You >may call the director *now or later*. If *now* then that is >to all intents and purposes the same as asking the dreaded >"Kaplan Question". If *later*, you may be denied redress by >even dafter "fail to protect yourself" legislation. > >Richard is probably champing at the bit to contradict me [snip] Richard Hills: No, on this specific issue I am champing at the bit to agree with Nigel. I agree that "fail to protect yourself", as it was interpreted by at least one daft ACBL AC, rewards an offending side for giving non-trivial MI. Fortunately this ridiculously excessive interpretation of "fail to protect yourself" did not apply in Australia during the previous century. A team-mate was in 3NT, and LHO led a deuce. My team-mate looked at the opponents' system card, which described their leads as "fourth best". So my team-mate did not think it was necessary to hold up their ace until the third round. RHO later gained the lead, returned LHO's suit, and LHO cashed four winners, having actually led fifth best. At first my team-mate thought he had been got by a false card, but then he discovered that the opponents only played "fourth best" against suit contracts, but instead played "attitude" against notrump contracts. The TD adjusted the score, and the opponents appealed on the grounds that my team-mate had failed to "protect himself" by eschewing the standard play of holding up. The Aussie AC's view (in direct contradiction to the view of the previously quoted daft ACBL AC) was that if MI significantly contributed to a careless error by the non-offending side, then the offending side should not be rewarded for the MI on spurious "protect yourself" grounds. 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 Mar 15 05:25:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:25:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >Clarification from the WBF would be necessary to >resolve how the word "undue" should be interpreted. >I'm currently happy with my interpretation as you >doubtless are with yours. Clarification from the WBF Code of Practice page 7: >>"A player who, without design, makes unauthorized >>information available to his partner does not >>commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is >>the use of that information that is a breach of >>the laws." Tim West-Meads: >All very well, but not committing an infraction is >not the same as conforming to procedure. Richard Hills: Once more with feeling, "petitio principii". Not conforming to correct procedure is an infraction of Law 90A. If the WBF Code of Practice is saying that a player has not infracted a Law, then by definition that player has also conformed to correct procedure. 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 Mar 15 05:44:26 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:44:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007201c76666$27740240$5a334c0c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Joan Gerard: [snip] >the Screening Director will simply explain the possibilities, but any >opinion offered would be strictly that - an opinion..... The ACBL >tries to use some of its most competent directors for this Process. [snip] >(and yes, I guess I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!) [snip] Richard Hills: Some years ago some Screening Directors had a habit of not merely offering opinions, but actually changing a table Director's ruling upon a complaint from an aggrieved party. Some years ago there was no consensus within ACBL management as to whether this practice should continue. Given that Screening Directors are now "most competent directors" has ACBL management now explicitly authorised Screening Directors to be, in effect, de facto Chief Directors empowered to overrule table Directors? Or is there a credulous Easter Bunny belief that Screening Directors act within the limit of their mandate to merely offer an opinion? :-) 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 Mar 15 06:25:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:25:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >I was declarer as South, and while West was considering her lead, >East said, "Wait! What did your (my) 2S bid show?" 2S was >alerted, but no one asked during the auction. [snip] >Is there any existing law I could have asked the director to >consider? [snip] Sven Pran asserted: >>IMO the relevant law is 16A [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: Yes and no. The table Director was obviously unaware that East had infracted the correct procedure laid down in Laws 41A and 41B. The combined effect of those two Laws is that West must first place their chosen opening lead face down on the table and only then is East permitted to ask a question. 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 Mar 15 06:39:38 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:39:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401c7667f$44463500$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >I would as TD have denied West the right to ask any question >after East's illegal activity, [snip] Richard Hills: It seems to me that a Law 16A "logical alternative action" is contextually defined as only a "call or play", so a question is not an "action" in that context. Therefore, I would permit West to ask any question she likes. But I would be prepared to adjust the score if East's "Kaplan question" infraction of Law 41 damaged North-South by either direct provision of UI, or by indirect reminder (infraction of Law 40E2 footnote) to West to ask his own question. {Quick quiz - what is the deliberate error in my answer?} 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 07:14:52 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:14:52 +1300 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45F89972.3020908@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560703142314x76fa6755lf30f99418b6c8dff@mail.gmail.com> On 15/03/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > > >Hence, you may suffer damage from LHO's failure to alert. You > >may call the director *now or later*. If *now* then that is > >to all intents and purposes the same as asking the dreaded > >"Kaplan Question". If *later*, you may be denied redress by > >even dafter "fail to protect yourself" legislation. > > > >Richard is probably champing at the bit to contradict me > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > No, on this specific issue I am champing at the bit to agree > with Nigel. I agree that "fail to protect yourself", as it was > interpreted by at least one daft ACBL AC, rewards an offending > side for giving non-trivial MI. > > Fortunately this ridiculously excessive interpretation of "fail > to protect yourself" did not apply in Australia during the > previous century. A team-mate was in 3NT, and LHO led a deuce. > My team-mate looked at the opponents' system card, which > described their leads as "fourth best". So my team-mate did not > think it was necessary to hold up their ace until the third > round. RHO later gained the lead, returned LHO's suit, and LHO > cashed four winners, having actually led fifth best. At first > my team-mate thought he had been got by a false card, but then > he discovered that the opponents only played "fourth best" > against suit contracts, but instead played "attitude" against > notrump contracts. > > The TD adjusted the score, and the opponents appealed on the > grounds that my team-mate had failed to "protect himself" by > eschewing the standard play of holding up. The Aussie AC's > view (in direct contradiction to the view of the previously > quoted daft ACBL AC) was that if MI significantly contributed > to a careless error by the non-offending side, then the > offending side should not be rewarded for the MI on spurious > "protect yourself" grounds. > Unfortunately this position has not migrated into the 21st century. At the recent Gold Coast Congress in Queensland, Australia when my opponents incorrectly checked "underlead" on their convention card. All of the director, the chief director and the appeal committee let the table score stand when I was mislead by this incorrect marking on the convention card saying that I had misinformed myself. Thus rewarding my opponents, the offending side, by giving them a score that it was not possible for them to obtain without the misinformation that they provided on their convention card. To me the position of these directors and the members of this appeal committee is completely unworkable. I cannot comprehend how directors and appeal committees can justify rewarding offenders by giving them scores that they could not obtain if they provided accurate information. Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 08:19:36 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001401c7667f$44463500$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703150019w41615c82p9a9de588ecdae503@mail.gmail.com> > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >I would as TD have denied West the right to ask any question > >after East's illegal activity, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that a Law 16A "logical alternative action" is > contextually defined as only a "call or play", so a question > is not an "action" in that context. Both Sven's and Richard's takes on L16A are interesting, but it would be nice if it was crystal clear in the laws as to whether or not asking a question is an action from the standpoint of L16A. At the moment, I like Sven's interpretation, because it makes the director's job easier, and it seems more in line with the intent of the proscribed timing of questions in L73. > > Therefore, I would permit West to ask any question she likes. > Maybe she should be warned that asking a question (or looking at the convention card) now that she has been improperly warned may well hurt her cause. > But I would be prepared to adjust the score if East's "Kaplan > question" infraction of Law 41 damaged North-South by either > direct provision of UI, or by indirect reminder (infraction > of Law 40E2 footnote) to West to ask his own question. > How would you ever prove, to anyone's satisfaction, that this indirect reminder occurred? Seriously, would you please provide an example with made-up details that could justify such a ruling? West will say, "I was always going to ask." Suppose poll of players finds that 90% would ask---would you then be forced to rule no damage? Do we really want to go down these paths? This seems untenable to me. East seems to know that this particular West needed a wake up call. I'll reveal one more detail about my memory of what happened: It seemed to me that West was reaching for the card she planned to lead when East said "Wait!" Does that affect your ruling, Richard? I don't see why the director (or the NOS on appeal) has to prove that East is trying to remind West to ask a question or look at the convention card. The violation of procedure itself seems strong enough evidence to me to prevent West from using this guidance in choosing her lead. Furthermore, if you do let West ask questions, you may be giver her rope to hang herself, and she should be made aware of this potential cost before she asks. -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 08:36:57 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:36:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703150036t4dc6f5d6n817011e0862b5abc@mail.gmail.com> Richard: > > The table Director was obviously unaware that East had infracted > the correct procedure laid down in Laws 41A and 41B. > > The combined effect of those two Laws is that West must first > place their chosen opening lead face down on the table and only > then is East permitted to ask a question. > Sorry if I was unclear. The director was fully aware of the correct procedure and timing of questions and face-down leads. He even told East that it was not her turn to ask questions. There he was perfect. It was his next ruling I find troubling: He felt that the instant West asked East's question, his job was done, so he left and did not return. I challenge BLMLers to go through that in silence and without raising an eyebrow. (I failed, though I was silent. Well, maybe I said "Huh?") I would be impressed if any BLMLers are sure they would do it. -Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 09:09:39 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:09:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] correcting false impressions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 14/03/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > While we're speaking of "correcting" opponents' system ... two live cases. > > Case I : > > In Belgium, transfers for majors aren't alertable. Does this apply also in Case 2? If so, that's a really strange alert regulation! > > North : 1NT > East : pass > South : 2H > North : Alert > West : "you shouldn't alert this, guys" > > It happens that 2H is old-fashioned, natural, in N/S's system, and this > *is* alertable. > > Questions : > 1) would you rule that UI can arise from West's remark (as e.g., his hand > is compatible with South making a transfer response) Normally, I'd think the comment was a mistaken attempt at correcting opponents mis-alert (he thought they alerted a non-alertable transfer). And thus no UI. But I'd have to be present at the table to tell for sure. > 2) is North requested (provided he is absolutely sure transfers aren't > alertable) to correct West's false impression ? No. But I'd surely correct West's false impression if I was North. > In practice, North said > "sorry", and a TD ruled he "could have done it purposely" to maintain the > error in West's mind. Huh? To what purpose? How did he suggest that this could benefit North in any way? (I guess this refers to whether or not the transfer is alertable, not to the meaning of souths bid, which anyway would be revealed when North passed 2H.) > > Case II : > > You play Texas-Walsh. > > North : 1C > East : pass > South : 1Da (NB : 1D, classical Walsh, denying a major unless ..., is > alertable) > West : 1H (no alert) (NB : cue-bids "carry their own alert", ie aren't > alertable) I gather from this that NS play transfer responses to 1C and that this for some strange reason is non-alertable in Belgium. > > 1) Is North allowed to enquire about the meaning of 1H ? North is allowed to ask about the meaning of opponents bidding. So far that is a pass over 1C and a 1H overcall over 1D. He can't ask about a spesific bid. Though, he can't be interested in the pass here. So everyone will know what bid he's interested in anyway. > 2) Is North allowed to ask "is that natural or a cue ?" ? No. > 3) If East shows surprise at North's question (1 or 2), should North > volunteer an explanation of 1D ? I would, but it's not allowed by law. But this case shows a major flaw in the alert regulations. It's just plain stupid to have both natural replies and transfer responses to 1C non-alertable. Even if it's prealertable, which, btw, I've no idea whether it is in Belgium. In Norway both a classical Walsh 1D and T-Walsh are alertable. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 15 09:52:14 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:52:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314151117.02acc6f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315095101.02823010@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:23 14/03/2007 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > random hesitations, to obscure the importance of the >non-random ones? The last, at least, has also been suggested in this >forum. More than this : it is considered proper, and even encouraged, at the highest level. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 15 09:57:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:57:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] correcting false impressions In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315095349.02821de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:09 15/03/2007 +0100, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >On 14/03/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > While we're speaking of "correcting" opponents' system ... two live cases. > > > > Case I : > > > > In Belgium, transfers for majors aren't alertable. > >Does this apply also in Case 2? >If so, that's a really strange alert regulation! Of course not. But both the "standard" Walsh and the "unexpected" T-Walsh are alertable, whence the problem. > > In practice, North said > > "sorry", and a TD ruled he "could have done it purposely" to maintain the > > error in West's mind. > >Huh? To what purpose? How did he suggest that this could benefit North >in any way? (I guess this refers to whether or not the transfer is >alertable, not to the meaning of souths bid, which anyway would be >revealed when North passed 2H.) The problem is, when North passed 2H, it was too late for West to bid. > > > > Case II : > > > > You play Texas-Walsh. > > > > North : 1C > > East : pass > > South : 1Da (NB : 1D, classical Walsh, denying a major unless ..., is > > alertable) > > West : 1H (no alert) (NB : cue-bids "carry their own alert", ie aren't > > alertable) > >I gather from this that NS play transfer responses to 1C and that this >for some strange reason is non-alertable in Belgium. > > > > 1) Is North allowed to enquire about the meaning of 1H ? > >North is allowed to ask about the meaning of opponents bidding. So far >that is a pass over 1C and a 1H overcall over 1D. He can't ask about a >spesific bid. Though, he can't be interested in the pass here. So >everyone will know what bid he's interested in anyway. > > > 2) Is North allowed to ask "is that natural or a cue ?" ? > >No. > > > 3) If East shows surprise at North's question (1 or 2), should North > > volunteer an explanation of 1D ? > >I would, but it's not allowed by law. But this case shows a major flaw >in the alert regulations. It's just plain stupid to have both natural >replies and transfer responses to 1C non-alertable. To the contrary, both are. but even so, confusion arises. I'm in favor of "double alerts", which would have solved this. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 15 10:45:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:45:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c766e6$b53eee20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >I would as TD have denied West the right to ask any question > >after East's illegal activity, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that a Law 16A "logical alternative action" is > contextually defined as only a "call or play", so a question > is not an "action" in that context. > > Therefore, I would permit West to ask any question she likes. > > But I would be prepared to adjust the score if East's "Kaplan > question" infraction of Law 41 damaged North-South by either > direct provision of UI, or by indirect reminder (infraction > of Law 40E2 footnote) to West to ask his own question. I accept the possibility that "action" in Law 16 can be limited to "calls" and "plays", this is definitely not clear but I do not find it important. As she apparently had been prepared to select her opening lead without asking any questions, her possible asking now would obviously be a result of the illegal activity by East, and I would therefore rule any information she possibly could get from her asking at this time to be extraneous for her when selecting her opening lead. Such information would only be authorized for her after East could legally ask. The consequence of this would still be that West must carefully try to avoid suspicion that her selection for the opening lead "could have been demonstrably suggested" over an alternative lead by information resulting from East's illegal activity. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 15 10:53:26 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:53:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] correcting false impressions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315095349.02821de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c766e7$c897ab50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ................. > The problem is, when North passed 2H, it was too late for West to bid. No it was not. West, for whom it now seems apparent that an infraction of law has probably occurred, may immediately call the Director and explain that (s)he suspects misinformation (see Law 21B1). If this is confirmed West shall be allowed to change his/her pass with another call as East has not yet made any subsequent call. Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Mar 15 11:16:18 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:16:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] correcting false impressions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315095349.02821de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be><5.1.0.14.0.20 070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315095349.02821de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <45F91CF2.60800@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > At 09:09 15/03/2007 +0100, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> On 14/03/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> While we're speaking of "correcting" opponents' system ... two live cases. >>> >>> Case I : >>> >>> In Belgium, transfers for majors aren't alertable. >> Does this apply also in Case 2? >> If so, that's a really strange alert regulation! > > > Of course not. But both the "standard" Walsh and the "unexpected" T-Walsh > are alertable, whence the problem. > > >>> In practice, North said >>> "sorry", and a TD ruled he "could have done it purposely" to maintain the >>> error in West's mind. >> Huh? To what purpose? How did he suggest that this could benefit North >> in any way? (I guess this refers to whether or not the transfer is >> alertable, not to the meaning of souths bid, which anyway would be >> revealed when North passed 2H.) > > The problem is, when North passed 2H, it was too late for West to bid. > >>> Case II : >>> >>> You play Texas-Walsh. >>> >>> North : 1C >>> East : pass >>> South : 1Da (NB : 1D, classical Walsh, denying a major unless ..., is >>> alertable) >>> West : 1H (no alert) (NB : cue-bids "carry their own alert", ie aren't >>> alertable) >> I gather from this that NS play transfer responses to 1C and that this >> for some strange reason is non-alertable in Belgium. >>> 1) Is North allowed to enquire about the meaning of 1H ? >> North is allowed to ask about the meaning of opponents bidding. So far >> that is a pass over 1C and a 1H overcall over 1D. He can't ask about a >> spesific bid. Though, he can't be interested in the pass here. So >> everyone will know what bid he's interested in anyway. >> >>> 2) Is North allowed to ask "is that natural or a cue ?" ? >> No. >> >>> 3) If East shows surprise at North's question (1 or 2), should North >>> volunteer an explanation of 1D ? >> I would, but it's not allowed by law. But this case shows a major flaw >> in the alert regulations. It's just plain stupid to have both natural >> replies and transfer responses to 1C non-alertable. > > > To the contrary, both are. but even so, confusion arises. confusion arises from airy players who divert the purpose of alerts which is to tell opponents: you should better investigate and not assume anything. > I'm in favor of "double alerts", which would have solved this. and when there will be that new regulation to take care of players' carelessness, jou will be in favor of triple alerts jpr > > Best regards > > Alain > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 15 11:44:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Once more with feeling, "petitio principii". Not > conforming to correct procedure is an infraction of > Law 90A. One cannot infract law 90a - the law does not require anything of the player. OK it tells us that the TD can give procedural penalties for violations of procedure, but that seems fairly circular. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 15 11:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314155925.02b6b2d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > Since L73B-F specify several conditions which would obviously make > particular instances of hesitation or haste "undue", the most likely > interpretation would seem to be that "undue" in L73A2 refers to those > conditions. OK, so is, for example, bidding after obvious pause for thought covered by "manner in which calls or plays are made" as in L73b1? We can probably tie ourselves in knots here but for the moment I'm running on the belief that a procedurally perfect player never breaks tempo (sure it's an unobtainable ideal for mere mortals but it's something a player can strive for). Tim From joanandron at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 15 13:41:28 2007 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:41:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi Richard, I actually had a long discussion last year with either Barry Rigal or a high level TD when I found out that a Screening Director had over-ruled a "floor" decision. I thought, at the time, that was wrong. After hearing the explanation and the procedure, I am more comfortable with what occurs. It was explained to me that in very rare instances when this happens, the Screening Director goes back to the DIC of that room where the decision was made, explains the reason why he believes the decision was wrong by the TD's and with agreement from the original decision makers - overturns the original decision made. Obviously, this occurs only when new facts develop during the screening process. Best regards, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "JOAN GERARD" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Joan Gerard: > > [snip] > > >the Screening Director will simply explain the possibilities, but any > >opinion offered would be strictly that - an opinion..... The ACBL > >tries to use some of its most competent directors for this Process. > > [snip] > > >(and yes, I guess I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!) > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Some years ago some Screening Directors had a habit of not merely > offering opinions, but actually changing a table Director's ruling > upon a complaint from an aggrieved party. Some years ago there was no > consensus within ACBL management as to whether this practice should > continue. > > Given that Screening Directors are now "most competent directors" has > ACBL management now explicitly authorised Screening Directors to be, in > effect, de facto Chief Directors empowered to overrule table Directors? > > Or is there a credulous Easter Bunny belief that Screening Directors > act within the limit of their mandate to merely offer an opinion? > > :-) > > > 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 15 12:43:05 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:43:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0703150036t4dc6f5d6n817011e0862b5abc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <014f01c766f8$25214b50$b89687d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard: > > > > > The table Director was obviously unaware that East had infracted > > the correct procedure laid down in Laws 41A and 41B. > > > > The combined effect of those two Laws is that West must first > > place their chosen opening lead face down on the table and only > > then is East permitted to ask a question. > > > > Sorry if I was unclear. The director was fully aware of the correct > procedure and timing of questions and face-down leads. He even told > East that it was not her turn to ask questions. There he was perfect. > > It was his next ruling I find troubling: He felt that the instant > West asked East's question, his job was done, so he left and did not > return. > > I challenge BLMLers to go through that in silence and without raising > an eyebrow. (I failed, though I was silent. Well, maybe I said > "Huh?") I would be impressed if any BLMLers are sure they would do > it. > > -Jerry Fusselman > +=+ Hi, I have had an interesting time reading all this waffle. I fail to see where anyone has yet suggested applying the law. Everyone seems to be going on about whether a question is an action. I'll return to the point in a minute. First let us step back and consider. East has asked a question illegally. This action has conveyed UI to West. The UI suggests attention to Spades. If West has a logical alternative to a Spade lead she is precluded from leading a Spade. The Director is required to consider whether an infraction of law has resulted in damage. That is the applicable law and it is unaffected by whether West asks a question subsequent to the infraction or not. Now, as to whether a question is an action, when we have a word in the laws that is not included in the Definitions we are to interpret it in accordance with its dictionary meaning. ["Action : a thing done, an act" - New Oxford English Dictionary.] Is a question such? Would you say "I am in the act of questioning him"? "My questioning is done"? Would that make a question an action ? I think so. But for the ruling the answer is not relevant. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ P.S. My apology if someone did point to the law and I missed it. From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 15 13:27:22 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:27:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <45F89972.3020908@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560703142314x76fa6755lf30f99418b6c8dff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000e01c766fd$48330250$0701a8c0@john> > > To me the position of these directors and the members of this appeal > committee is completely unworkable. I cannot comprehend how directors > and appeal committees can justify rewarding offenders by giving them > scores that they could not obtain if they provided accurate > information. The failure to protect guidance in the OB uses the words "probably aware" and is designed to stop double shotting. TDs and ACs have completely misunderstood the purpose of this "failure to protect" which is also part of the WBF regs. Bridge is a game of full disclosure and ANY failure fully to (non-split-infinitive) disclose which leads to damage and to (non-hanging-preposition) which "could have known* applies requires adjustment. MI is *not* how we play bridge. I agree. John > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 15 13:30:04 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:30:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <001b01c766fd$a90c1990$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "JOAN GERARD" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Hi Richard, > > I actually had a long discussion last year with either Barry Rigal or a > high > level TD when I found out that a Screening Director had over-ruled a > "floor" > decision. I thought, at the time, that was wrong. After hearing the > explanation and the procedure, I am more comfortable with what occurs. > > It was explained to me that in very rare instances when this happens, the > Screening Director goes back to the DIC of that room where the decision > was > made, explains the reason why he believes the decision was wrong by the > TD's > and with agreement from the original decision makers - overturns the > original decision made. Obviously, this occurs only when new facts develop > during the screening process. Well at least you have some sort of consultation process :) John > > Best regards, Joan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "JOAN GERARD" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Joan Gerard: >> >> [snip] >> >> >the Screening Director will simply explain the possibilities, but any >> >opinion offered would be strictly that - an opinion..... The ACBL >> >tries to use some of its most competent directors for this Process. >> >> [snip] >> >> >(and yes, I guess I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!) >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Some years ago some Screening Directors had a habit of not merely >> offering opinions, but actually changing a table Director's ruling >> upon a complaint from an aggrieved party. Some years ago there was no >> consensus within ACBL management as to whether this practice should >> continue. >> >> Given that Screening Directors are now "most competent directors" has >> ACBL management now explicitly authorised Screening Directors to be, in >> effect, de facto Chief Directors empowered to overrule table Directors? >> >> Or is there a credulous Easter Bunny belief that Screening Directors >> act within the limit of their mandate to merely offer an opinion? >> >> :-) >> >> >> 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 15 13:33:13 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:33:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? References: Message-ID: <002e01c766fe$19d4a0c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Can you create your own UI? > Eric wrote: >> >> Since L73B-F specify several conditions which would obviously make >> particular instances of hesitation or haste "undue", the most likely >> interpretation would seem to be that "undue" in L73A2 refers to those >> conditions. > > OK, so is, for example, bidding after obvious pause for thought covered > by "manner in which calls or plays are made" as in L73b1? > > We can probably tie ourselves in knots here but for the moment I'm > running on the belief that a procedurally perfect player never breaks > tempo (sure it's an unobtainable ideal for mere mortals but it's > something a player can strive for). perfection in English is also something for which we should strive. I agree with your analysis Tim. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 15 14:10:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] correcting false impressions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314162532.02812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > Case I : > > In Belgium, transfers for majors aren't alertable. > > North : 1NT > East : pass > South : 2H > North : Alert > West : "you shouldn't alert this, guys" > > It happens that 2H is old-fashioned, natural, in N/S's system, and > this *is* alertable. > > Questions : > 1) would you rule that UI can arise from West's remark (as e.g., his > hand is compatible with South making a transfer response) Of course. > 2) is North requested (provided he is absolutely sure transfers > aren't alertable) to correct West's false impression ? In practice, > North said "sorry", and a TD ruled he "could have done it purposely" > to maintain the error in West's mind. In what language and with what tone? In English North might have said "Sorry?" = "What are you talking about?" "Sorry!" = "What on earth makes you think this is not alertable?", or "Sorry." = "Oh, I thought it was alertable please forgive my mistake." Only in the last of these cases might I consider the possibility of MI and even then I would need to be sure that South wouldn't simply believe that West was correct (ie if West was a TD and South might simply assume that the regs had changed I'd not rule MI). The one I encounter most often nowadays is a sequence like "1H-(2d)-Xa" and opps telling me the double shouldn't be alerted (It's a penalty double and alertable in the EBU). Most opps (who are only trying to be helpful) get a full explanation of why I alerted. Some (who are, IMO, merely trying to play mind games) will receive replies of a somewhat more cryptic nature such as "I did alert it, would you like me to call the TD?". Prominent on my CC are the words "We do NOT play negative doubles" and if such opps call the TD (either immediately or at the end of the hand) they are unlikely to receive any sympathy from him/her. > Case II : > > You play Texas-Walsh. > > North : 1C > East : pass > South : 1Da (NB : 1D, classical Walsh, denying a major unless ..., > is alertable) > West : 1H (no alert) (NB : cue-bids "carry their own alert", ie > aren't alertable) > > 1) Is North allowed to enquire about the meaning of 1H ? Yes. If he needs to know he needs to ask. (ok I suppose under a technicality he should probably only ask for an explanation of the EW auction but...!) > 2) Is North allowed to ask "is that natural or a cue ?" ? No (or at least only if the answer to his first question is such that this matter remains unresolved - which seems unlikely). > 3) If East shows surprise at North's question (1 or 2), should North > volunteer an explanation of 1D ? Well, if North asked Q2 I'd assume (as West) that he was playing transfer responses to 1C and that I'd just got myself into a right pickle by not asking about the 1D bid and had just made a t/oX of Hearts. If the CC said Walsh I'd be calling the TD round about now. If North asked Q1 I'd assume (as E and knowing what system NS played) that he wanted to know how many H my partner was promising and what strength of hand given the vul (a perfectly reasonable and normal thing for him to want to know). Of course if I didn't know what system NS played my answer to a simple question is going to be unnecessarily complex because it would depend on what 1D meant and I believe some silly WBF interpretation forbids me from asking at this particular moment:( Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 15 14:10:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Some years ago some Screening Directors had a habit of not merely > offering opinions, but actually changing a table Director's ruling > upon a complaint from an aggrieved party. I'm not sure how a screening director could actually change a table ruling but if, as a screening director, I realised that a case involved a (potential) misapplication of law I would raise the matter with the table TD/CTD for possible resolution (it's not an immediate AC matter) and advise as to not only why I thought the law had been misapplied but also how the law should have been applied. Assuming my analysis was correct the effect of so doing (and quite rightly procedurally) would be to have my (ie the one I gave, although technically it would now belong to the TD/CTD) ruling substituted for the table one. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 15 14:10:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: <014f01c766f8$25214b50$b89687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > First let us step back and consider. East has asked a > question illegally. This action has conveyed UI to West. The UI > suggests attention to Spades. Quite possibly but not necessarily. The UI may also be that W considers it important for East to make her lead in the understanding of the explanation at a moment when E had no apparent intention of considering possible meanings/explanations. IE the timing of the illegal question may also suggest a lead *other* than spades. Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 15 14:31:05 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:31:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F94A99.8000305@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills quotes WBF Code of Practice page 7] "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." [Tim West-Meads] All very well, but not committing an infraction is not the same as conforming to procedure. [nigel] Another interpretation that forces the director to judge a player's motives. The increasing popularity among law-makers of such subjective assessments result in more inconsistent rulings. These incur resentment but are hard to appeal. God may not "play dice"; but directors must play dice; and play God :( [Richard Hills] Once more with feeling, "petitio principii". Not conforming to correct procedure is an infraction of Law 90A. If the WBF Code of Practice is saying that player has not infracted a Law, then by definition that player has also conformed to correct procedure. [TFLB L90A] The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. [nige1] L90B arms the director with *discretionary powers* to penalize procedural violations -- provided that they are also *offences*. Presumably, "offences" are infractions for which no penalty is otherwise stipulated. Thus, not all procedural irregularities need be offences. Arguably, some tempo-breaks are a case in point. Although, again, the rules could be clearer :) Earlier rule proposals would allow the director to avoid considering many such hard questions. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 15 15:24:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:24:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703150036t4dc6f5d6n817011e0862b5abc@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0703150036t4dc6f5d6n817011e0862b5abc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070315090758.02ba9290@pop.starpower.net> At 02:36 AM 3/15/07, Jerry wrote: >Sorry if I was unclear. The director was fully aware of the correct >procedure and timing of questions and face-down leads. He even told >East that it was not her turn to ask questions. There he was perfect. > >It was his next ruling I find troubling: He felt that the instant >West asked East's question, his job was done, so he left and did not >return. > >I challenge BLMLers to go through that in silence and without raising >an eyebrow. (I failed, though I was silent. Well, maybe I said >"Huh?") I would be impressed if any BLMLers are sure they would do >it. I would have asked East to select her opening lead, and instructed South to answer West's question after the lead was on the table. I might also warn East against using any potential UI from the fact of West having asked the question. If challenged, I would point out that, per L41B, West has committed an "error in procedure" for which no specific rectification is provided, and I am therefore carrying out my duty per L82A. I would then be forced to confess to BLML that I had unabashedly followed Mr. Kaplan's advice, deciding how to rule then looking for the law that might justify what I want to do. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 15 15:40:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:40:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315095101.02823010@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0703112142m5263c148hca4a18ee51c44c36@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070313112137.0281fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315095101.02823010@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070315092824.02bae840@pop.starpower.net> At 03:52 AM 3/15/07, Alain wrote: >At 15:23 14/03/2007 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> random hesitations, to obscure the importance of the >>non-random ones? The last, at least, has also been suggested in this >>forum. > >More than this : it is considered proper, and even encouraged, at the >highest level. My understanding is that this has nothing directly to do with the level of play, but is rather a relatively common "special condition" [L80E] for playing with screens. Of course, there's a significant overlap there. But in normal table play, without screens, at least where I play (ACBL), to hesitate when one has nothing to think about is considered to be highly unethical as well as illegal. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 15 16:06:15 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:06:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314155925.02b6b2d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070315094814.02ba83c0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:43 AM 3/15/07, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > > Since L73B-F specify several conditions which would obviously make > > particular instances of hesitation or haste "undue", the most likely > > interpretation would seem to be that "undue" in L73A2 refers to those > > conditions. > >OK, so is, for example, bidding after obvious pause for thought covered >by "manner in which calls or plays are made" as in L73b1? Not by my reading. I note that L73A and L73C, both of which enumerate sources of improper communication, include "haste" and "hesitation" while the similar enumeration in L73B1 does not, whereas L73D, which specifically governs communication via variations in "tempo or manner", consistently refers to them as two different things. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 15 16:37:23 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:37:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76D319E2-E154-4EB8-84CD-D86361C9927B@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 14, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> Question: What happens if the opponents react inappropriately to the >> initial call, such as by showing obvious surprise? Is this >> "information arising from [the original OS's] withdrawn action" (UI, >> L16C2) or information "arising" from the opponents action (usuable at >> the original OSs "own risk", L73D1)? > > I allow the "obvious surprise" to be used as a wake-up to the > player who > has made the inadvertent bid (and thus initiate his L25a change). > Thereafter I rule it UI to the OS, AI to the NOS. > > OK, the opponent shouldn't be reacting inappropriately but he wouldn't > have been put in that position if the original offender had taken more > care to bid as intended. If one is looking at HAKQJTxx after 1D-(4H)- > it's damn hard not to seem surprised (before the correction to 4S). I disagree. That a thing is hard to do doesn't absolve one of the requirement to do it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 15 16:39:53 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:39:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070314135051.02ac5140@pop.starpower.net> References: <45F60F25.8060804@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20070314135051.02ac5140@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Of course one must inquire in a proper and appropriate manner, so the > answer to "*could* a question about the 2C call be an illegal attempt > to communicate..." is that of course it *could*. It *could* be, "That > doesn't really show clubs, does it?"! "Please explain your auction." Of course, IME, you get "Huh?", followed by "Director!", followed by (from the director) "Which call are you asking about?" :-( From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 15 16:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45F94A99.8000305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [Tim West-Meads] > All very well, but not committing an infraction is not the same as > conforming to procedure. > > [nigel] > Another interpretation that forces the director to judge a player's > motives. Quite the reverse. I don't have to care about the player's *motives*. His action broke tempo, in doing so it was an irregularity, if that gave rise to UI or some other problem I'll adjust when necessary. If breaking tempo didn't cause a problem I'll likely never get to hear about it. The alternative (making a judgement as to whether a particular tempo break was due and proportionate to the bridge problem being faced) is far more subjective. > [nige1] > L90B arms the director with *discretionary powers* to penalize > procedural violations -- provided that they are also *offences*. > Presumably, "offences" are infractions for which no penalty is > otherwise stipulated. Thus, not all procedural irregularities need be > offences. Like "infraction" another word undefined in the laws. IMO all procedural irregularities are offences but (in the overwhelmingly majority of cases) there is no need that they be penalised. In some cases one might warn a player after a first offence and penalise on a second. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 15 16:51:17 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:51:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <001401c7667f$44463500$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c7667f$44463500$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <10FF599A-D1B0-4803-8C09-21EDFBFAADA7@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 14, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > East's attempt to ask a question before West has selected her lead is > illegal and creates extraneous information to West. Among the two > alternative actions now primarily available to West (either ask or > not ask) > she may not choose the action (to ask) obviously suggested over the > other > (not ask) suggested by East's illegal activity. A question is not a call or play, so I think you're stretching L16 out of shape here. I think you should rather use L73C. Technically, it would seem that if, after explaining this law, West still asks the question, South must answer (I can't find a law that would allow me to rule that he need not), but if West did that, I would issue a significant PP (because of "must" in Law 73C) even if I did not adjust the score. I will admit that telling South not to answer seems more practical. > Next West may have more than one logical alternative (up to a > maximum of > thirteen) for her opening lead. Among those alternatives she may > not choose > any card that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > by East's > illegal activity. OTOH, with this, I agree. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 15 17:04:49 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:04:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> References: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:41 AM, JOAN GERARD wrote: > It was explained to me that in very rare instances when this > happens, the > Screening Director goes back to the DIC of that room where the > decision was > made, explains the reason why he believes the decision was wrong by > the TD's > and with agreement from the original decision makers - overturns the > original decision made. Obviously, this occurs only when new facts > develop > during the screening process. It seems to me that in this case, it is actually the DIC who has overruled the original TD. That is within his mandate (Law 81D). It is not, however, within the mandate of the screening director *unless* the DIC has delegated that authority to the screening director, which does not seem to be the case. So I would think it would be best if the screening director came back to the appellants and said "I have discussed this case with the DIC, and he has overruled the table director..." From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 15 19:44:34 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:44:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted In-Reply-To: References: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070315133359.02b1bae0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:04 AM 3/15/07, Ed wrote: >On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:41 AM, JOAN GERARD wrote: > > > It was explained to me that in very rare instances when this > > happens, the > > Screening Director goes back to the DIC of that room where the > > decision was > > made, explains the reason why he believes the decision was wrong by > > the TD's > > and with agreement from the original decision makers - overturns the > > original decision made. Obviously, this occurs only when new facts > > develop > > during the screening process. > >It seems to me that in this case, it is actually the DIC who has >overruled the original TD. That is within his mandate (Law 81D). It >is not, however, within the mandate of the screening director >*unless* the DIC has delegated that authority to the screening >director, which does not seem to be the case. So I would think it >would be best if the screening director came back to the appellants >and said "I have discussed this case with the DIC, and he has >overruled the table director..." I wonder what the point is, though. If the case has gotten this far, we can assume the AC has jurisdiction. Presumably (otherwise this procedure is in big trouble) when the table TD has been overruled like this, someone is going to inform the (former) appellees (who do not appear at screening) of the reversal of the decision; they (who will already be standing by waiting for the AC to convene) will almost certainly then appeal the DIC's decision to the same AC, protected from any possibility of their appeal being ruled groundless by the fact that the table TD and DIC are already on record as disagreeing. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 15 20:07:36 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:07:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Can you create your own UI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F99978.2080804@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills quotes WBF Code of Practice page 7] "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." [Tim West-Meads] All very well, but not committing an infraction is not the same as conforming to procedure. [nigel] Another interpretation that forces the director to judge a player's motives. The increasing popularity among law-makers of such subjective assessments result in more inconsistent rulings. These incur resentment but are hard to appeal. God may not "play dice"; but directors must play dice; and play God :( [Tim West-Meads] Quite the reverse. I don't have to care about the player's *motives*. His action broke tempo, in doing so it was an irregularity, if that gave rise to UI or some other problem I'll adjust when necessary. If breaking tempo didn't cause a problem I'll likely never get to hear about it. The alternative (making a judgement as to whether a particular tempo break was due and proportionate to the bridge problem being faced) is far more subjective. [nigel] I was commenting on the WBF code of practice (quoted by Richard). I was not commenting on Tim's reply to Richard :) I argue on the same side as Tim, on this issue :) Sorry that I did not make myself clear :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 15 22:27:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:27:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >Hi Richard, > >I actually had a long discussion last year with either Barry Rigal or >a high level TD when I found out that a Screening Director had over- >ruled a "floor" decision. I thought, at the time, that was wrong. >After hearing the explanation and the procedure, I am more >comfortable with what occurs. > >It was explained to me that in very rare instances when this happens, >the Screening Director goes back to the DIC of that room where the >decision was made, explains the reason why he believes the decision >was wrong by the TD's and with agreement from the original decision >makers - overturns the original decision made. Obviously, this occurs >only when new facts develop during the screening process. > >Best regards, Joan Hi Joan It seems to me that the procedure as described is not fully adequate. In a normal appeal both sides are invited to give their version of the facts. In this de facto Screening Director appeal, the version of the facts is that of the complaining side and the DIC - the non-complaining side is apparently not consulted (unless you accidentally omitted to relate that step in the process). 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 joanandron at worldnet.att.net Fri Mar 16 00:14:40 2007 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:14:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00a501c76757$b7ac3340$29344c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi Richard, I'm not anxious to go on and on about this point. But I do agree with the fact that when both sides are not able in some instances to give their side to the Screening Director this is not advisable. It was, in fact, why I had a problem.However, I was assured that the instances of this are extremely rare and that when they do happen , every attempt is made to find the "non-appealing" side as quickly as possible. In the role that I had, "Director of Appeals" representing the Board of Directors, changing this method was not within my job description. This is left up to the Chief Tournament Director and the Tournament staff. I might bring this up to our Bridge Committee and see what they think . Will let you know if there is any change in procedure. But I repeat that a reversal of a TD ruling in Screening is definitely rare. Best regards, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "JOAN GERARD" Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Hi Richard, > > > >I actually had a long discussion last year with either Barry Rigal or > >a high level TD when I found out that a Screening Director had over- > >ruled a "floor" decision. I thought, at the time, that was wrong. > >After hearing the explanation and the procedure, I am more > >comfortable with what occurs. > > > >It was explained to me that in very rare instances when this happens, > >the Screening Director goes back to the DIC of that room where the > >decision was made, explains the reason why he believes the decision > >was wrong by the TD's and with agreement from the original decision > >makers - overturns the original decision made. Obviously, this occurs > >only when new facts develop during the screening process. > > > >Best regards, Joan > > Hi Joan > > It seems to me that the procedure as described is not fully adequate. > > In a normal appeal both sides are invited to give their version of the > facts. In this de facto Screening Director appeal, the version of the > facts is that of the complaining side and the DIC - the non-complaining > side is apparently not consulted (unless you accidentally omitted to > relate that step in the process). > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 15 23:14:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:14:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <014f01c766f8$25214b50$b89687d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asserted: [snip] > Now, as to whether a question is an action, when we have a >word in the laws that is not included in the Definitions we are to >interpret it in accordance with its dictionary meaning. ["Action : >a thing done, an act" - New Oxford English Dictionary.] Is a >question such? Would you say "I am in the act of questioning >him"? "My questioning is done"? Would that make a question >an action ? I think so. But for the ruling the answer is not relevant. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >P.S. My apology if someone did point to the law and I missed it. Law 16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play ..... the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions ..... " Richard Hills quibbles: It seems to me that the dictionary definition of "action" must be must be modified by the precondition for "may not". That is, for an "action" to include a question, the precondition should be "suggest a call or play or question". If indeed it is the intent of the WBF for a question to be a Law 16A "action", then it is easy for the WBF Laws Drafting Committee to add "or question" to the 2008 version of Law 16A. However, I agree with Grattan that for the ruling the answer is not relevant. West has UI restrictions and the score may be adjusted if West does not abide by the UI restrictions. 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 Thu Mar 15 23:34:45 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:34:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <014f01c766f8$25214b50$b89687d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703151534l2b9261f8s3431363b1fc5afe0@mail.gmail.com> Richard: > I agree with Grattan that for the ruling the answer is not relevant. I don't understand this aspect. It seems to me if a question is an action, then it affects the ruling, because the ruling would in that case probably be that West gets no questions answered before the opening lead. (I am thinking now just of the opening lead; even on the opening lead, West would be cautioned in the manner Sven originally suggested.) It sounds to me (Please pardon me if I misunderstood) that you two are saying that you know what information West would get by asking and can handle the fallout, but I would not be so sure, and I would rather simply bar the question for a more robust prevention of UI. -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 23:57:26 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:57:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070315090758.02ba9290@pop.starpower.net> References: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0703150036t4dc6f5d6n817011e0862b5abc@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070315090758.02ba9290@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560703151557h53237960yaa678dd5b870e72a@mail.gmail.com> On 16/03/07, Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:36 AM 3/15/07, Jerry wrote: > > >Sorry if I was unclear. The director was fully aware of the correct > >procedure and timing of questions and face-down leads. He even told > >East that it was not her turn to ask questions. There he was perfect. > > > >It was his next ruling I find troubling: He felt that the instant > >West asked East's question, his job was done, so he left and did not > >return. > > > >I challenge BLMLers to go through that in silence and without raising > >an eyebrow. (I failed, though I was silent. Well, maybe I said > >"Huh?") I would be impressed if any BLMLers are sure they would do > >it. > > I would have asked East to select her opening lead, and instructed > South to answer West's question after the lead was on the table. I > might also warn East against using any potential UI from the fact of > West having asked the question. > > If challenged, I would point out that, per L41B, West has committed an > "error in procedure" for which no specific rectification is provided, > and I am therefore carrying out my duty per L82A. L82A constrains you to make rulings that are not contrary to the laws. L20F2 gives the opening leader the right to ask a question. I do not think you can forbid that question without breaking the requirements of L82A. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 16 01:06:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:06:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0703151534l2b9261f8s3431363b1fc5afe0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >It sounds to me (Please pardon me if I misunderstood) that you >two are saying that you know what information West would get by >asking and can handle the fallout, but I would not be so sure, >and I would rather simply bar the question for a more robust >prevention of UI. Law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents ..... " Richard Hills: It seems to me that preventing UI by allowing the other side to have a concealed partnership agreement is a cure that is worse than the disease. It is _use_ of UI which is the problem. West gained UI from her partner's in-effect "pro question". (A "pro question" is a question asked because partner is too timid to ask her own questions.) Therefore, West's logical alternatives are those which were available to West at the moment before his partner intervened. Furthermore, West's *legal* logical alternatives are those which are not demonstrably suggested to her by his partner's intervention. As Grattan has noted, on the facts so far available, it seems that West has information her partner is suggesting that he choose a spade as an opening lead. If this is indeed the case, a spade lead is only permissible if it was the _only_ logical alternative at the moment before East's infraction. 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 ljtrent at adelphia.net Fri Mar 16 01:47:11 2007 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:47:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> References: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <000001c76764$a4048a60$ec0d9f20$@net> Go back to the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny version In my 10+ years in the appeals business I would say around 20% of the floor rulings were changed. The "withdrawn appeal" file folder was usually quite fat and contained tons of adjustments to what the appealing side was asking for and since the other side didn't show up . . . well, you get the rest. A lot of these came from the dinner time screening session. It also contained several of the "just in case I don't win my match or make the cut" appeals. During a particular few years (no, I will never name names) the Screening Director just gave both sides what they wanted so appeals would go away. My complaints on that happening with a fair amount of regularity went nowhere. Unfortunately, the "Withdrawn" folder always went to Memphis never to be seen again. I tried to snag one once, but was unsuccessful. Linda From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 16 02:57:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:57:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c766fd$48330250$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >>To me the position of these directors and the members of this appeal >>committee is completely unworkable. I cannot comprehend how directors >>and appeal committees can justify rewarding offenders by giving them >>scores that they could not obtain if they provided accurate >>information. John Probst: >The failure to protect guidance in the OB uses the words "probably >aware" and is designed to stop double shotting. TDs and ACs have >completely misunderstood the purpose of this "failure to protect" which >is also part of the WBF regs. Bridge is a game of full disclosure and >ANY failure fully to (non-split-infinitive) disclose which leads to >damage and to (non-hanging-preposition) which "could have known* >applies requires adjustment. MI is *not* how we play bridge. I agree. Richard Hills: According to my (possibly imperfect) recollection of the facts of this particular case involving Wayne Burrows, it seems to me that "probably aware", thus Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts), was the basis for the Chief Director's ruling. As I recall, Wayne related how the opponents' system card had both the "underlead" and the "overlead" boxes ticked, but he only noticed the prior box. If Wayne's opponents were using the standardised ABF System Card, then those two boxes are on adjacent lines. So yet again it seems that Wayne's bugbear of "balance of probabilities" has bitten him on the backside, and the Chief Director has deemed for the purposes of Law 85 the disputed facts were that Wayne noticed both ticks in both boxes, then Wayne double shotted. Of course, I know from personal experience in January's round-of-16 that Wayne is a scholar and a gentleman, so if I had been the Chief Director I would have judged to weight the balance of probabilities differently in my Law 85 ruling. 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 04:06:03 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:06:03 +1300 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c766fd$48330250$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560703152006i24df3bf0n52df453f07b5ed3e@mail.gmail.com> On 16/03/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows: > > >>To me the position of these directors and the members of this appeal > >>committee is completely unworkable. I cannot comprehend how directors > >>and appeal committees can justify rewarding offenders by giving them > >>scores that they could not obtain if they provided accurate > >>information. > > John Probst: > > >The failure to protect guidance in the OB uses the words "probably > >aware" and is designed to stop double shotting. TDs and ACs have > >completely misunderstood the purpose of this "failure to protect" which > >is also part of the WBF regs. Bridge is a game of full disclosure and > >ANY failure fully to (non-split-infinitive) disclose which leads to > >damage and to (non-hanging-preposition) which "could have known* > >applies requires adjustment. MI is *not* how we play bridge. I agree. > > Richard Hills: > > According to my (possibly imperfect) recollection of the facts of this > particular case involving Wayne Burrows, it seems to me that "probably > aware", thus Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts), was the basis for the > Chief Director's ruling. > > As I recall, Wayne related how the opponents' system card had both the > "underlead" and the "overlead" boxes ticked, but he only noticed the > prior box. If Wayne's opponents were using the standardised ABF > System Card, then those two boxes are on adjacent lines. > > So yet again it seems that Wayne's bugbear of "balance of probabilities" > has bitten him on the backside, and the Chief Director has deemed for > the purposes of Law 85 the disputed facts were that Wayne noticed both > ticks in both boxes, then Wayne double shotted. > > Of course, I know from personal experience in January's round-of-16 > that Wayne is a scholar and a gentleman, so if I had been the Chief > Director I would have judged to weight the balance of probabilities > differently in my Law 85 ruling. > Certainly I have a major problem with 'balance of probabilities' especially when that arguement is used as a substitute for investigating the facts. Secondly in the particular case noone suggested that I double shotted. To me it would be bizarre to make a ruling based on a double shot without that 'disputed fact' even being aired by the director or by the appeal committee. Thirdly I have lost interest in the damage that was done to my side by the opponent's infraction. I will be happy to tell the chairman of the appeal committee at the table that I am just checking the rest of his card in case there are contradictions should I require information when playing against him to illustrate the nonsense in the ruling. As as far as I can tell that was the substance of the ruling conveyed to me - "I damaged myself" by not reading the system card thoroughly or asking questions. The point in my previous post was not that I should get a different score but that it is an even greater nonsense to reward my opponents for incorrectly filling in their card. When I mentioned this arguement to one of the appeal committee members I continued with 'I might as well automatically tick "underlead" since anyone who is mislead will be told that they damaged themselves and there will be no penalty to me'. He replied 'You can play bridge like that if you want'. From which I deduce that the appeal committee have no problems with offenders gaining an advantage from their infractions. To me this is complete and utter nonsense. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 16 04:21:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:21:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills quibbles: >It seems to me that the dictionary definition of "action" must be >modified ..... Richard Hills retracts: Oops. The word "action" also appears in Law 73F2, and in that Law a question is clearly assumed to be an "action". Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. 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 Fri Mar 16 04:37:31 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:37:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings Message-ID: <00e601c7677c$6e733c80$6400a8c0@rota> TDs are only human, and they do make incorrect rulings, even book rulings when they don't bother to look in the Law book or look in the wrong place. (Yes, I know that they should always rule from the book, but it doesn't happen in practice in the ACBL.) When a TD gives a ruling which could be proved to be incorrect from the Law book, and you are dummy and have not been asked by the TD to say anything, what are you supposed to do? Wait until the end of the hand and then call the TD back and ask for a L82C ruling (which could be more favorable to your side than an immediate correct ruling)? When a TD who is aware of the facts gives a ruling which you believe to be incorrect, but the error is in your favor, do you have an obligation to ask for a correction? (Both situations applied to me in a recent club game, but I was saved by the opponents. South (declarer) put the S5 on the table, then said, "I pulled the wrong card," and replaced it with the C4. West called the director, who ruled that the S5 could be retracted. I was North and knew that this was wrong but kept quiet for the moment. West asked the director to look up the Law in the book, which took a while but finally led to a correct ruling that the S5 was played. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 16 05:39:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:39:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00e601c7677c$6e733c80$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner asked: [snip] >When a TD gives a ruling which could be proved to be incorrect from the >Law book, and you are dummy and have not been asked by the TD to say >anything, what are you supposed to do? Wait until the end of the hand >and then call the TD back and ask for a L82C ruling (which could be more >favorable to your side than an immediate correct ruling)? Law 43A1(b): "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play." David Grabiner asked: >When a TD who is aware of the facts gives a ruling which you believe to >be incorrect, but the error is in your favor, do you have an obligation >to ask for a correction? [snip] Law 72A6: "The responsibility for penalising irregularities and redressing damage rests solely upon the Director and these Laws, not upon the players themselves." 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Mar 16 08:06:47 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:06:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1HS6WV-20Vr1c0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> David Grabiner asked: > > [snip] > > > When a TD gives a ruling which could be proved to be incorrect from > > the Law book, and you are dummy and have not been asked by the TD to > > say anything, what are you supposed to do? ?Wait until the end of > > the hand and then call the TD back and ask for a L82C ruling (which > > could be more favorable to your side than an immediate correct > > ruling)? > > Richard Hills answered by citing the law: > Law 43A1(b): > > "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play." > Peter Eidt found: Minutes of the Meeting of the WBF LC, Paris, 30.10.2001: "5. The committee agreed that references to irregularities in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An action by a Director may be an error but this does not constitute an ?irregularity? within the meaning of the laws." Therefore I think, that dummy may point to a TD's error while applying the law. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 08:59:48 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:59:48 -0600 Subject: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings In-Reply-To: <1HS6WV-20Vr1c0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <1HS6WV-20Vr1c0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0703160059l7bf42b39sef8c6fc493002f77@mail.gmail.com> On 3/16/07, Peter Eidt wrote: > David Grabiner asked: > > > > [snip] > > > > > When a TD gives a ruling which could be proved to be incorrect from > > > the Law book, and you are dummy and have not been asked by the TD to > > > say anything, what are you supposed to do? Wait until the end of > > > the hand and then call the TD back and ask for a L82C ruling (which > > > could be more favorable to your side than an immediate correct > > > ruling)? > > > > > Richard Hills answered by citing the law: > > Law 43A1(b): > > > > "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play." > > > > Peter Eidt found: > Minutes of the Meeting of the WBF LC, Paris, 30.10.2001: > > "5. The committee agreed that references to irregularities > in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An > action by a Director may be an error but this does not > constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws." > > Therefore I think, that dummy may point to a > TD's error while applying the law. > Good point. There is also L42A1: "Dummy is allowed to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law." That seems pretty explicit to me as to allowing David to speak up immediately. I don't think the game will become unraveled if we realize that directors have a difficult job, are only human, and sometimes make mistakes---and that some of these mistakes are preventable if caught early enough by one of the players. If you can find a technique to do it when you are dummy without making the director livid, please let us know how it is done. Meekly asking, "I wonder if you might reconsider law x for this" is no panacea, but I suppose it may be the best try. I realize that I am likely to be called a sea-lawyer (again) very soon, but my request is honest. -Jerry Fusselman From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 16 09:11:54 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:11:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00f801c767a2$dabbeba0$68ad87d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > David Grabiner asked: > > [snip] > > >When a TD gives a ruling which could be proved to be >> incorrect from the Law book, and you are dummy and > >have not been asked by the TD to say anything, what > >are you supposed to do? Wait until the end of the hand > >and then call the TD back and ask for a L82C ruling > > (which could be more favorable to your side than an > >immediate correct ruling)? > > Law 43A1(b): > > "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play." > +=+ "The committee agreed that references to irregularities in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An action by a Director may be an error but this does not constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws," WBFLC minute, 30th October, 2001. Inter alia the word appears in Law 9. But was the question not about Law 42A1? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 16 12:44:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <10FF599A-D1B0-4803-8C09-21EDFBFAADA7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > I think you should rather use L73C. Technically, it would seem that > if, after explaining this law, West still asks the question, South > must answer (I can't find a law that would allow me to rule that he > need not), but if West did that, I would issue a significant PP > (because of "must" in Law 73C) even if I did not adjust the score. A little harsh perhaps. Were I West I'd likely ask in order to ensure I found the least suggested LA based on my partner's illegal actions. I hesitate to suggest that asking in order to find the "cleanest" option is required by L73C but I think it might be. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 16 12:44:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070315133359.02b1bae0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > I wonder what the point is, though. If the case has gotten this far, > we can assume the AC has jurisdiction. Not really, L93B1. Appeal Concerns Law The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. Quite possible for the DIC (or CTD) to go back to the original cast and say "I'm really sorry, a mistake was made and the ruling (treating both sides as NOS) is ...." and that all concerned will accept the revised ruling and the AC doesn't get time wasted. The DIC may well wax eloquent as to the exact nature of the mistake and that, being a point of law, the AC may not overturn this aspect of the decision and that an appeal purely on the grounds that the TD/DIC disagreed would be deemed frivolous. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 16 12:44:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <76D319E2-E154-4EB8-84CD-D86361C9927B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: If one is looking at HAKQJTxx after > > 1D-(4H)- > > it's damn hard not to seem surprised (before the correction to 4S). > > I disagree. That a thing is hard to do doesn't absolve one of the > requirement to do it. I'm not absolving the player because he failed to do something hard. I'm absolving him because his opponent's infraction caused the problem. Had the 4H been a psych or a transfer (neither of those being an infraction, and a transfer not being alertable under EBU rules) I'd rule the reaction UI in the normal way. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 16 15:21:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:21:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560703151557h53237960yaa678dd5b870e72a@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2b1e598b0703141101p267d078by33531c698411014c@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0703150036t4dc6f5d6n817011e0862b5abc@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070315090758.02ba9290@pop.starpower.net> <2a1c3a560703151557h53237960yaa678dd5b870e72a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316091544.02ac6020@pop.starpower.net> At 05:57 PM 3/15/07, Wayne wrote: >On 16/03/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>I would have asked East to select her opening lead, and instructed >>South to answer West's question after the lead was on the table. I >>might also warn East against using any potential UI from the fact of >>West having asked the question. >> >>If challenged, I would point out that, per L41B, West has committed an >>"error in procedure" for which no specific rectification is provided, >>and I am therefore carrying out my duty per L82A. > >L82A constrains you to make rulings that are not contrary to the laws. >L20F2 gives the opening leader the right to ask a question. I do not >think you can forbid that question without breaking the requirements >of L82A. It's a bit of a stretch, but in the spirit of EK... I will tell East that due to her partner's error in procedure my duty to "rectify" and "maintain the progress of the game" is now paramount, and that as soon as it is rectified (which occurs when West gets his improperly timed question answered) the game will continue normally and she will be in a position to exercise all her rights. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 16 15:57:45 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:57:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] So yet again it seems that Wayne's bugbear of "balance of probabilities" has bitten him on the backside, and the Chief Director has deemed for the purposes of Law 85 the disputed facts were that Wayne noticed both ticks in both boxes, then Wayne double shotted. Of course, I know from personal experience in January's round-of-16 that Wayne is a scholar and a gentleman, so if I had been the Chief Director I would have judged to weight the balance of probabilities differently in my Law 85 ruling. [nige1] Many players are frighted that Directors use the kind of argument (as advanced by Richard and others), to decide in favour of those they know to be "scholars and gentlemen" and against strangers and enemies, on otherwise identical facts. Unfortunately for us, the rules (laws, regulations etc) seem geared to promote subjective assessment, giving directors scope to rule in a way that is hard for the losing side to dispute. From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 15 18:49:59 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:49:59 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__correcting_false_impres?= =?iso-8859-1?q?sions?= References: <000201c766e7$c897ab50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45F98746.000001.17653@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 15/03/2007 11:40:26 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] correcting false impressions > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .................. > The problem is, when North passed 2H, it was too late for West to bid. > No it was not. > West, for whom it now seems apparent that an infraction of law has probably occurred, may immediately call the Director and explain that (s)he suspects misinformation (see Law 21B1). If this is confirmed West shall be allowed to change his/her pass with another call as East has not yet made any subsequent call. I'm afraid Sven didn't understand the case. 2H was alertable. North alerted. West contested the alert. Then passed. If West calls the director, may he not tell West "there was an alert, as there should, you asked no question, so you may not say there was misinformation" ? Instead he ruled that North should have insisted on the alert. Is that automatic ? After all, North could well have been hesitant about the alertability, then accepted West's opinion about it, as West clearly seemed to know better, excepted that he didn't. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070315/f7d61126/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/20070315/f7d61126/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/20070315/f7d61126/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 15 18:55:46 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:55:46 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__correcting_false_impres?= =?iso-8859-1?q?sions?= References: Message-ID: <45F988A2.000004.17653@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads Date : 15/03/2007 14:10:59 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] correcting false impressions Alain wrote: > 2) is North requested (provided he is absolutely sure transfers > aren't alertable) to correct West's false impression ? In practice, > North said "sorry", and a TD ruled he "could have done it purposely" > to maintain the error in West's mind. In what language and with what tone? In English North might have said "Sorry?" = "What are you talking about?" "Sorry!" = "What on earth makes you think this is not alertable?", or "Sorry." = "Oh, I thought it was alertable please forgive my mistake." In French. The word was "d?sol?" and is only compatible with the last interpretation AFAIC. "pardon" could easily have been the first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070315/9122793c/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/20070315/9122793c/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/20070315/9122793c/attachment-0001.gif From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 16 17:27:32 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:27:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 16, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > I'm not absolving the player because he failed to do something hard. > I'm absolving him because his opponent's infraction caused the > problem. I'm tooling down the highway at the posted speed limit. A car approaches from behind me at high relative speed, parks himself about ten feet off my rear bumper, and starts honking his horn. I speed up. Am I to be absolved of the offense of speeding because he caused the problem? I don't think so. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 16 17:35:16 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:35:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070315133359.02b1bae0@pop.starpower.net> References: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> <6.1.1.1.0.20070315133359.02b1bae0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2136AC7F-0578-40B1-9512-EB1657A4453F@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 15, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > I wonder what the point is, though. If the case has gotten this far, > we can assume the AC has jurisdiction. "I don't know what that means." - Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan, Ph.D. > Presumably (otherwise this procedure is in big trouble) when the > table TD has been overruled like > this, someone is going to inform the (former) appellees (who do not > appear at screening) of the reversal of the decision; they (who will > already be standing by waiting for the AC to convene) will almost > certainly then appeal the DIC's decision to the same AC, protected > from > any possibility of their appeal being ruled groundless by the fact > that > the table TD and DIC are already on record as disagreeing. Why would then go forward with the appeal if they believe the DICs ruling is correct? Or are you saying the *other* side will now appeal? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 16 22:40:53 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:40:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) In-Reply-To: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> At 09:57 AM 3/16/07, Nigel wrote: >Many players are frighted that Directors use the kind of argument >(as advanced by Richard and others), to decide in favour of those >they know to be "scholars and gentlemen" and against strangers and >enemies, on otherwise identical facts. > >Unfortunately for us, the rules (laws, regulations etc) seem geared to >promote subjective assessment, giving directors scope to rule in a way >that is hard for the losing side to dispute. It is only unfortunate if you hold, or share, Nigel's view of humanity. The rest of us are prepared to recognize that the "scholars and gentlemen" (or ladies) really do make up at least 99% of the players we encounter on a regular basis. Sure, there are cads and cheats, but they are probably less than 1%. Let's be really conservative for Nigel's benefit, and take the percentages to be 95% "scholars and gentlemen" vs. 5% "cads and cheats". So when our TDs and ACs make their subjective assessments to distinguish the 5% of the population that are cads and cheats from the other 95%, EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE IDENTIFICATION OF SOMEONE AS A CAD AND CHEAT IS WRONG they will still do the right thing 90% of the time. Nigel, who would eliminate subjective assessments by writing laws that presume everyone to be a cad and a cheat, will do the right thing only 5% of the time. That means that we unabashed subjectivists resolve 85 out of 100 cases more appropriately than Nigel's cads-and-cheats-behind-every-treeists do. And while our TDs and ACs are far from perfect, their subjective judgment probably does get it right every once a while, making the gain for subjectivity even greater. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 16 22:53:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:53:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316164158.02aba010@pop.starpower.net> At 11:27 AM 3/16/07, Ed wrote: >I'm tooling down the highway at the posted speed limit. A car >approaches from behind me at high relative speed, parks himself about >ten feet off my rear bumper, and starts honking his horn. I speed up. >Am I to be absolved of the offense of speeding because he caused the >problem? Not quite absolved, but you *should* have been allowed to get away with it -- because the cop who wrote you the speeding ticket really should have been spending the time chasing down and ticketing the other guy, who is far more of a danger on the road. (Unless, of course, you were tooling along in the leftmost lane(*), forcing the prevailing above-the-limit traffic to get around you on the right, in which case he should have just shot you.) (*) ACBL jurisdiction Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 16 23:11:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:11:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted In-Reply-To: <2136AC7F-0578-40B1-9512-EB1657A4453F@rochester.rr.com> References: <004801c766ff$ec4ea860$3b354c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> <6.1.1.1.0.20070315133359.02b1bae0@pop.starpower.net> <2136AC7F-0578-40B1-9512-EB1657A4453F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316165337.02ac57e0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:35 AM 3/16/07, Ed wrote: >On Mar 15, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > I wonder what the point is, though. If the case has gotten this far, > > we can assume the AC has jurisdiction. > >"I don't know what that means." - Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan, Ph.D. > > > Presumably (otherwise this procedure is in big trouble) when the > > table TD has been overruled like > > this, someone is going to inform the (former) appellees (who do not > > appear at screening) of the reversal of the decision; they (who will > > already be standing by waiting for the AC to convene) will almost > > certainly then appeal the DIC's decision to the same AC, protected > > from > > any possibility of their appeal being ruled groundless by the fact > > that > > the table TD and DIC are already on record as disagreeing. > >Why would then go forward with the appeal if they believe the DICs >ruling is correct? Or are you saying the *other* side will now appeal? Yes, that's what I'm saying. The other side, after all, (a) have already been sitting around for what may have been some time waiting to appear before the committee as appelees, (b) have just been told that the ruling in their favor has been reversed without their having been given any chance to tell their side of the story, and (c) has a ready-made line of argument in their favor complements of the floor director who ruled for them originally. (a) provides the cognitive dissonance, (b) provides the immediate annoyance factor, and (c) precludes the need for any additional preparation. If their immediate reaction on being informed of the reversal isn't "well then *we* want to appeal" in at least 99% of such cases I'll turn in my [aside to Ed: Rochester] psychology minor. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Mar 16 23:21:25 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:21:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] by pricking of thumbs Message-ID: <45FB1865.5070200@aol.com> Yes, why not move over to the right and let the fellow pass instead of increasing your speed? Hard to imagine that the highway was too narrow for this. Ciao, JE From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Mar 17 00:07:39 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:07:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> [nige1] Many players are frighted that Directors use the kind of argument advanced by Richard and others, to decide in favour of those they know to be "scholars and gentlemen" and against strangers and enemies, on otherwise identical facts. Unfortunately for us, the rules (laws, regulations etc) seem geared to promote subjective assessment, giving directors scope to rule in a way that is hard for the losing side to dispute. [Eric Landau] It is only unfortunate if you hold, or share, Nigel's view of humanity. The rest of us are prepared to recognize that the "scholars and gentlemen" (or ladies) really do make up at least 99% of the players we encounter on a regular basis. Sure, there are cads and cheats, but they are probably less than 1%. Let's be really conservative for Nigel's benefit, and take the percentages to be 95% "scholars and gentlemen" vs. 5% "cads and cheats". So when our TDs and ACs make their subjective assessments to distinguish the 5% of the population that are cads and cheats from the other 95%, EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE IDENTIFICATION OF SOMEONE AS A CAD AND CHEAT IS WRONG they will still do the right thing 90% of the time. Nigel, who would eliminate subjective assessments by writing laws that presume everyone to be a cad and a cheat, will do the right thing only 5% of the time. That means that we unabashed subjectivists resolve 85 out of 100 cases more appropriately than Nigel's cads-and-cheats-behind-every-treeists do. And while our TDs and ACs are far from perfect, their subjective judgment probably does get it right every once a while, making the gain for subjectivity even greater. [nige2] Not again! [A] My view of humanity is realistic. Bridge-players are a cross-section of humanity. Like most of humanity, bridge-players sometimes rationalize wrong-doing. It is Eric and Richard who refer to players as cads or cheats. Not I. Few bridge players regard themselves as cheats and almost all would be mortified to be so-branded. If American bridge-players are as immaculate as Eric claims that is wonderful. It must be great to live in a country where less than 1% of the population ever break speed limits and marriage vows; or cheat on taxes and expenses :) {B] It is neither possible nor desirable to eliminate subjective assessment from the rules of bridge. Who would claim otherwise? Nevertheless, the rules of a *game* rules should be as clear, simple and objective *as possible* -- consistent with keeping the game's essential nature. IMO law-makers should concentrate on action not motives. Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should take care to disregard his impression of the character and reputation of the alleged law-breaker. Instead, the director should consider the likely intent of a typical player who behaved in that way in the same circumstances. I reckon it is harder than Eric or Richard will admit for a director to dispassionately assess the character of a friend or enemy. For example, Richard has an encyclopaedic knowledge of past BLML posts. Does he detect a whiff of bias when a BLMLer comments on a case affecting a friend, team-mate, or compatriot? I am happy to concede that, especially when considering penalties, the director may take into account previous infractions. [C] Eric seems to be claiming that more objective rules would result in the director making the right ruling less than 5% of the time :( A statistical mistake somewhere? // From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Mar 17 00:29:13 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:29:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings References: <1HS6WV-20Vr1c0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <2b1e598b0703160059l7bf42b39sef8c6fc493002f77@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002b01c76822$f7365ba0$6400a8c0@rota> Jerry Fusselman writes: > On 3/16/07, Peter Eidt wrote: >> David Grabiner asked: >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> > > When a TD gives a ruling which could be proved to be incorrect from >> > > the Law book, and you are dummy and have not been asked by the TD to >> > > say anything, what are you supposed to do? Wait until the end of >> > > the hand and then call the TD back and ask for a L82C ruling (which >> > > could be more favorable to your side than an immediate correct >> > > ruling)? >> > > >> >> Richard Hills answered by citing the law: >> > Law 43A1(b): >> > >> > "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play." >> > >> >> Peter Eidt found: >> Minutes of the Meeting of the WBF LC, Paris, 30.10.2001: >> >> "5. The committee agreed that references to irregularities >> in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An >> action by a Director may be an error but this does not >> constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws." >> >> Therefore I think, that dummy may point to a >> TD's error while applying the law. >> > > Good point. There is also L42A1: "Dummy is allowed to give > information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law." That > seems pretty explicit to me as to allowing David to speak up > immediately. I don't think the game will become unraveled if we > realize that directors have a difficult job, are only human, and > sometimes make mistakes---and that some of these mistakes are > preventable if caught early enough by one of the players. > > If you can find a technique to do it when you are dummy without making > the director livid, please let us know how it is done. Meekly asking, > "I wonder if you might reconsider law x for this" is no panacea, but I > suppose it may be the best try. I realize that I am likely to be > called a sea-lawyer (again) very soon, but my request is honest. In this particular situation (partner pulled a wrong card as declarer, put it on the table, and wanted to retract), I could have saved a bit of time, and nobody would have questioned my motivation because I was asking for a ruling in my favor to be corrected. The director ruled without a Law book, and I could have asked, "Could you please check this in the book? I think you may be confusing the rule for an inadvertently played card with the rule for an inadvertently pulled bidding card." This is certainly preferable to what I thought I had to do: let the incorrect ruling stand, then call the director at the end of the hand and ask for a L82C adjustment. David From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Mar 17 11:34:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:34:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Two questions on incorrect TD rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00f801c767a2$dabbeba0$68ad87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner asked: [snip] >>>When a TD gives a ruling which could be proved to be >>>incorrect from the Law book, and you are dummy and >>>have not been asked by the TD to say anything, what >>>are you supposed to do? Wait until the end of the hand >>>and then call the TD back and ask for a L82C ruling >>>(which could be more favorable to your side than an >>>immediate correct ruling)? Richard Hills quotes the wrong Law, Law 43A1(b): >>"Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during >>play." Grattan Endicott corrects: >+=+ "The committee agreed that references to irregularities >in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An >action by a Director may be an error but this does not >constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws," > WBFLC minute, 30th October, 2001. > >Inter alia the word appears in Law 9. But was the question >not about Law 42A1? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Endicott has mentioned the right Law, Law 42A1: "Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights - Give Information Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law." Richard Hills grovels: Oops and mea maxima culpa two days in a row. Alexander Pope (1688-1744): "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read, With loads of learned lumber in his head" :-) 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 Mar 17 12:05:26 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:05:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >That means that we unabashed subjectivists resolve >85 out of 100 cases more appropriately than Nigel's >cads-and-cheats-behind-every-treeists do. And while >our TDs and ACs are far from perfect, their >subjective judgment probably does get it right every >once a while, making the gain for subjectivity even >greater. Richard Hills: In my opinion, it is unfair to single out Nigel Guthrie as a voice crying in the wilderness. It seems to me the "cads-and-cheats-behind-every-tree" philosophy is also an integral part of the De Wael School. As I recall, Herman De Wael as TD will not accept an explanation of "Undiscussed" as a legal description of a call. This is in accordance with Herman's belief that in this phrase in the Law 75 footnote: "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary", the word "evidence" refers to objective evidence only, not to testimony by the partnership concerned. And usually a partnership will not have written on their system card, "We have not discussed the meaning of 2S in this sequence". However..... In my comprehensive Symmetric Relay system notes (emailed on request), in this sequence: 1NT 2C 2H 2S the 2S rebid is specifically listed as non-systemic. But sure enough, on one occasion my partner did rebid 2S. Before Herman can claim this fact as support for the De Wael School, it was another thumbling error by pard with a bidding box, Law 25A, since he meant to choose the systemic rebid of 2NT. :-) 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 Sat Mar 17 18:08:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > I'm tooling down the highway at the posted speed limit. A car > approaches from behind me at high relative speed, parks himself about > ten feet off my rear bumper, and starts honking his horn. I speed > up. Am I to be absolved of the offense of speeding because he caused > the problem? I don't think so. I don't know who caused the problem. If you were overtaking a line of trucks there was no room to pull over immediately and you speeded up in order to get out of the way of the car behind because you believed it might be a) an unmarked police car on the way to an emergency or b) a road-rage maniac, possibly armed and about to start shooting* or c) because you genuinely believed that accelerating was necessary in order to avoid an accident then I'd reckon any judge would through out a ticket (and that very few cops would issue one). OTOH if you were simply being an a**ehole sitting in the right-hand lane (EBU jurisdiction) and blocking traffic I'd expect a ticket to stand. *In the US I understand that categories a) and b) need not be mutually exclusive. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 17 18:08:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Many players are frighted that Directors use the kind of argument > advanced by Richard and others, to decide in favour of those they > know to be "scholars and gentlemen" and against strangers and > enemies, on otherwise identical facts. Rulings/judgements may be based on the balance of probabilities. If player A has an unblemished history of immaculate ethical compliance whilst player B has a track record of nefarious and underhand practices the balance of probabilities may change. Friends or enemies has nothing to do with it. A TD is not obliged to *like* somebody who has a good ethical record (or indeed to dislike someone with a poor ethical record). > Unfortunately for us, the > rules (laws, regulations etc) seem geared to promote subjective > assessment, giving directors scope to rule in a way that is hard for > the losing side to dispute. Of course if TDs rule on the basis of good legal understanding, knowledge and judgement they will tend to give rulings that are fair and correct. That does indeed make the rulings hard for the "losing side" to dispute. > If American bridge-players are as immaculate as Eric claims that is > wonderful. It must be great to live in a country where less than 1% > of the population ever break speed limits and marriage vows; or > cheat on taxes and expenses :) Totally irrelevant. I know plenty of ethical bridge players who wouldn't give a monkey's for either marriage vows or speed limits (several names can be found by checking recent results lists from the YC, but I leave as an exercise to the reader which ones fall into the various categories). > IMO law-makers should concentrate on action not motives. And in general they do. Score adjustments based on actions are routinely made on a "could have known" basis, the TD only considers motive if he is contemplating a serious disciplinary ruling of deliberate action. > Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should > take care to disregard his impression of the character and > reputation of the alleged law-breaker. Why on earth should a TD give the same benefit of the doubt to a known unethical player as he would to either a known ethical player or a stranger? All that does is give carte blanche to the unethical to try it on every time. > I reckon it is harder than Eric or Richard will admit for a director > to dispassionately assess the character of a friend or enemy. It doesn't have to be easy - it is simply *necessary*. TDs who can't do it when required simply shouldn't be doing the job. > I am happy to concede that, especially when considering penalties, > the director may take into account previous infractions. Better, but I don't really understand why you consider "previous infractions" different to "character and reputation". The assessment of a player's C&R is a sum of ones knowledge of his previous infractions. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 17 18:32:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:32:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FC2627.7040507@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >> That means that we unabashed subjectivists resolve >> 85 out of 100 cases more appropriately than Nigel's >> cads-and-cheats-behind-every-treeists do. And while >> our TDs and ACs are far from perfect, their >> subjective judgment probably does get it right every >> once a while, making the gain for subjectivity even >> greater. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, it is unfair to single out Nigel > Guthrie as a voice crying in the wilderness. > > It seems to me the "cads-and-cheats-behind-every-tree" > philosophy is also an integral part of the De Wael > School. > > As I recall, Herman De Wael as TD will not accept an > explanation of "Undiscussed" as a legal description of > a call. This is in accordance with Herman's belief > that in this phrase in the Law 75 footnote: > This is not fair. We are trying on this list to discuss interesting points of law. If I choose to utter the opinion that "undiscussed" is often not a correct explanation, then I do not want to be called a "cad-and-cheat-caller" on the basis of examples in which "undiscussed" is judged to be a true explanation. As a director, I will be able to judge if a call is truly undiscussed or not. What I do stand by, is that partners choose themselves who they play with. At every point in time, they know more about their partner than their opponents do. That "more" has to be disclosed, even if it is just a hunch. "Your guess is as good as mine" may sometimes be true, but very often it is not. BTW, that has nothing to do with the DeWael School. > "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, > rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence > to the contrary", > > the word "evidence" refers to objective evidence only, > not to testimony by the partnership concerned. And > usually a partnership will not have written on their > system card, "We have not discussed the meaning of 2S > in this sequence". > > However..... > > In my comprehensive Symmetric Relay system notes > (emailed on request), in this sequence: > > 1NT 2C > 2H 2S > > the 2S rebid is specifically listed as non-systemic. > But sure enough, on one occasion my partner did rebid > 2S. Before Herman can claim this fact as support for > the De Wael School, it was another thumbling error by > pard with a bidding box, Law 25A, since he meant to > choose the systemic rebid of 2NT. > > :-) > :-) indeed, and as such, surely not an example with which to counter my filosofies. I think I would be able to judge that your partner was telling the truth. Although it strikes me as very odd that in a intricate system like yours, the very first call can have "no meaning". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 18 01:02:38 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:02:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] by pricking of thumbs In-Reply-To: <45FB1865.5070200@aol.com> References: <45FB1865.5070200@aol.com> Message-ID: <4518C3B7-0539-4C71-A7DE-513C5BEF04D9@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 16, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hard to imagine that the highway was too narrow > for this. Construction crews were working on the shoulder. Two lane highway. Oncoming traffic. Don't pick holes in my analogies, please. It makes me cranky. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 18 01:08:35 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:08:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316164158.02aba010@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070316164158.02aba010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <0ED7F9EE-116D-4B5D-AA94-B788A2D32416@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 16, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Not quite absolved, but you *should* have been allowed to get away > with > it -- because the cop who wrote you the speeding ticket really should > have been spending the time chasing down and ticketing the other guy, > who is far more of a danger on the road. Hehe. I recall being stopped once for speeding. When I pointed out to the officer that others had been passing me, he said "yeah, but I got *you*". > (Unless, of course, you were tooling along in the leftmost lane > (*), forcing the prevailing > above-the-limit traffic to get around you on the right, in which case > he should have just shot you.) I don't disagree - but its not gonna happen. I firmly believe that speed limits on most roads are about 10 mph too low. :-) > > (*) ACBL jurisdiction From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 18 01:40:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:40:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FC2627.7040507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >This is not fair. We are trying on this list to discuss >interesting points of law. Richard Hills: Yes, I agree that the De Wael School, although interesting, is not a valid interpretation of Duplicate Bridge Law. :-) Herman De Wael >If I choose to utter the opinion that "undiscussed" is >often not a correct explanation, then I do not want to be >called a "cad-and-cheat-caller" on the basis of examples >in which "undiscussed" is judged to be a true explanation. >As a director, I will be able to judge if a call is truly >undiscussed or not. > >What I do stand by, is that partners choose themselves who >they play with. At every point in time, they know more >about their partner than their opponents do. That "more" >has to be disclosed, even if it is just a hunch. Richard Hills: Analogous explicit or implicit agreements have to be disclosed, yes. But requiring disclosure of "hunches" or "guesses" is a fork in the road which is a bridge too far. ABL Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of >>a call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >>When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >>style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >>meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be >>given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you >>should not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." >>or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper >>as it gives information to partner. Herman De Wael: >"Your guess is as good as mine" may sometimes be true, but >very often it is not. Richard Hills: That is a "cads-and-cheats-behind-every-tree" assessment. In my experience "Your guess is as good as mine" is very often true, but sometimes is not. Of course, my experience may be distorted by the excellent Directors used in local Canberra events and in Australian national events, since they put the fear of god into cads and cheats, thus discouraging imitators. For example, Canberra and Australia Chief Director Sean Mullamphy was once called to the table where a cad had described her partner's 1S overcall as "any thirteen cards". Sean put the fear of god into that cad, with a five-minute Spanish Inquisition, "Could those thirteen cards include seven hearts?", "Could those thirteen cards include 17hcp?", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Eventually the cad was forced to admit his partner's 1S overcall showed less than 12hcp and a balanced hand. Herman De Wael: >BTW, that has nothing to do with the DeWael School. Richard Hills: But it is consistent with the De Wael School philosophy that it is more truthful to describe partner's actual cards than it is to describe the mutual partnership agreement (or non-agreement). 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 Sun Mar 18 02:36:50 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:36:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FC97B2.4080800@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] Rulings/judgements may be based on the balance of probabilities. If player A has an unblemished history of immaculate ethical compliance whilst player B has a track record of nefarious and underhand practices the balance of probabilities may change. Friends or enemies has nothing to do with it. A TD is not obliged to *like* somebody who has a good ethical record (or indeed to dislike someone with a poor ethical record). [nige1] Tim is well aware that we aren't talking about a player with *a track record of nefarious and underhand practices". Richard Hills said "I know from personal experience in January's round-of-16 that Wayne (Burrows) is a scholar and a gentleman, so if I had been the Chief Director I would have judged to weight the balance of probabilities differently in my Law 85 ruling." If you take such impressions into account in a ruling, you favour those whom you know and respect over, for example, strangers about whom you know little or nothing. It is understandable that directors would like the laws to empower them to exercise subjective judgement in this way. Unfortunately, also, directors have a greater influence on law-makers than ordinary players. Nevertheless I believe that there is a better approach to subjective judgements: "Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should disregard his relationship with the the alleged law-breaker and instead consider the likely intent of a typical player who behaved in that way in the same circumstances." To some players it seems obvious that the rules can and should be so interpreted. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 18 02:42:43 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:42:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000a01c768fe$c4dd7c60$aba0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, > rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence > to the contrary", > > the word "evidence" refers to objective evidence > only, not to testimony by the partnership concerned. > And usually a partnership will not have written on > their system card, "We have not discussed the > meaning of 2S in this sequence". > +=+ I consider that evidence is evidence. However, I do not read guidance what to do in the absence of evidence as requiring that if there is evidence then, whatever its nature, it must be accepted as proof . In that situation I consider the 'evidence' must be judged for its credibility. The Director is to decide whether he is "satisfied that he has ascertained the facts". He will then make a ruling either as Law 85A provides or in accordance with Law 85B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Fri Mar 16 23:42:42 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:42:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:27:32 EDT." Message-ID: <200703162240.OAA25880@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Mar 16, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > I'm not absolving the player because he failed to do something hard. > > I'm absolving him because his opponent's infraction caused the > > problem. > > I'm tooling down the highway at the posted speed limit. A car > approaches from behind me at high relative speed, parks himself about > ten feet off my rear bumper, and starts honking his horn. I speed up. > Am I to be absolved of the offense of speeding because he caused the > problem? I don't think so. Usually I tap my brakes, not to slow down but to flash the brake lights and make him think I'm about to slow down. That usually gets them to back off. Of course, if they're really obnoxious, it's best just to pull over to the right and let them pass, if possible. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Fri Mar 16 23:57:12 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:57:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:53:09 CDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20070316164158.02aba010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200703162255.OAA26006@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > >I'm tooling down the highway at the posted speed limit. A car > >approaches from behind me at high relative speed, parks himself about > >ten feet off my rear bumper, and starts honking his horn. I speed up. > >Am I to be absolved of the offense of speeding because he caused the > >problem? > > Not quite absolved, but you *should* have been allowed to get away with > it -- because the cop who wrote you the speeding ticket really should > have been spending the time chasing down and ticketing the other guy, > who is far more of a danger on the road. (Unless, of course, you were > tooling along in the leftmost lane(*), forcing the prevailing > above-the-limit traffic to get around you on the right, in which case > he should have just shot you.) Back when the national speed limit was still 55, I heard a true story about a man driving exactly 55 in the left lane of the freeway near Sacramento. He got pulled over by a California state policeman, who started writing a ticket for obstruction. While he was writing the ticket, the driver told the cop, "You know, I didn't realize that what I was doing was illegal--can you cite the law that makes this illegal?" The cop thought this was no problem. He confidently pulled out his copy of the Vehicle Code and started looking---then looked somewhere else in the book---then somewhere else--- The driver told him, "Maybe you should try Section 306.1?" [I just made that number up---I don't remember the real number.] So the policeman turned to that section, and he found where it talked about obstruction---but he couldn't see anything about impeding the flow of traffic in the fast lane, so he kept looking--- Now he was starting to get nervous. So while he was still trying to find what he was looking for in his Vehicle Code, he tried to make conversation. "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a teacher." "Oh, where do you teach?" "I teach at the CHP [California Highway Patrol] Academy. I teach traffic law." Really. The man was quite renowned in his field, such that police departments from other states would call *him* to ask him his interpretations of *their* states' traffic laws. And here some poor cop had pulled him over for violating a law that didn't exist. The moral of the story is, of course, that it's helpful for players to know the Laws by chapter and verse, so that they can gently correct less-experienced directors who are about to give them a bad ruling. Well, I had to make this about bridge somehow. Did you think I was going to say the moral was that it's perfectly fine to drive at the speed limit in the left lane when Eric is behind you? No. Get out of his way. Mine too, for that matter. -- Adam From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Mar 19 03:11:38 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:11:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45FC2627.7040507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070318190915.01d74008@mail.optusnet.com.au> Richard: >For example, Canberra and Australia Chief Director Sean >Mullamphy was once called to the table where a cad had >described her partner's 1S overcall as "any thirteen cards". >Sean put the fear of god into that cad, with a five-minute >Spanish Inquisition, "Could those thirteen cards include >seven hearts?", "Could those thirteen cards include 17hcp?", >et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Eventually the cad was >forced to admit his partner's 1S overcall showed less than >12hcp and a balanced hand. When I recently heard this story, the 1S bidder had apparently offered the explanation of her bid "it was supposed to show that I am playing with an arsehole" Cheers Tony (Sydney) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Mar 18 02:36:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:36:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FC979D.2020707@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] Rulings/judgements may be based on the balance of probabilities. If player A has an unblemished history of immaculate ethical compliance whilst player B has a track record of nefarious and underhand practices the balance of probabilities may change. Friends or enemies has nothing to do with it. A TD is not obliged to *like* somebody who has a good ethical record (or indeed to dislike someone with a poor ethical record). [nige1] Tim is well aware that we aren't talking about a player with *a track record of nefarious and underhand practices". Richard Hills said "I know from personal experience in January's round-of-16 that Wayne (Burrows) is a scholar and a gentleman, so if I had been the Chief Director I would have judged to weight the balance of probabilities differently in my Law 85 ruling." If you take such impressions into account in a ruling, you favour those whom you know and respect over, for example, strangers about whom you know little or nothing. It is understandable that directors would like the laws to empower them to exercise subjective judgement in this way. Unfortunately, also, directors have a greater influence on law-makers than ordinary players. Nevertheless I believe that there is a better approach to subjective judgements: "Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should disregard his relationship with the the alleged law-breaker and instead consider the likely intent of a typical player who behaved in that way in the same circumstances." To some players it seems obvious that the rules can and should be so interpreted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070318/d70caef3/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 18 12:37:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <45FC97B2.4080800@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > Rulings/judgements may be based on the balance of probabilities. If > player A has an unblemished history of immaculate ethical compliance > whilst player B has a track record of nefarious and underhand > practices the balance of probabilities may change. Friends or > enemies has nothing to do with it. A TD is not obliged to *like* > somebody who has a good ethical record (or indeed to dislike someone > with a poor ethical record). > > [nige1] > Tim is well aware that we aren't talking about a player with *a track > record of nefarious and underhand practices". Richard Hills said "I > know from personal experience in January's round-of-16 that Wayne > (Burrows) is a scholar and a gentleman, so if I had been the Chief > Director I would have judged to weight the balance of probabilities > differently in my Law 85 ruling." So in that specific case (and I was referring to general cases) we have instead "player A" (unblemished etc) > If you take such impressions into account in a ruling, Not impressions, knowledge. > you favour those whom you know and respect over, for example, > strangers about whom you know little or nothing. I don't "favour" anyone. I am better positioned to give an a fair ruling the more I know (or can find out) about the standard of the players concerned. > "Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should > disregard his relationship with the the alleged law-breaker and Of course TDs should disregard relationships - but they should not ignore their knowledge. > instead consider the likely intent of a typical player who behaved in > that way in the same circumstances." There's no such thing as a "typical player". If I know damn well that David and Emily would both have bid 4S (instead of defending 4H for one off) if not misinformed and that David would have made it on the obvious (to him) criss-cross but that Emily would have gone off then David was damaged by the MI but Emily was not. It's ridiculous to say that it would be "fair" to give the same ruling to both players. OK, it's harder to make judgements about the standard of strangers so one may end up compromising between the two rulings. For the record I like David well enough but not near so much as I like Emily. Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Mar 18 13:14:21 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:14:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FD2D1D.6080305@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives information to partner. [nige1] Herman may mistaken in his interpretation but current rules cause problems among most honest players. Herman seems to have common sense on his side: "If you aren't sure, then you must guess (and, in general, if you guess wrongly, then you may be penalized for misinformation)" seems to be a simpler and fairer rule. There is a continuous gradient of confidence between certainty and no understanding. Arithmeticians may deem this to be an *open* interval -- although bridge lawyers seem to disagree :) [A] Although we can never be certain of the meaning of a call, some of us divulge understandings of which we are reasonably confident. [B] In so doing, we may be breaking the *letter* of the law but we feel we are true to its *spirit*. [C] We also *offer* to guess the meaning of calls about which we are more doubtful. Many players, however, interpret the rules more literally to rationalise less complete disclosure. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Mar 18 14:41:37 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:41:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FD4191.7000805@NTLworld.com> [snip] [nige1] Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should disregard his relationship with the the alleged law-breaker and instead consider the likely intent of a typical player who behaved in that way in the same circumstances. If you take such impressions into account in a ruling, you favour those whom you know and respect over, for example, strangers about whom you know little or nothing. [Tim] Not impressions, knowledge. I don't "favour" anyone. I am better positioned to give a fair ruling the more I know (or can find out) about the standard of the players concerned. Of course TDs should disregard relationships - but they should not ignore their knowledge. There's no such thing as a "typical player". If I know damn well that David and Emily would both have bid 4S (instead of defending 4H for one off) if not misinformed and that David would have made it on the obvious (to him) criss-cross but that Emily would have gone off then David was damaged by the MI but Emily was not. It's ridiculous to say that it would be "fair" to give the same ruling to both players. OK, it's harder to make judgements about the standard of strangers so one may end up compromising between the two rulings. For the record I like David well enough but not near so much as I like Emily. [nige2] I'm unclear where "intent" comes into Tim's example; but IMO, even here, it is it is sensible to base your ruling on your assessment of the skill of the *field* and "ridiculous" to use your special "knowledge" of Emily's particular skills :) I am afraid Tim and I agree to differ on how hard it is to "know" the intent of an acquaintance, stranger, friend or enemy. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 18 15:35:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:35:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FD2D1D.6080305@NTLworld.com> References: <45FD2D1D.6080305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45FD4E4E.5000500@skynet.be> Nigel wrote: > [Richard Hills] > If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of > a call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for > example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. > When, however, as a result of partnership experience and > style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely > meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be > given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you > should not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." > or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper > as it gives information to partner. > > [nige1] > > Herman may mistaken in his interpretation but current rules cause > problems among most honest players. Herman seems to have common sense on > his side: "If you aren't sure, then you must guess (and, in general, if > you guess wrongly, then you may be penalized for misinformation)" seems > to be a simpler and fairer rule. > > There is a continuous gradient of confidence between certainty and no > understanding. Arithmeticians may deem this to be an *open* interval -- > although bridge lawyers seem to disagree :) > > [A] Although we can never be certain of the meaning of a call, some of > us divulge understandings of which we are reasonably confident. > [B] In so doing, we may be breaking the *letter* of the law but we feel > we are true to its *spirit*. > [C] We also *offer* to guess the meaning of calls about which we are > more doubtful. > > Many players, however, interpret the rules more literally to rationalise > less complete disclosure. > Indeed that's perhaps the crux of the matter. Some people say "no agreement" and then proceed to "guess" correctly. Although they may well be truthful in their statement, surely they know more than they are letting out. When faced with the enourmous difficulty I have as director to get to the bottom of the total sum of their knowledge, I prefer to tell them: "if you have reasons enough to guess correctly, then you might as well tell them your guess, because they are entitled to know the reasons". If a partner of mine (of reasonable standard) opens 2 clubs, I know that is one of three possibilities: "semi-GF"; "semi-GF or weak D"; "semi-GF or weak M". If I tell my opponents "no agreement", then they have a far bigger range of possibilities. Why not simply tell them my guess (or 2)? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Mar 18 17:33:49 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:33:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FD4E4E.5000500@skynet.be> References: <45FD2D1D.6080305@NTLworld.com> <45FD4E4E.5000500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200703181233.50199.brian@meadows.pair.com> On Sunday 18 March 2007 10:35 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Indeed that's perhaps the crux of the matter. Some people say "no > agreement" and then proceed to "guess" correctly. Although they may > well be truthful in their statement, surely they know more than they > are letting out. When faced with the enourmous difficulty I have as > director to get to the bottom of the total sum of their knowledge, I > prefer to tell them: "if you have reasons enough to guess correctly, > then you might as well tell them your guess, because they are entitled > to know the reasons". > What this seems to miss, Herman, is that even a genuine guess will be right some of the time. Will you accept as a "reason" for guessing correctly "My mental coin came down tails"? If not, then it does seem that you're penalising pairs for not having an agreement - either they have to guess wrong, or you'll suspect that they didn't give full disclosure. Brian. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 19 01:45:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:45:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200703181233.50199.brian@meadows.pair.com> References: <45FD2D1D.6080305@NTLworld.com> <45FD4E4E.5000500@skynet.be> <200703181233.50199.brian@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <45FDDD13.5060601@skynet.be> brian wrote: > On Sunday 18 March 2007 10:35 am, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Indeed that's perhaps the crux of the matter. Some people say "no >> agreement" and then proceed to "guess" correctly. Although they may >> well be truthful in their statement, surely they know more than they >> are letting out. When faced with the enourmous difficulty I have as >> director to get to the bottom of the total sum of their knowledge, I >> prefer to tell them: "if you have reasons enough to guess correctly, >> then you might as well tell them your guess, because they are entitled >> to know the reasons". >> > > What this seems to miss, Herman, is that even a genuine guess will be right > some of the time. Will you accept as a "reason" for guessing correctly "My > mental coin came down tails"? If not, then it does seem that you're > penalising pairs for not having an agreement - either they have to guess > wrong, or you'll suspect that they didn't give full disclosure. > What you seem to miss, Brian, is that people don't just "guess", they guess within a framework. If we were to play tomorrow, guessing would be the only tool we had. But if I play with any Belgian, even one I had never met before, our guesses would be conditioned with what is "normal" in Belgium. Especially when playing against non-belgians who have no idea of what is normal in Belgium, that "normality" has to be disclosed. When I play with a pickup partner, I don't bother about the minors. So when they open 1D and opponents ask me, I can completely truthfully say "no agreement" (it already being understood we play 5-card majors). However, usually I have some idea as to the likely system my partner is more used to - should I not tell them that idea (unless of course my opponents know my partner better than I do)? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 19 15:56:31 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:56:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FDDD13.5060601@skynet.be> References: <200703181233.50199.brian@meadows.pair.com> <45FDDD13.5060601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200703191056.40980.brian@meadows.pair.com> On Sunday 18 March 2007 08:45 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > > What you seem to miss, Brian, is that people don't just "guess", they > guess within a framework. If we were to play tomorrow, guessing would > be the only tool we had. But if I play with any Belgian, even one I > had never met before, our guesses would be conditioned with what is > "normal" in Belgium. Especially when playing against non-belgians who > have no idea of what is normal in Belgium, that "normality" has to be > disclosed. > > When I play with a pickup partner, I don't bother about the minors. So > when they open 1D and opponents ask me, I can completely truthfully > say "no agreement" (it already being understood we play 5-card > majors). However, usually I have some idea as to the likely system my > partner is more used to - should I not tell them that idea (unless of > course my opponents know my partner better than I do)? Yes, of course you should tell opponents if you have more knowledge than they do - but my point is that you seemed to suggest that such would always be the case if you guessed correctly. Maybe, given that I play almost all my bridge online these days, I come up against the situation where it *is* a pure guess much more often than you do. Brian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070319/3200d7c1/attachment.pgp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 20 02:17:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:17:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FD4E4E.5000500@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >If a partner of mine (of reasonable standard) opens 2 clubs, I >know that is one of three possibilities: "semi-GF"; "semi-GF or >weak D"; "semi-GF or weak M". If I tell my opponents "no >agreement", then they have a far bigger range of possibilities. >Why not simply tell them my guess (or 2)? Richard Hills: No, tell the enquiring foreigner all _three_ locally popular possibilities. In my opinion, Herman is misdescribing a three-way implicit partnership agreement (presumably based on "reasonable standard" local norms in his local bridge area) as a "guess". An implicit mutual partnership agreement should be described. A unilateral non-partnership "guess" should not be described. 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 Mar 20 06:25:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:25:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200703162255.OAA26006@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >And here some poor cop had pulled him over for violating a >law that didn't exist. > >The moral of the story is, of course, that it's helpful >for players to know the Laws by chapter and verse, so that >they can gently correct less-experienced directors who are >about to give them a bad ruling. > >Well, I had to make this about bridge somehow. [snip] Richard Hills: Many years ago this auction occurred in the qualifying rounds of the Australian National Open Teams -> Eric Kokish Hashmat Ali Aussie Champion Me 1S Double 4S 5H(1) (1) In my normal quick tempo Since Eric Kokish knew chapter and verse that I was giving UI to pard by not waiting for the compulsory 10 seconds after my RHO's skip bid, he "gently corrected" me in his inimitable style. Alas, he was pulling me over for violating a law that didn't exist, since Australia has never adopted a "Stop!" after skip bid regulation. Perhaps foolish pre-empts are so numerous Down Under that players are habituated to them, so we need no compulsory pause in such a routine Aussie auction. :-) 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 Mar 20 06:43:30 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:43:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c768fe$c4dd7c60$aba0403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I consider that evidence is evidence. However, >I do not read guidance what to do in the absence of >evidence as requiring that if there is evidence then, >whatever its nature, it must be accepted as proof . In >that situation I consider the 'evidence' must be judged >for its credibility. Richard Hills: Indeed. Testimony that, "I believed diamonds were breaking badly in this tournament," may be judged very credible if made by a superstitious beginner who does not believe in the Principle of Restricted Choice. But if the same statement was made by a top international expert who uses the Principle of Restricted Choice, then that testimony may then be judged very incredible. Grattan Endicott: >The Director is to decide whether he is "satisfied that >he has ascertained the facts". He will then make a >ruling either as Law 85A provides or in accordance with >Law 85B. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 Mar 20 10:03:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:03:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FFA373.6020604@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >> If a partner of mine (of reasonable standard) opens 2 clubs, I >> know that is one of three possibilities: "semi-GF"; "semi-GF or >> weak D"; "semi-GF or weak M". If I tell my opponents "no >> agreement", then they have a far bigger range of possibilities. >> Why not simply tell them my guess (or 2)? > > Richard Hills: > > No, tell the enquiring foreigner all _three_ locally popular > possibilities. > > In my opinion, Herman is misdescribing a three-way implicit > partnership agreement (presumably based on "reasonable standard" > local norms in his local bridge area) as a "guess". > > An implicit mutual partnership agreement should be described. A > unilateral non-partnership "guess" should not be described. > And what's the difference? You're just mincing words, Richard. I don't know we're playing either of these three, even that is just a "guess". If I should not be telling "guesses", then I don't tell them that. And of course I am going to tell them this. But what you are forgetting, Richard, is that there are many out there who will say "well, we did not explicitely agree anything, so I am not telling them anything", and hiding behind posts of Richard Hills' to support that. You are just using my word "guess" in a different context. When I say "guess", I mean "I'm not sure, but I believe it should be ..."., not "I have absolutely no clue, but it could be ...". And even then, you must agree with me that even in your understanding of guessing, a player need not say which way he guesses, but he should still reveal what options he's guessing between, no? We are in agreement, you know, Richard! > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 20 10:46:15 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:46:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003901c76ad9$620990b0$36c087d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills: > > Many years ago this auction occurred in the qualifying > rounds of the Australian National Open Teams -> > > > Eric Kokish Hashmat Ali Aussie Champion Me > 1S Double 4S 5H(1) > > (1) In my normal quick tempo > > Since Eric Kokish knew chapter and verse that I was giving > UI to pard by not waiting for the compulsory 10 seconds > after my RHO's skip bid, he "gently corrected" me in his > inimitable style. > > Alas, he was pulling me over for violating a law that > didn't exist, since Australia has never adopted a "Stop!" > after skip bid regulation. > > Perhaps foolish pre-empts are so numerous Down Under that > players are habituated to them, so we need no compulsory > pause in such a routine Aussie auction. > > :-) > +=+ But then in that unregulated environment you would equally have conveyed UI to partner if you had taken longer to think about it. Quite a dilemma. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 20 12:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FDDD13.5060601@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > What you seem to miss, Brian, is that people don't just "guess", they > guess within a framework. Indeed, but not everything within that framework us something opponents are entitled to know. You open 1S and LHO bids 2N (unspecified 2-suiter), partner bids 4H. Given what you know about partner you believe this could either be a natural single-suiter with sound hearts or a splinter in support of spades. Of course opps are entitled to that disclosure but chances are they already know that perfectly well if you say "Undiscussed" (if it turns out they weren't aware of one option then there may be damage from incomplete disclosure). Your hand is AKxxx,AQTxx,xx,x (or maybe AKxxx,-,Kxxx,Kxxx). I'm afraid I don't take seriously a suggestion that you would "guess" the same way regardless of which hand you held - and yet you will guess right most of the time *despite* having no more understanding of the possible meanings than do your opponents. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 20 12:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FFA373.6020604@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > I don't know we're playing either of these three, even that is just a > "guess". If I should not be telling "guesses", then I don't tell them > that. And of course I am going to tell them this. But what you are > forgetting, Richard, is that there are many out there who will say > "well, we did not explicitely agree anything, so I am not telling > them anything", and hiding behind posts of Richard Hills' to support > that. Like elephants hiding behind lamp-posts? If they fail to disclose a possibility of which they aware and opponents weren't then there is MI. If the fail to convey to the opponents their knowledge (based on something unknown to opps) of the relative liklihood of one possibility compared to another there is MI. Equally if they tell their opps "It is X" when according to their partnership agreements it is "either X or Y" then there is MI - even if it turns out to be X. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 20 14:18:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:18:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FFDF26.9070803@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> What you seem to miss, Brian, is that people don't just "guess", they >> guess within a framework. > > Indeed, but not everything within that framework us something opponents > are entitled to know. You open 1S and LHO bids 2N (unspecified > 2-suiter), partner bids 4H. Given what you know about partner you > believe this could either be a natural single-suiter with sound hearts > or a splinter in support of spades. Of course opps are entitled to that > disclosure but chances are they already know that perfectly well if you > say "Undiscussed" Sorry to interrupt, but NO. We are talking about disclosure here, not about what you should say. of course everything you should disclose can fall under "general knowledge" (at that particular table) so that you don't need to say it (at that particular table). But in the context of our discussion here, that is just the same as if it has been said. You should not try to get out of this discussion by things like "chances are they already know that" - What if they don't know it - do you have to say "undiscussed" or "it could be single-suiter or splinter". Don't tell me it cannot possibly be something else. (if it turns out they weren't aware of one option then > there may be damage from incomplete disclosure). > > Your hand is AKxxx,AQTxx,xx,x (or maybe AKxxx,-,Kxxx,Kxxx). I'm afraid > I don't take seriously a suggestion that you would "guess" the same way > regardless of which hand you held - and yet you will guess right most of > the time *despite* having no more understanding of the possible meanings > than do your opponents. > This is poppycock. no-one is asking you to reveal why you know it is a splinter (or a natural). If you simply say "splinter", you have not revealed that you are looking at a strong heart suit. They will believe you just know your system. Yet what you try to tell me is that you will say to your opponents "could be natural or splinter", then act according to what you know, and then can get past the director that you only knew it was splinter because you could deduce that from your hand. Well, some people have told me I use the footnote too strictly, but this one seems like just strict enough for me. "One player bid a splinter, the other one reacted perfectly to that, and yet he insisted he did not know it was a splinter". Seems like enough evidence to me. Wait, I should only look for the absence of evidence to the contrary! > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 20 14:21:12 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:21:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FFDFC8.6040305@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> I don't know we're playing either of these three, even that is just a >> "guess". If I should not be telling "guesses", then I don't tell them >> that. And of course I am going to tell them this. But what you are >> forgetting, Richard, is that there are many out there who will say >> "well, we did not explicitely agree anything, so I am not telling >> them anything", and hiding behind posts of Richard Hills' to support >> that. > > Like elephants hiding behind lamp-posts? If they fail to disclose a > possibility of which they aware and opponents weren't then there is MI. > If the fail to convey to the opponents their knowledge (based on > something unknown to opps) of the relative liklihood of one possibility > compared to another there is MI. Equally if they tell their opps "It is > X" when according to their partnership agreements it is "either X or Y" > then there is MI - even if it turns out to be X. > No Tim, because we are talking here about people who have no firm agreements. They cannot then have the agreement that it is either X or Y. So they cannot misinform when they say it is X. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 20 15:57:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:57:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:07 PM 3/16/07, Nigel wrote: >[A] My view of humanity is realistic. Bridge-players are a cross-section >of humanity. Like most of humanity, bridge-players sometimes rationalize >wrong-doing. It is Eric and Richard who refer to players as cads or >cheats. Not I. Few bridge players regard themselves as cheats and almost >all would be mortified to be so-branded. So they would. And they would not be mollified by being told that they're not being accused of wrongdoing but merely punished for doing the same thing that a wrongdoer might. They don't regard themselves as cheats because they are not cheats, and do not want laws that treat them as though they were. >If American bridge-players are as immaculate as Eric claims that is >wonderful. >It must be great to live in a country where less than 1% of the population >ever break speed limits and marriage vows; or cheat on taxes and >expenses :) Did I say that? American bridge players cheat on taxes and expenses because money is valuable. They cheat on speed limits because their time is valuable. They cheat on their marriage vows because... well, you know why. But cheating for master points? What's the point; they don't get you money, time, sex, or anything else of real value. It's a game. Of course, there does exist a small, aberrant minority that we know will cheat for master points, for whatever reason. But the vast majority would rather let them get away with it -- or, perhaps more realistically, willfully maintain the shared fiction that they don't exist -- because, on balance, that gives them a game they'd prefer to play. They may be being unrealistic, but we can't say they're wrong (there's that ol' subjectivity again). >{B] It is neither possible nor desirable to eliminate subjective >assessment >from the rules of bridge. Who would claim otherwise? Nevertheless, the >rules >of a *game* rules should be as clear, simple and objective *as >possible* -- >consistent with keeping the game's essential nature. > >IMO law-makers should concentrate on action not motives. Where the law >*insists* that the director consider intent, he should take care to >disregard >his impression of the character and reputation of the alleged law-breaker. >Instead, the director should consider the likely intent of a typical >player >who behaved in that way in the same circumstances. I fully agree. But it is over the practical implications of this statement that Nigel and I disagree. In my world, treating alleged law-breakers by presuming "the likely intent of a typical player who behaved in that way in the same circumstances" means treating them as innocent offenders; in Nigel's world it seems to mean treating them as cheats. I don't argue that there are no cheats; I merely argue that they are not typical of players who "behave[] in that way". >[C] Eric seems to be claiming that more objective rules would result in >the director making the right ruling less than 5% of the time :( A >statistical mistake somewhere? In the context I wrote that I was using "right ruling" to mean one which gives an appropriately mild penalty to an innocent infractor or an appropriately severe penatly to a deliberate infractor. I did not claim that "more objective rules" per se would achieve the right ruling less then 5% of the time; I claimed that the sort of more objective rules that Nigel has espoused in this forum (providing penalties suitable to deliberate infractors, as opposed to penalties suitable to innocent ones, to all) would achieve the right ruling less than 5% of the time. I also expressed the opinion that the actual number was closer to 1%. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 20 16:34:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:34:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: References: <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070320101453.02a73010@pop.starpower.net> At 12:08 PM 3/17/07, twm wrote: >Nigel wrote: > > > Many players are frighted that Directors use the kind of argument > > advanced by Richard and others, to decide in favour of those they > > know to be "scholars and gentlemen" and against strangers and > > enemies, on otherwise identical facts. > >Rulings/judgements may be based on the balance of probabilities. If >player A has an unblemished history of immaculate ethical compliance >whilst player B has a track record of nefarious and underhand practices >the balance of probabilities may change. Friends or enemies has nothing >to do with it. A TD is not obliged to *like* somebody who has a good >ethical record (or indeed to dislike someone with a poor ethical record). > > > Unfortunately for us, the > > rules (laws, regulations etc) seem geared to promote subjective > > assessment, giving directors scope to rule in a way that is hard for > > the losing side to dispute. > >Of course if TDs rule on the basis of good legal understanding, >knowledge and judgement they will tend to give rulings that are fair and >correct. That does indeed make the rulings hard for the "losing side" >to dispute. > > > If American bridge-players are as immaculate as Eric claims that is > > wonderful. It must be great to live in a country where less than 1% > > of the population ever break speed limits and marriage vows; or > > cheat on taxes and expenses :) > >Totally irrelevant. I know plenty of ethical bridge players who >wouldn't give a monkey's for either marriage vows or speed limits >(several names can be found by checking recent results lists from the >YC, but I leave as an exercise to the reader which ones fall into the >various categories). > > > IMO law-makers should concentrate on action not motives. > >And in general they do. Score adjustments based on actions are >routinely made on a "could have known" basis, the TD only considers >motive if he is contemplating a serious disciplinary ruling of >deliberate action. > > > Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should > > take care to disregard his impression of the character and > > reputation of the alleged law-breaker. > >Why on earth should a TD give the same benefit of the doubt to a known >unethical player as he would to either a known ethical player or a >stranger? All that does is give carte blanche to the unethical to try >it on every time. > > > I reckon it is harder than Eric or Richard will admit for a director > > to dispassionately assess the character of a friend or enemy. > >It doesn't have to be easy - it is simply *necessary*. TDs who can't do >it when required simply shouldn't be doing the job. > > > I am happy to concede that, especially when considering penalties, > > the director may take into account previous infractions. > >Better, but I don't really understand why you consider "previous >infractions" different to "character and reputation". The assessment of >a player's C&R is a sum of ones knowledge of his previous infractions. It's actually a lot easier than we've been making it out to be. From the local games where I direct to the world championships, players and officials to a very large extent know one another. Thus an individual player's "C&R" is far more than the mere sum of one's own personal knowledge of his previous infractions; it is the sum of the collective knowledge of his past infractions held by the community in general. When a TD chooses to treat a specific infractor as immaculately ethical, or as a marginal cheat, he is not, in real life, imposing some idiosyncratic personal judgment, but rather reflecting the collective judgment of the community of which he and the player in question are both a part. Judging "a friend or enemy" doesn't matter, because it's not one's own judgment that one's rulings reflect. TDs whose assessments of their players' ethical characters are at odds with the common assessments of the community in which they work do not keep their jobs for long. 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 Mar 20 23:02:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:02:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>.....there are many out there who will say >>>"well, we did not explicitly agree anything, >>>so I am not telling them anything", and >>>hiding behind posts of Richard Hills' to >>>support that. Tim West-Meads: >>Like elephants hiding behind lamp-posts? Richard Hills: Rather, like an elephant hiding behind another elephant. I have a seafood diet; I see food and I eat it. :-) Tim West-Meads: >>If they fail to disclose a possibility of >>which they aware and opponents weren't then >>there is MI. If they fail to convey to the >>opponents their knowledge (based on something >>unknown to opps) of the relative likelihood of >>one possibility compared to another there is >>MI. Equally if they tell their opps "It is X" >>when according to their partnership agreements >>it is "either X or Y" then there is MI - even >>if it turns out to be X. Herman De Wael: >No Tim, because we are talking here about >people who have no firm agreements. They cannot >then have the agreement that it is either X or >Y. So they cannot misinform when they say it is >X. Charles Caleb Colton (1780?-1832): "When you have nothing to say, say nothing." Richard Hills: A contradiction in terms. If you do not have a firm explicit or implicit mutual partnership agreement that you play X, then indeed you are giving misinformation to the opponents if you tell them that you _do_ have a firm explicit or implicit mutual partnership agreement that you play X. Charles Caleb Colton (1780?-1832): "Man is an embodied paradox, a bundle of contradictions." 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 21 03:28:57 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:28:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <200703141805.l2EI5xni026358@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703141805.l2EI5xni026358@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46009869.5040104@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > I was declarer as South, and while West was considering her lead, East > said, "Wait! What did your (my) 2S bid show?" 2S was alerted, but no > one asked during the auction. I'm coming late to this question, but I don't think anyone has given a full answer. Some of the answers that have been given seem bizarre. The first issue is what East's question really means. If it means something like "I have a good holding in spades, and I'd like you to lead one," that's ordinary UI to West. (As a matter of terminology, this is an "informatory question.") We all know how to deal with that via L16A, etc. The more interesting meaning is something like "That 2S bid was not what you think, and you really ought to ask about it." This is not a UI problem; it's an infraction of L73B1, a wholly different matter. (This is termed a "pro question.") If this infraction causes damage, the Director should go to L12A1 and 12C2 (and possibly 12C3 if it is in force). In practice, there are two cases: if West leads without asking about 2S, L73B1 damage is very unlikely. If West _does_ ask, the Director needs to consider what would have happened if the irregularity -- East's question -- had not occurred. In practice, if the lead worked out well for EW, and there was any likelihood that West would not have asked, and the answer to the 2S question could have suggested the lead, the Director should adjust the score. Of course the Director should explain all this before West asks about 2S, and a sensible West then won't ask because it can't be to his advantage. The Director will get this right if he realizes two things: East's question, because of its timing, was illegal, and UI only applies to unseen cards, not to opponents' methods. From: "Sven Pran" > I would as TD have denied West the right to ask any question after East's > illegal activity This is going too far, though proper advice (L10C1) to a sensible West will have the same effect. It probably would be simpler to rule as Sven wishes, but the current Laws don't support doing so. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 21 06:17:36 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:17:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070320101453.02a73010@pop.starpower.net> References: <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320101453.02a73010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4600BFF0.3050608@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] > From the local games where I direct to the world championships, > players and officials to a very large extent know one another. Thus an > individual player's "C&R" is far more than the mere sum of one's own > personal knowledge of his previous infractions; it is the sum of the > collective knowledge of his past infractions held by the community in > general. When a TD chooses to treat a specific infractor as > immaculately ethical, or as a marginal cheat, he is not, in real life, > imposing some idiosyncratic personal judgment, but rather reflecting > the collective judgment of the community of which he and the player in > question are both a part. Judging "a friend or enemy" doesn't matter, > because it's not one's own judgment that one's rulings reflect. TDs > whose assessments of their players' ethical characters are at odds with > the common assessments of the community in which they work do not keep > their jobs for long. > > [nige1] When ruling on a game, it seems invidious for a director to take into account his own or the local view of a particular player's intent. He risks reflecting local political, racial, sexual, class, age or other prejudices and he is likely to treat strangers differently from acquaintances. For a *game*, such considerations aren't needed. If you must judge a player's intent, it is sufficient to assess the intent of a typical competitor who behaved the same way in the same context. I am intrigued that directors lose their jobs when their (implicit) ethical assessments are at odds with those of the community's. How often does this happen? How does the CTD go about obtaining the community consensus? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 21 07:04:08 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:04:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4600CAD8.7000606@NTLworld.com> {Eric Landau] > In the context I wrote that I was using "right ruling" to mean one > which gives an appropriately mild penalty to an innocent infractor or > an appropriately severe penatly to a deliberate infractor. I did not > claim that "more objective rules" per se would achieve the right ruling > less then 5% of the time; I claimed that the sort of more objective > rules that Nigel has espoused in this forum (providing penalties > suitable to deliberate infractors, as opposed to penalties suitable to > innocent ones, to all) would achieve the right ruling less than 5% of > the time. I also expressed the opinion that the actual number was > closer to 1%. > [nigel] Eric's statistics are too sophisticated for me but I agree that there are two issues: 1. Intent: rather than base your ruling on the character of the alleged offender, I still think it is preferable to assess the likely intent of a *typical * competitor who acted the same way in the same circumstances, . It seems that Eric no longer claims that this would result in mostly "wrong" rulings. Good. 2. Penalties. Mild punishments are popular with law-breakers and create less hassle for directors. I'm afraid Eric is right about my view on them. In a game, punishments should be consistent but they don't have to be mild. (e.g. Roof repairs at Monopoly). Bridge penalties should be deterrent. Restoring the status quo leaves the law-breaker no worse off. Since not all infractions attract an adverse ruling, they leave law-breakers with a long-term net reward and inadequately compensate victims. They encourage "carelessness" or worse. They put off the victim from reporting infractions. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 21 07:05:40 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:05:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4600CB34.1000503@NTLworld.com> {Eric Landau] > In the context I wrote that I was using "right ruling" to mean one > which gives an appropriately mild penalty to an innocent infractor or > an appropriately severe penatly to a deliberate infractor. I did not > claim that "more objective rules" per se would achieve the right ruling > less then 5% of the time; I claimed that the sort of more objective > rules that Nigel has espoused in this forum (providing penalties > suitable to deliberate infractors, as opposed to penalties suitable to > innocent ones, to all) would achieve the right ruling less than 5% of > the time. I also expressed the opinion that the actual number was > closer to 1%. [nigel] Eric's statistics are too sophisticated for me but I agree that there are two issues: 1. Intent: rather than base your ruling on the character of the alleged offender, I still think it is preferable to assess the likely intent of a *typical * competitor who acted the same way in the same circumstances, . It seems that Eric no longer claims that this would result in mostly "wrong" rulings. Good. 2. Penalties. Mild punishments are popular with law-breakers and create less hassle for directors. I'm afraid Eric is right about my view on them. In a game, punishments should be consistent but they don't have to be mild. (e.g. Roof repairs at Monopoly). Bridge penalties should be deterrent. Restoring the status quo leaves the law-breaker no worse off. Since not all infractions attract an adverse ruling, they leave law-breakers with a long-term net reward and inadequately compensate victims. They encourage "carelessness" or worse. They put off the victim from reporting infractions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 21 08:07:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:07:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FFA373.6020604@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>An implicit mutual partnership agreement should be described. >>A unilateral non-partnership "guess" should not be described. Herman De Wael asked: >And what's the difference? Graham Greene, The Quiet American (slightly modified): "Perhaps if I wanted to be understood or to understand I would bamboozle myself into belief, but I am a reporter; the De Wael School exists only for leader-writers." Richard Hills: The difference is in the words "mutual" versus "unilateral". In my opinion, an implicit partnership understanding is created through a _mutual_ experience or awareness by _both_ partners. A unique and unilateral decision by one partner does not mean that by TARDIS an understanding _previously_ existed. (Although, as Kojak has noted, only _one_ spectacular deviation from system is usually needed to create a _future_ implicit understanding.) 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 Mar 21 09:06:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FFDFC8.6040305@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > If the fail to convey to the opponents their knowledge (based on > > something unknown to opps) of the relative liklihood of one > > possibility compared to another there is MI. Equally if they tell > > their opps "It is X" when according to their partnership agreements > > it is "either X or Y" then there is MI - even if it turns out to be > > X. > > > > No Tim, because we are talking here about people who have no firm > agreements. They cannot then have the agreement that it is either X > or Y. They don't have a firm agreement but they have an implicit understanding that it will be either X or Y but don't know which. (Shorthand, they have an agreement that it is either X or Y). > So they cannot misinform when they say it is X. Of course they misinform. If, as an opponent, I am told there is ambiguity as to whether it is X or Y I *may* have the opportunity to make a call which sows confusion or otherwise heightens that ambiguity. If my opps lie to me and say there is a firm agreement I am denied that opportunity. If my hand is unsuitable for such opportunistic action then there's no *damage* from the MI but that doesn't mean I haven't been misinformed. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 21 09:06:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:06 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45FFDF26.9070803@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > You should not try to get out of this discussion by things like > "chances are they already know that" - What if they don't know it - As I said earlier - if they *don't* know it when one says simply "undiscussed" then there is MI and possible damage - the key is that if they *do* know it they cannot claim damage merely because I didn't extrapolate. > do you have to say "undiscussed" or "it could be single-suiter or > splinter". You have to say sufficient that opps will have the same level of understanding as you do yourself. Sometimes "undiscussed" will be enough, sometimes it won't. If you aren't sure you give more detail. > Don't tell me it cannot possibly be something else. It can't be anything else with any of my partners. Most of my opponents would know that when I said "undiscussed". Actually to those opps I'd probably disclose it as "torture bid" and they'd know exactly what I meant. > This is poppycock. no-one is asking you to reveal why you know it is > a splinter (or a natural). If you simply say "splinter", you have not > revealed that you are looking at a strong heart suit. They will > believe you just know your system. But we don't have a system (in cases where the auction *is* undiscussed). My partner knows his bid has two possible meanings and is hoping I will be able to work out what is going on. I know he knows that. > Yet what you try to tell me is that you will say to your opponents > "could be natural or splinter", I will tell opponents the truth about our agreements. So yes, if I know it could be natural or splinter that's what I will say. > then act according to what you know, > and then can get past the director that you only knew it was splinter > because you could deduce that from your hand. I'm not trying to get anything "past the director" - I explain my partnership agreements and understandings and all inferences based on relevant experience. *Then* I look at my hand and decide what to do. > Well, some people have told me I use the footnote too strictly, but > this one seems like just strict enough for me. "One player bid a > splinter, the other one reacted perfectly to that, and yet he > insisted he did not know it was a splinter". No. He explained that there was ambiguity in the partnership agreements as to whether it was natural or a splinter. He, quite correctly, said nothing about the inferences available from his hand. Nor did he give UI to his partner by stating a single interpretation. Of course if your judgement tells you that the evidence given by the player's testimony should be ignored then you may do so. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 21 10:20:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:20:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <4600CAD8.7000606@NTLworld.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070321101347.02169e00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:04 21/03/2007 +0000, Nigel wrote: > Restoring the status quo leaves the law-breaker no worse >off. Since not all infractions attract an adverse ruling, they leave >law-breakers with a long-term net reward and inadequately compensate >victims. Not necessarily. Recording rulings based on L23, L73B1 and the like would give objective information to allow TDs and ACs to be harsher when the same behaviour reappears, which hints at intentional action. First use of L73B1 against a player : "restoring" ruling. Second : same plus PP. Third : disciplinary action. Using computers makes this quite feasible at a national level. At least, the deterrent would be there. The lawbreaker is indeed worse off. As for players not reporting infractions when needed : they're plain wrong, and the laws should not provide for them forgetting this. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 21 10:15:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:15:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] the Kaplan Question (precis, part 1 of 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4600F79A.2070403@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> You should not try to get out of this discussion by things like >> "chances are they already know that" - What if they don't know it - > > As I said earlier - if they *don't* know it when one says simply > "undiscussed" then there is MI and possible damage - the key is that if > they *do* know it they cannot claim damage merely because I didn't > extrapolate. > But my point is that if they DO know it, and you know that they do, then "undiscussed" is not your final total answer. So my argument that "undiscussed" is not a complete answer remains. Of course "undiscussed" is enough among friends. But I am talking about other situations. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 21 10:30:38 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:30:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45FFA373.6020604@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070321102054.02168600@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:07 21/03/2007 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Richard Hills asserted: > > >>An implicit mutual partnership agreement should be described. > >>A unilateral non-partnership "guess" should not be described. There was an interesting incident last night. RHO : 1D Me : 2C Partner alerts, LHO asks, and is told: "it's a 2-suiter, but I can't remember which one". After several months away from the table for parenthood reasons, he could be excused. No TD. So I send partner away myself and tell them it's clubs and hearts. Partner comes back and proceeds to bid based on his guess that it's clubs and hearts. Note that he did'nt explain them his guess, so as to let me unknowing. After all, they already had the right explanation. Now tell me : partner "guessed" from vague principles that 2C wac CH and 1NT was CS, rather than the other way round. Did he do anything wrong by telling what he knew (little) and then guessing ? In the case of unilateral guessing, as described, vague principles which aren't part of partnership's agreements may in the same way help the player, and aren't subject to disclosure AFAIC. Best regards Alain From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Mar 21 12:42:35 2007 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:42:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070321102054.02168600@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <45FFA373.6020604@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070321102054.02168600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: I actually found myself in a similar position recently I agreed to play in the teams with a few peeps and at the last minute one member had to bail. Fortunately I was able to get a replacement whom I had infrequently (4/5 times) played with before. We had hammered out a cc from a previous event and we agreed to play that, not paying too much attention to the precise details. We are bidding away toward slam and I bid 4NT RKC only to realise i had no idea which version we were playing. Its on the CC but I cant look at that while bidding. Pd replies 5C's and i bid 5D's queen ask (hearts agreed) when LHO asks what the 4NT was, the 5C's and the 5D's. Now I was looking at 2 key cards and pd had made a striong bid so couldnt have had 1/0 and i knew from my hand it showed 3 but everyone at the table knew we didnt know which version we had agreed. I replied it showed 3/0 or 1/4 and I couldn't recall which. We bid 7H making, but I wonder what should I have done. In another scenario pd's bid + my answers would convey alot of info. Could pd say bid 7 if I signed off in 6 with 4 instead of 3 ? Should I have sent pd away from the table and explained (pretty pointless as we all knew what was happening) to the opps the scenario. Could I have said undiscussed and just guessed which it was ? karel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070321/cd04d8cf/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 21 14:51:19 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:51:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentelmen In-Reply-To: <4600BFF0.3050608@NTLworld.com> References: <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320101453.02a73010@pop.starpower.net> <4600BFF0.3050608@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070321082558.02a2ceb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:17 AM 3/21/07, Nigel wrote: >When ruling on a game, it seems invidious for a director to take into >account his own or the local view of a particular player's intent. He >risks reflecting local political, racial, sexual, class, age or other >prejudices and he is likely to treat strangers differently from >acquaintances. For a *game*, such considerations aren't needed. If you >must judge a player's intent, it is sufficient to assess the intent of >a typical competitor who behaved the same way in the same context. I don't particularly disagree with this. Where Nigel and I differ sharply is in our "assess[ment of] the intent of a typical competitor...". In my world, treating every offender as "typical" means treating guilty intent as though innocent, not the other way around. >I am intrigued that directors lose their jobs when their (implicit) >ethical assessments are at odds with those of the community's. How often >does this happen? How does the CTD go about obtaining the community >consensus? At the levels I direct, TDs don't need to "go about obtaining the community consensus"; they are a part of it. If they do not share the values of their players, the players stop coming to their clubs, their games shrink, and eventually they close. In the area I play (and occasionally direct) a club folds or a new one opens every couple of years. (This may not work quite so well in relatively remote areas where there's only one club with a captive audience, but I did preface my remarks with "where I direct".) At higher levels, the community (through its elected representatives) appoints and keeps tabs on the CTDs for its tournaments, and they in turn evaluate their subordinate TDs. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 21 15:26:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:26:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45FFA373.6020604@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070321102054.02168600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <460140A2.50909@skynet.be> Both Alain and Karel give an example from real life. I find Karel's a bit more interesting, so I'll try and give my vision on that one. Presumably it will answer Alain's quistions as well. Karel wrote: > I actually found myself in a similar position recently > > I agreed to play in the teams with a few peeps and at the last minute > one member had to bail. Fortunately I was able to get a replacement > whom I had infrequently (4/5 times) played with before. > > We had hammered out a cc from a previous event and we agreed to play > that, not paying too much attention to the precise details. > This means that for all intents and purposes, this pair actually has a defined system. Remember that this is not always the case. > We are bidding away toward slam and I bid 4NT RKC only to realise i had > no idea which version we were playing. Its on the CC but I cant look at > that while bidding. Pd replies 5C's and i bid 5D's queen ask (hearts > agreed) when LHO asks what the 4NT was, the 5C's and the 5D's. > I am really wondering why he needs to know, but OK, it's his right. > Now I was looking at 2 key cards and pd had made a striong bid so > couldnt have had 1/0 and i knew from my hand it showed 3 but everyone at > the table knew we didnt know which version we had agreed. I replied it > showed 3/0 or 1/4 and I couldn't recall which. We bid 7H making, but I > wonder what should I have done. > Well, you gave a wrong answer: you should have told them what it meant, and you didn't. So they were misinformed. There's nothing you can do within the laws of the game but give one answer (or the other). If you guess correctly, they don't have MI, if you guess wrong, there is MI (and UI). If you decide to not answer, then there is certainly MI, and even more UI. So why not guess? By saying "I don't remember, but I can see from my hand it's 3/0" you are giving correct information, but also UI. Why not simply pretend you remember perfectly and say "3/0"? > In another scenario pd's bid + my answers would convey alot of info. > Could pd say bid 7 if I signed off in 6 with 4 instead of 3 ? Should I > have sent pd away from the table and explained (pretty pointless as we > all knew what was happening) to the opps the scenario. Could I have > said undiscussed and just guessed which it was ? > No, since in your case it is not undiscussed. > karel > Richard has put me on the spot here, and has made people believe that I think there is some law against saying "undiscussed" or "I can't remember". There is not, and I have no misbelief that there is. This piece of advice that I give to players is just that: advice to players: If you can't remember what it means, just say what you think it is, without any addition that you are uncertain. If you are right, there is no MI and no UI. If you are wrong, there is MI and UI, but then again, you'll probably end up in a bad contract just from your mistake as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Mar 21 15:56:29 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:56:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] gentelmen (sic) Message-ID: <4601479D.8080004@aol.com> Ahoy blml! Unless the misspelling "gentelmen" is intentional someone might note that the proper form is "gentlemen". And, incidentally, is there such a word/form as "frighting"? Ciao, JE From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 21 16:37:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:37:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Report irregularities! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070321101347.02169e00@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070321101347.02169e00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46015126.1040604@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottheimer] > At least, the deterrent would be there. The lawbreaker is indeed worse > off. As for players not reporting infractions when needed : they're > plain wrong, and the laws should not provide for them forgetting this. [nige1] - Spectators must not report infractions. = Directors seem to believe that they must ignore infractions unless a player reports them.= - Normally, players are under *no* obligation to draw attention to infractions. In fact, most players report only [A] opponents' infractions [B] when they themselves are in contention. [C] They rarely appeal a doubtful ruling unless it will alter the result of a competition. Thus, in practice, law-breakers can get away with a lot. There should be a law enjoining players (and spectators IMO) to report irregularities. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 20 22:41:37 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:41:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentlemen References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net><45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006501c76bd6$66711990$ed9487d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ladies and gentlemen > T. W-M: "The assessment of a player's C&R is a sum of one's knowledge of his previous infractions." < +=+ 'C&R' - criminality and recidivism ? +=+ < ----- omissis ------- > > Nigel (possibly): > >IMO law-makers should concentrate on > >action not motives. Where the law *insists* > > that the director consider intent, he should > > take care to disregard his impression of the > > character and reputation of the alleged law- > > breaker. Instead, the director should consider > > the likely intent of a typical player who > >behaved in that way in the same circumstances. > +=+ Oh, *that* C&R ..... +=+ < Eric: > I fully agree. > +=+ Not I, not fully. For a start, what is 'typical' of a player intending to break the law? In the vast, overwhelming proportion of players who are to be ruled against there is no conscious intent to break the law. We are simply biased in our own cause and in our innocence misjudge our action and then our defence of it. This is true on occasion of even the most incorruptible among us. The law book is brief on the subject of intentional violation of law - L72B2 and L73B2 speak succinctly. For the rest it is accepted that the great number of violations are unmindful, may in the more inattentive lapses call for a rap on the knuckles but in general require no more than remedy and possibly redress. The Director looks to the facts, forms a judgement as to whether they constitute a breach of law or regulation, and if so follows the law to a rectification of the breach On learning that (s)he is thus ruled against an offending player has a right of appeal but, beyond that, "should be ready to pay any penalty graciously". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 21 17:30:57 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:30:57 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <460140A2.50909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael By saying "I don't remember, but I can see from my hand it's 3/0" you are giving correct information, but also UI. Why not simply pretend you remember perfectly and say "3/0"? Because, if I read the case right, it might be that the true answer is "4/1" and partner erred. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070321/ae589c85/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/20070321/ae589c85/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/20070321/ae589c85/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 21 18:26:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:26:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <460140A2.50909@skynet.be> <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46016AD0.8060407@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Herman De Wael > By saying "I don't remember, but I can see from my hand it's 3/0" you > are giving correct information, but also UI. Why not simply pretend > you remember perfectly and say "3/0"? > > Because, if I read the case right, it might be that the true answer is > "4/1" and partner erred. > Don't you think that if both players get it wrong - and thus the explanation fits the hand - that the MI does no damage? So what's the harm? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 21 22:34:05 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:34:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentlemen In-Reply-To: <006501c76bd6$66711990$ed9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> <006501c76bd6$66711990$ed9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070321161354.02b038d0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:41 PM 3/20/07, Grattan wrote: >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. >'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:57 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Ladies and gentlemen > > > > T. W-M: >"The assessment of a player's C&R is a sum of >one's knowledge of his previous infractions." >< >+=+ 'C&R' - criminality and recidivism ? +=+ >< >----- omissis ------- > > > > Nigel (possibly): > > >IMO law-makers should concentrate on > > >action not motives. Where the law *insists* > > > that the director consider intent, he should > > > take care to disregard his impression of the > > > character and reputation of the alleged law- > > > breaker. Instead, the director should consider > > > the likely intent of a typical player who > > >behaved in that way in the same circumstances. > > > +=+ Oh, *that* C&R ..... +=+ >< > Eric: > > I fully agree. > > >+=+ Not I, not fully. For a start, what is 'typical' of >a player intending to break the law? In the vast, >overwhelming proportion of players who are to be >ruled against there is no conscious intent to break >the law. We are simply biased in our own cause >and in our innocence misjudge our action and then >our defence of it. This is true on occasion of even >the most incorruptible among us. The law book >is brief on the subject of intentional violation of >law - L72B2 and L73B2 speak succinctly. For >the rest it is accepted that the great number of >violations are unmindful, may in the more inattentive >lapses call for a rap on the knuckles but in general >require no more than remedy and possibly redress. > The Director looks to the facts, forms a >judgement as to whether they constitute a breach >of law or regulation, and if so follows the law to a >rectification of the breach On learning that (s)he >is thus ruled against an offending player has a right >of appeal but, beyond that, "should be ready to >pay any penalty graciously". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is not my normal style to object to the writing of others on personal grounds, but I cannot imagine why Grattan has chosen to excerpt yesterday's correspondence (first attributing the citation as my original, then quoting all of three of my words egregiously out of context) in a way that would give the totally false and misleading impression that I was writing in agreement with Nigel's views of how the law should treat infractions -- anyone who has been reading this forum with even a bare minimum of attention of late must know that Nigel and I are diametrically opposed on the subject -- and then go on to disagree with "us" by restating much the same position that I have been defending throughout. I would urge Grattan most strongly to reread the post he cites above with a bit more care, so as to straighten out his complete misunderstanding of whose positions are whose. I apologize for a post that contributes nothing new to the discussion, but find myself unable to let such a gross mischaracterization of my expressed views stand unchallenged. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 22 01:45:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:45:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Santa Claus and Easter Bunny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Linda Trent: >Go back to the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny version. > >In my 10+ years in the appeals business I would say >around 20% of the floor rulings were changed. The >"withdrawn appeal" file folder was usually quite fat >and contained tons of adjustments to what the >appealing side was asking for and since the other >side didn't show up . . . well, you get the rest. A >lot of these came from the dinner time screening >session. It also contained several of the "just in >case I don't win my match or make the cut" appeals. > >During a particular few years (no, I will never name >names) the Screening Director just gave both sides >what they wanted so appeals would go away. My >complaints on that happening with a fair amount of >regularity went nowhere. > >Unfortunately, the "Withdrawn" folder always went to >Memphis never to be seen again. I tried to snag one >once, but was unsuccessful. Richard Hills: During what was theoretically one of 2004's most important events on the ACBL calendar, the NABC+ Life Master pairs, the floor director did not even bother to give a ruling, instead leaving it to the screener to do the hard work later (which allowed North-South time to create a non-contemporaneous rationalisation of their bidding sequence). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6225 6285 * * * New York NABC+ Appeals 2004 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff Event: LM Pairs - 1st semifinal Bd: 3 Troy Horton Dlr: South 64 Vul: EW 985 AK62 AK86 Andrew Hoskins McKenzie Myers J7 Q9532 7632 AQJT4 Q874 T3 532 J Eric Stoltz AKT8 K J95 QT974 West North East South --- --- --- 1C Pass 2C(1) 3C(2) Dbl 3H Dbl Pass 3NT(3) Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass 5C Pass Pass Pass (1) Inverted, forcing (2) Majors (3) Agreed BIT The Facts: 5C made 6 for a score of +420 for NS. The director was called after the session and the NS pair had left the playing area. The director did not make a decision. The Ruling: In screening, the screener changed the result to 3NT -1 for +50 for EW. The hesitation before 3NT suggested doubt and demonstrably suggested the 4D call (Law 16). The Appeal: North stated that his partner would sit for 3H doubled almost all the time so he denied a stopper else he would have left it in 3H doubled and not bid 3NT. Thus removing to 3NT meant he (North) would have to have the stopper himself. The double of 3C suggested the balance of power and the double of 3H was penalty. It was noted that NS play 12-14 NT range and 5 card majors. The Decision: North's double of 3H was in a position where pass would have not have been forcing. So his double could have been any hand with extras. There was a BIT before the 3NT call. The BIT suggested removing 3NT. Was there an LA? Yes. South could have an unbalanced hand with a heart stopper such as S QJx H A D Qxx C QJxxxx, or S Kx H Kx D QJx C QJxxxx, or S AKQ H Kx D xxx C QJxxx, where 3NT was the highest scoring contract for NS. The fact that South's double of 3C should have suggested a good hand (or penalty interest) was not based on given South's decision to make this call on a 13 count with a singleton king. The appeal was considered to have merit. North's argument about his partner's decision to remove the double of 3H was moderately persuasive. Even though the committee rejected the argument, finding counter- examples was by no means trivial. Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Ralph Cohen, Chris Moll, Ed Lazarus and Tom Carmichael. 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 Mar 22 02:37:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:37:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) Dble(2) ? (1) 12-14 (2) 5-card minor and 4-card major You, North, hold: J872 J873 854 72 What call do you make? What other call 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 Thu Mar 22 07:50:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:50:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460140A2.50909@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Richard has put me on the spot here, and has made people >believe that I think there is some law against saying >"undiscussed" or "I can't remember". There is not, and I >have no misbelief that there is. This piece of advice >that I give to players is just that: advice to players: Richard Hills: It is true that Law 10C1 permits Director De Wael to give advice to a player. However, Law 81B2 tells us that even Director De Wael is bound by these Laws. Ergo, if illegal advice is given by Director De Wael to a player, with a suggestion that that player infracts Law 75C by stating that a call which in fact is undiscussed has instead a discussed meaning of X, then that illegal advice must be deemed to be an error by Director De Wael under Law 82C. Herman De Wael: >If you can't remember what it means, just say what you >think it is, without any addition that you are uncertain. Richard Hills: No, no, no! If you know that you have a partnership agreement, but have temporarily forgotten what it is, call a non-Belgian TD to the table. The non-Belgian TD will ask you to leave the table. In your absence the non-Belgian TD will ask your partner to explain your partnership agreement to the opponents. After partner does so, the non-Belgian TD will call you back to the table, and play will continue. This procedure greatly reduces the chances that the opponents will be given MI. Herman De Wael: >If you are right, there is no MI and no UI. Richard Hills: Poppycock. Whenever you correctly explain your methods to the opponents, you give UI to partner that you have remembered those methods. So a De Wael School "luckily correct guess" of an explanation gives great UI relief to partner, compared to partner's non-UI unresolved worries under the non-Belgian TD "leave the table" process. Herman De Wael: >If you are wrong, there is MI and UI, but then again, >you'll probably end up in a bad contract just from your >mistake as well. Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional): "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Mar 22 09:42:06 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:42:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45FFA373.6020604@immi.gov.au><5.1.0.14.0.20070321102054.0216860 0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4602415E.2050407@meteo.fr> Karel a ?crit : > I actually found myself in a similar position recently > > I agreed to play in the teams with a few peeps and at the last minute > one member had to bail. Fortunately I was able to get a replacement > whom I had infrequently (4/5 times) played with before. > > We had hammered out a cc from a previous event and we agreed to play > that, not paying too much attention to the precise details. > > We are bidding away toward slam and I bid 4NT RKC only to realise i had > no idea which version we were playing. Its on the CC but I cant look at > that while bidding. Pd replies 5C's and i bid 5D's queen ask (hearts > agreed) when LHO asks what the 4NT was, the 5C's and the 5D's. lack of agreement and forgotten agreement are 2 different things. opponents are due to be told agreements. if you are not able to comply, whatever the reason, this is MI. > > Now I was looking at 2 key cards and pd had made a striong bid so > couldnt have had 1/0 and i knew from my hand it showed 3 but everyone at > the table knew we didnt know which version we had agreed. I replied it > showed 3/0 or 1/4 and I couldn't recall which. We bid 7H making, but I > wonder what should I have done. you have to disclose your agreement and should use all available means to comply. it's not the same as guessing the meaning of partner's bid absent any prior agreement. i think the best you should have done would be to suggest to your opponent to look for the information where it was available: inside your cc. > In another scenario pd's bid + my answers would convey a lot of info. > Could pd say bid 7 if I signed off in 6 with 4 instead of 3 ? using UI? no > Should I > have sent pd away from the table and explained (pretty pointless as we > all knew what was happening) to the opps the scenario? maybe. but if it was pointless... > Could I have > said undiscussed and just guessed which it was ? you can't seriously consider lying. it was not undiscussed but forgotten. if you can't do better, say you have forgotten. jpr > > karel > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 22 10:27:43 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:27:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Que?= =?iso-8859-1?q?stion_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <46016AD0.8060407@skynet.be> References: <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> <460140A2.50909@skynet.be> <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070322102335.0216a840@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:26 21/03/2007 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Don't you think that if both players get it wrong - and thus the >explanation fits the hand - that the MI does no damage? So what's the >harm? You convinced me, some years ago, that harmful MI could be the way to avoid bigger problems ; but here I don't see how being honest and answering "I don't know" could be more problematic than creating MI when there has been none so far. Now, if partner had overbid, and shown 4/1, and he had 1 Ace only, and they don't double because of MI ... This could well be the case, because it is unusual to get questions at this point of the bidding. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 22 10:20:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:20:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46024A70.20608@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Richard has put me on the spot here, and has made people >> believe that I think there is some law against saying >> "undiscussed" or "I can't remember". There is not, and I >> have no misbelief that there is. This piece of advice >> that I give to players is just that: advice to players: > > Richard Hills: > > It is true that Law 10C1 permits Director De Wael to give > advice to a player. However, Law 81B2 tells us that even > Director De Wael is bound by these Laws. Ergo, if illegal > advice is given by Director De Wael to a player, with a > suggestion that that player infracts Law 75C by stating > that a call which in fact is undiscussed has instead a > discussed meaning of X, then that illegal advice must be > deemed to be an error by Director De Wael under Law 82C. > I do not believe that the advice I give is illegal. When a player is not certain of the meaning of his partner's 5D call, and he states without reservation "1 or 4 key-cards", what law is he breaking? Really Richard, you need to take a step back from your belief that everything I say is automatically wrong. > Herman De Wael: > >> If you can't remember what it means, just say what you >> think it is, without any addition that you are uncertain. > > Richard Hills: > > No, no, no! > > If you know that you have a partnership agreement, but > have temporarily forgotten what it is, call a non-Belgian > TD to the table. The non-Belgian TD will ask you to > leave the table. In your absence the non-Belgian TD will > ask your partner to explain your partnership agreement to > the opponents. After partner does so, the non-Belgian TD > will call you back to the table, and play will continue. > All this will do is give UI to your partner. Who can now no longer use his judgment to raise 6H to 7H. If you simply state "4/1" (and if you've guessed correctly) then partner has no UI and can do what he wants. If you guess incorrectly, then you're in a bad contract anyway, so why bother with the additional MI? > This procedure greatly reduces the chances that the > opponents will be given MI. > But it greatly increases the chance that the partner is given UI. Again, this is just advice to players. I don't see anything illegal about it. If you still insist that this is unethical, then think like this: suppose a player is 99% certain it's "4/1", should he ask to be sent away from the table? If he is 90% certain? 51%? 49%? where is the boundary? And if you believe there is a boundary, and a player chooses to act like I do anyway, how are you going to figure out how uncertain he really was? Think about it when you are next in doubt about the meaning of your partner's call. Do you tell your opponents or don't you? And if you decide to not tell them about your doubt, do you feel you've withheld them with some piece of information? Possibly yes, because they like to know that you're on thin ice. But are they entitled to that piece of information? No they are not! > Herman De Wael: > >> If you are right, there is no MI and no UI. > > Richard Hills: > > Poppycock. Whenever you correctly explain your methods > to the opponents, you give UI to partner that you have > remembered those methods. So a De Wael School "luckily > correct guess" of an explanation gives great UI relief to > partner, compared to partner's non-UI unresolved worries > under the non-Belgian TD "leave the table" process. > But that same relief is also present when you've correctly and without doubt remembered the system. It's present in 99% of our calls. It's the only piece of UI that we constantly overlook. So why should it now suddenly matter? > Herman De Wael: > >> If you are wrong, there is MI and UI, but then again, >> you'll probably end up in a bad contract just from your >> mistake as well. > > Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional): > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if > there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." > And which law was I infringing upon again? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 22 10:30:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:30:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4602415E.2050407@meteo.fr> References: <45FFA373.6020604@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070321102054.0216860 0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070322102941.02168d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:42 22/03/2007 +0100, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >you have to disclose your agreement and should use all available means >to comply. it's not the same as guessing the meaning of partner's bid >absent any prior agreement. i think the best you should have done would >be to suggest to your opponent to look for the information where it was >available: inside your cc. ... or walked away from the table and let partner explain. This procedure should be used more frequently. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 22 10:27:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:27:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070322102335.0216a840@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> <460140A2.50909@skynet.be> <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> <5.1.0.14.0.20070322102335.0216a840@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46024BEE.6060303@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 18:26 21/03/2007 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Don't you think that if both players get it wrong - and thus the >> explanation fits the hand - that the MI does no damage? So what's the >> harm? > > You convinced me, some years ago, that harmful MI could be the way to > avoid bigger problems ; but here I don't see how being honest and > answering "I don't know" could be more problematic than creating MI when > there has been none so far. > I think that should be obvious. If you say "I don't know", you've created UI and given MI. If you say "3/0", and that's wrong, you've created UI and given MI. If you say "3/0", and that's right, you've done nothing wrong. In addition, in the first case, you've given your opponents a piece of information that they can use to their advantage, but to which they are not entitled. While in the second case, they have no such info and will not double you. So even if "3/0" is actually wrong, you're better off than by saying "I don't know". And if it's right, you're far better off. > Now, if partner had overbid, and shown 4/1, and he had 1 Ace only, and > they don't double because of MI ... This could well be the case, because > it is unusual to get questions at this point of the bidding. > > > Best regards > > Alain > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 22 01:07:17 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:07:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <460140A2.50909@skynet.be> <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> <46016AD0.8060407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c76c68$9f4471d0$6c01e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] < >> By saying "I don't remember, but I can see from my hand it's 3/0" >> you are giving correct information, but also UI. Why not simply >> pretend you remember perfectly and say "3/0"? >> +=+ elloelloello, wot 'ave we 'ere then? Is some pro-Socratic philosopher making a specious argument that instead of giving opponent information as to the partnership agreement a player should in some circumstances give information as to what he believes his partner's card holding to be? What law does he suggest authorizes him to do that? Or is he suggesting that the player should deliberately go outside of the law, giving gratuitous information to partner in doing so? The law is based upon the belief that a partnership either has a partnership agreement or it does not. This does not seem to be an indefensible position. If there is a partnership agreement it is to be disclosed. Failure to disclose an agreement is not mitigated by speculation upon the possible basis in his cards for partner's action, and if there is no agreement any such speculation may be considered a provocative communication of extraneous information to partner. 'Agreement' is to include any implicit understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 22 10:57:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:57:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentlemen References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net><45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net><006501c76bd6$66711990$ed9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20070321161354.02b038d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c76c68$a06746f0$6c01e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ladies and gentlemen >>< >> Eric: >> > I fully agree. >> > +=+ My apologies if I have misunderstood what I was reading. I have no wish to attribute opinions incorrectly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 22 11:08:57 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:08:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460255B9.7000805@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) > Dble(2) ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) 5-card minor and 4-card major > > You, North, hold: > > J872 > J873 > 854 > 72 > > What call do you make? > What other call do you consider making? > [nige1] IMO P=10 2C(or whatever)=2 Were X penalty, pass may well be the cheapest option; but you may feel like invoking an escape manouvre: If you have no agreed escape mechanism, you may try bidding 2C. When doubled, you may redouble. If partner now bids 2D and that is doubled enthusiastically, you may consider another SOS redouble. Some opponents may be reluctant to double two of a major :) From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 22 11:37:12 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:37:12 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_De_Wael_Question__=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <46024BEE.6060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46025C57.000001.01209@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael If you say "I don't know", you've created UI and given MI. If you say "3/0", and that's wrong, you've created UI and given MI. If you say "3/0", and that's right, you've done nothing wrong. If I say "I don't know" you give them an opportunity to ask partner (while you're away), which will suppress any potential MI. And potential UI will be solved easily, as partner isn't involved any more. His bidding more over your final bid will be very suspect indeed (similar to slow BW). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070322/3c967fc8/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/20070322/3c967fc8/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/20070322/3c967fc8/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 22 11:44:58 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:44:58 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question___?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <46024A70.20608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46025E29.000004.01209@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael > All this will do is give UI to your partner. Who can now no longer use his judgment to raise 6H to 7H. AG : But BW bidding isn't an area where partner is expected to use judgment, as you assume captainship. > If you still insist that this is unethical, then think like this: suppose a player is 99% certain it's "4/1", should he ask to be sent away from the table? If he is 90% certain? 51%? 49%? where is the boundary? AG : it should be allowed to answer : "I think it is such-and-such but am uncertain", which will create UI, to be sure, but that's the price to pay for uncertainty, but in exchange will avoid MI and will allow them to search confirmation from your partner in written or while you're away. > But that same relief is also present when you've correctly and without doubt remembered the system. It's present in 99% of our calls. It's the only piece of UI that we constantly overlook. So why should it now suddenly matter? AG : because BW bidding isn't ordinary bidding. It is one of those few cases where using UI would be easy to spot. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070322/b0f2d6fd/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/20070322/b0f2d6fd/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/20070322/b0f2d6fd/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 22 11:53:31 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:53:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460255B9.7000805@NTLworld.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070322114650.02162660@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:08 22/03/2007 +0000, Nigel wrote: >[richard.hills] > > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) > > Dble(2) ? > > > > (1) 12-14 > > (2) 5-card minor and 4-card major > > > > You, North, hold: > > > > J872 > > J873 > > 854 > > 72 > > > > What call do you make? > > What other call do you consider making? > > RHO surely has a strong hand and is about to pass. So I must escape now, in my system with 2D (D+H+S). If we reach a 4-4 in RHO's major, it will be difficult for his partner to double, with a strong hand and singleton. Of course, I could pass and hope RHO has made a penalty double and LHO misunderstood it. But they've told me LHO has the stack. If the explanation is wrong, we'll settle this with the TD. There remains the case where the explanation is correct, and the bid wrong. That's very annoying, and that's the kind of situation the concept of "convention disruption" was created for. Does it apply in Finland ? And, yes, there is the case where RHO has a strong hand, 4-5 or perhaps 4-4, and I could have escaped by passing. Too uncommon to care of. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 22 13:24:31 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:24:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ladies and gentlemen In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070321161354.02b038d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <45FAB069.30603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070316162302.02ac5580@pop.starpower.net> <45FB233B.5060301@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070320092202.02a39be0@pop.starpower.net> <006501c76bd6$66711990$ed9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20070321161354.02b038d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4602757F.7010402@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] IMO law-makers should concentrate on action not motives. Where the law *insists* that the director consider intent, he should take care to disregard his impression of the character and reputation of the alleged law-breaker. Instead, the director should consider the likely intent of a typical player who behaved in that way in the same circumstances. [Eric Landau] I fully agree. [Grattan] +=+ Not I, not fully. For a start, what is 'typical' of a player intending to break the law? In the vast, overwhelming proportion of players who are to be ruled against there is no conscious intent to break the law. We are simply biased in our own cause and in our innocence misjudge our action and then our defence of it. This is true on occasion of even the most incorruptible among us. The law book is brief on the subject of intentional violation of law - L72B2 and L73B2 speak succinctly. For the rest it is accepted that the great number of violations are unmindful, may in the more inattentive lapses call for a rap on the knuckles but in general require no more than remedy and possibly redress. The Director looks to the facts, forms a judgement as to whether they constitute a breach of law or regulation, and if so follows the law to a rectification of the breach On learning that (s)he is thus ruled against an offending player has a right of appeal but, beyond that, "should be ready to pay any penalty graciously". [Eric] It is not my normal style to object to the writing of others on personal grounds, but I cannot imagine why Grattan has chosen to excerpt yesterday's correspondence (first attributing the citation as my original, then quoting all of three of my words egregiously out of context) in a way that would give the totally false and misleading impression that I was writing in agreement with Nigel's views of how the law should treat infractions -- anyone who has been reading this forum with even a bare minimum of attention of late must know that Nigel and I are diametrically opposed on the subject -- and then go on to disagree with "us" by restating much the same position that I have been defending throughout. I would urge Grattan most strongly to reread the post he cites above with a bit more care, so as to straighten out his complete misunderstanding of whose positions are whose. I apologize for a post that contributes nothing new to the discussion, but find myself unable to let such a gross mischaracterization of my expressed views stand unchallenged. [nige1] Grattan and Eric seems to agree that directors should use their impression of the character of the actual player rather than judge the intent of a typical player in a similar scenario. I don't understand Grattan; but then his arguments are often too sophisticated for me. IMO the usual reason for you to judge intent is to decide [A] whether there was an infraction -- for example an alleged "Pro question", *or* [B] if there has been an infraction, whether it was deliberate -- for example, a second revoke. IMO, rarely if at all, would you be interested in Grattan's problem: the intent of a player whom you already know has deliberately broken the law. As far as *penalties* are concerned, I fear that when players realise how profitable some kinds of law-breaking are, that Eric Landau's estimate that less than 1% of players break the law will become more and more of an underestimate. Yes. I know Eric is referring to *deliberate* law-breakers. I still maintain there is a large grey area (I don't know any "cheats"). The current law seems to favour secretary birds and players are becoming more legally sophisticated. They feel that they are (at most) *bending* the law (not breaking it). A common example is *Carding methods*. Many partnerships have self-serving interpretations of "general knowledge", "undiscussed", "exceptions: false cards", and so on. After prevarication during the play, the truth sometimes emerges when defenders have a heated post-mortem. On a few such occasions, we've reluctantly called a director. Opponents, who feel they have done nothing unusual, are irate to be singled out in this way. The embarrassed director tells them to correct their card but rarely checks that they have done so. A director, later, rebuked us "we play to enjoy ourselves, here". This example illustrates that... [A] If penalties are derisory there is little incentive for players to learn the rules. Its more profitable to break them "in ignorance". [B] Few players regard themselves as "cheats" Many law-breakers are ignorant of the rules or rationalise infractions. [C] A Bridge whistle-blower can expect no thanks but a lot of abuse. He will make enemies and achieve little. [D] Bridge is evolving into sleazy game where players complain bitterly about each others' ethics but are reluctant to do anything. [E] Simpler clearer enforced rules would lead to a more enjoyable game for all. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 22 14:33:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:33:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000001c76c68$9f4471d0$6c01e150@Mildred> References: <460140A2.50909@skynet.be> <46015DC0.000004.76845@CERAP-MATSH1> <46016AD0.8060407@skynet.be> <000001c76c68$9f4471d0$6c01e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <46028596.1090806@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > 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: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: the De Wael > Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > < >>> By saying "I don't remember, but I can see from my hand it's 3/0" >>> you are giving correct information, but also UI. Why not simply >>> pretend you remember perfectly and say "3/0"? >>> > +=+ elloelloello, wot 'ave we 'ere then? Is some pro-Socratic > philosopher making a specious argument that instead of giving > opponent information as to the partnership agreement a player > should in some circumstances give information as to what he > believes his partner's card holding to be? In the sense that usually a player is holding the hand that he promises with his bid, describing an agreement and describing partner's holding comes down to the same thing. Indeed, quite often, people will ask questions like "what does he have" and replies are more often given "he has 3 aces" than "he shows 3 aces". In that sense to say that he "has" something should be construed as a shorthand form of "by agreement, that shows ...". Other than for using shorthand, I do not intend to retract any saying. > What law does he > suggest authorizes him to do that? Or is he suggesting that the > player should deliberately go outside of the law, giving gratuitous > information to partner in doing so? I do not see how the phrase "he has" can show any more UI than "he shows". > The law is based upon the belief that a partnership either > has a partnership agreement or it does not. This does not seem > to be an indefensible position. If there is a partnership agreement > it is to be disclosed. Failure to disclose an agreement is not > mitigated by speculation upon the possible basis in his cards > for partner's action, and if there is no agreement any such > speculation may be considered a provocative communication > of extraneous information to partner. 'Agreement' is to include > any implicit understanding. Which is precisely why I believe there should always be a definite answer, not an "I don't know" or an "We have agreed nothing at all". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 22 14:37:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:37:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question___?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <46025E29.000004.01209@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46024A70.20608@skynet.be> <46025E29.000004.01209@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <460286AC.1000503@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Herman De Wael > > > All this will do is give UI to your partner. Who can now no longer use > his judgment to raise 6H to 7H. > > AG : But BW bidding isn't an area where partner is expected to use > judgment, as you assume captainship. > Tell that to Leentje who yesterday raised my 6H to 7H. She was then lucky to find the queen of trumps 4-0 on-side, because with 3-1 she would have had a choice between drop and finesse. 7H=. > > If you still insist that this is unethical, then think like this: > suppose a player is 99% certain it's "4/1", should he ask to be sent > away from the table? If he is 90% certain? 51%? 49%? where is the > boundary? > > AG : it should be allowed to answer : "I think it is such-and-such but > am uncertain", which will create UI, to be sure, but that's the price to > pay for uncertainty, but in exchange will avoid MI and will allow them > to search confirmation from your partner in written or while you're away. > No, it does not avoid MI. If the opponent's bidding is dependent on your answer, what choice do they have but take your answer at face value. Adding "I'm uncertain" alters nothing to the MI ruling you are about to be getting. And it gives away vital information to your opponents; information they are not (I repeat NOT) entitled to. > > But that same relief is also present when you've correctly and without > doubt remembered the system. It's present in 99% of our calls. It's > the only piece of UI that we constantly overlook. So why should it now > suddenly matter? > > AG : because BW bidding isn't ordinary bidding. It is one of those few > cases where using UI would be easy to spot. > Which is exactly why one should avoid giving UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Mar 22 16:18:30 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46029E46.9070309@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: Both > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) >Dble(2) ? > >(1) 12-14 >(2) 5-card minor and 4-card major > >You, North, hold: > >J872 >J873 >854 >72 > >What call do you make? >What other call do you consider making? > > I did not recieve a full explanation about the double. Does it promise constructive hand? I know, he has, but I do not know if east knows it as well. so If they had no dangerous agreement about the strength of the double I'd pass. If the double shows normal overcall-strength (for example 5, AT92, J92, KJT96 is enough), then I'm afraid, East can guess that the pass is good business for them: he knows, they are the srtronger, he has no 4cM, so the neerest game is 3N, and he knows that his partner has a 5card minor suit to attack, so I've gotta escape. Anyway theoretically it's not an escape situation, partner does not know that i have such weak hand, and sees no pen dbl, so in this situation system is on. I would bid 2C stayman (and pass partner's response), but I consider 'pass': in hope East bids something or the 1NT DBL won't be too bad score, or in hope that partner has a 5card suit and redoubles. I also consider the funny 2H (natural, nonforcing) that's my strongest Major and it's not too easy to Est to pass if partner doubles it. :) If the double shows a good opening srtrength (with the 54) then It's an escape-situation and I bid my escape-system's theoretical bid (depends on our agreement). cheers Laci From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 22 16:02:57 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:02:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? In-Reply-To: <46009869.5040104@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703141805.l2EI5xni026358@cfa.harvard.edu> <46009869.5040104@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > UI only applies to unseen cards, not to opponents' methods. "I don't know what that means." - Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan, Ph.D. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 23 02:49:27 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:49:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: Both > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) >Dble(2) ? > >(1) 12-14 >(2) 5-card minor and 4-card major > >You, North, hold: > >J872 >J873 >854 >72 > >What call do you make? >What other call do you consider making? Many blmlers considered Pass by North to be a logical alternative, on the grounds that East may not know about the full strength of West's hand, so East may bid and let North-South off the hook Monty Python's "Finland, Finland, Finland", excerpt: "Finland, Finland, Finland, The country where I want to be, Eating breakfast or dinner, Or snack lunch in the hall. Finland, Finland, Finland. Finland has it all. "You're so sadly neglected And often ignored, A poor second to Belgium, When going abroad." A TD from poor second Belgium :-) was the scribe at appeal number 2 of the European Championship 2004: Women's Teams Round Four, England versus Finland [irrelevant full deal snipped] Comments: Weak No trump Contract: One No trump Doubled, played by South Result: 3 tricks, NS -1100 The Facts: After the board, South asked North why she had passed. North said she thought the double had not been for penalties. The Director was called. The Double was strong (against weak No trump) but the Convention Card has the following mentions: Under "vs NT" it says "X=5c.m+4c.M", and under "Notes that don't fit in elsewhere" it says "Vs. weak NT: X=strong", without cross-reference. North showed the Director the resum? sheet of their opponents' system, which showed their Captain had been misled by the Convention Card as well. North/South had decided not to run so often if the Double was not for penalties. The Director: Decided that the Convention Card had been badly filled in and that this was the main cause for the events at the table. Ruling: Score adjusted to 3NT+1 by East/West (NS -630). East/West receive an Official warning to clarify their Convention Card. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C2 East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains. The Players: East/West, through their Captain, stated that North ought to have known that the Double had been for penalties, because East had not alerted it. West had not alerted it either, and South had correctly interpreted this. East stated she had asked if 1NT was weak, and when that was confirmed, she had not alerted the Double. The Captain of North/South admitted that the alternate meaning of this Double was indeed on the Convention Card, and that he had missed it when studying the system, because it was not in the correct place. North stated she had been convinced the Double showed some 5-4, and would not be passed out. She had been delighted about this. She knew the meaning because of the East/West Convention Card and of her Captain's notes and had followed them. She would "never ever" not have run if it was sure the Double was strong. She explained the escape sequence: she would have bid 2C, and if that was doubled, she would redouble to start bidding 4-card suits up the line. When asked if it had occurred to her that even a conventional Double might be passed out, she replied that she had been convinced it was Take-Out. The Captain added that it was not very likely that a conventional bid would be passed out by East, because East was a passed hand. The Committee: Started by confirming that the Convention Card was wrongly filled in. Some members thought that North had not done enough to protect herself, she could and maybe should have asked when the Double was not alerted. It was however the opinion of the Committee that a player can trust a clear information on the Convention Card. The Committee found that North had been misinformed, and decided that North had been damaged through this misinformation, and that the score should be adjusted. As to the score adjustment, the Committee saw no reason to change the Director's adjustment, noticing that none of the parties had challenged it. The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned In a separate decision, the Systems Committee, following its normal procedure, decided to suspend East/West for one match, during which they should complete their Convention Card. Furthermore, they should make absolutely certain that they inform their future opponents of the original misplaced mention of this particular sequence. 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 Fri Mar 23 10:08:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:08:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4603990B.20404@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> I do not believe that the advice I give is illegal. > > I in turn join Grattan in asserting that your belief > is inconsistent with Law. > OK, Richard, I'm taking up the challenge. "Inconsistent" - what does that mean? Either something is illegal under bridge law, or it is not. A player acts on my advice, and you're the director. What do you do? >> When a player is not certain of the meaning of his >> partner's 5D call, and he states without reservation >> "1 or 4 key-cards", what law is he breaking? > > Law 75C. > "A player shall disclose information conveyed to him through partnership agreement". What information does this person have that he has not disclosed? If anything, the information that "I am not 100% certain of that last statement". Such is not information _conveyed_ _through_ partnership _agreement_. It is information he possesses, and which he keeps quiet about. But since it is something only he knows, and from his own memory, there is no reason to disclose this. No Richard, this player does not break Law 75C. Stop looking there. >> Really Richard, you need to take a step back from >> your belief that everything I say is automatically >> wrong. > > I do not believe that _everything_ you say is > automatically wrong. For example, you have correctly > highlighted the fact that the current Lawbook is > poorly drafted, with insufficient cross-references > between the Laws, thus creating some internal > paradoxes. While your hobby-horse is obviously the > inconsistency between Law 75D2 and Law 75C, the mad > psychers have a hobby-horse of the inconsistency > between Law 40D and Law 40A. > > Given that Grattan has finally given a reasonably > authoritative refutation of the De Wael School on > this thread, I see no point in endlessly traversing > old ground publicly on blml until the new Lawbook is > available to everyone (circa October / November). > > By the way, when the new Lawbook is released, you > may be intrigued to discover that (as Grattan has > previously hinted on blml) your blml postings on > claims have caused the claim Laws to be tightened > and clarified. > I have also read the pre-release and I am happy to say that there are no changes which will force a different ruling in any case that I remember (even including the Maastricht claim). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 23 12:23:11 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:23:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=PERSONAL] References: <4603990B.20404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006501c76d3d$c5e4fe60$6fa387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=PERSONAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Given that Grattan has finally given a reasonably > > authoritative refutation of the De Wael School on > > this thread, I see no point in endlessly traversing > > old ground publicly on blml until the new Lawbook is > > available to everyone (circa October / November). > > > > By the way, when the new Lawbook is released, you > > may be intrigued to discover that (as Grattan has > > previously hinted on blml) your blml postings on > > claims have caused the claim Laws to be tightened > > and clarified. > > > > I have also read the pre-release and I am happy to > say that there are no changes which will force a > different ruling in any case that I remember (even > including the Maastricht claim). > +=+ The next code of laws is still in its formative stages and until it is settled and adopted, we hope in Shanghai, I cannot discuss it here. If Richard and/or Herman is among those we have consulted upon any matter the confidentiality in that remains. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Mar 23 14:39:33 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:39:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <006501c76d3d$c5e4fe60$6fa387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <4603990B.20404@skynet.be> <006501c76d3d$c5e4fe60$6fa387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4603D895.7000806@meadows.pair.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ The next code of laws is still in its formative stages > and until it is settled and adopted, we hope in Shanghai, > I cannot discuss it here. If Richard and/or Herman is > among those we have consulted upon any matter the > confidentiality in that remains. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Would it be too much to ask exactly what purpose you feel you're serving by the degree of secrecy you seem to be trying to maintain? After all, what you're working on are the **laws of a game**, not some bunch of military secrets. Unless Richard and Herman are lying, it is now public knowledge that they've seen a pre-release version of the new Laws. Since they were the ones who chose to reveal it, exactly what harm has been done to anything by the rest of us knowing that? Even the mandarins of Whitehall have been dragged, admittedly kicking and screaming in some cases, towards the principle of open information. Maybe it's time for the WBF(LC) to make some moves in that direction? Brian. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 23 15:23:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Réf._:_Re:__the_De_Wael_Question__[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46024BEE.6060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: Heramn wrote:> > If you say "I don't know", you've created UI and given MI. But if you say "I can't remember" you haven't created MI. > If you say "3/0", and that's wrong, you've created UI and given MI. Yes > If you say "3/0", and that's right, you've done nothing wrong. You have still created UI. Partner now knows you have correctly understood his intent where before he would not have been sure. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 23 15:48:10 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:48:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070323154530.02172a30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:49 23/03/2007 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Many blmlers considered Pass by North to be a logical >alternative, on the grounds that East may not know >about the full strength of West's hand, so East may >bid and let North-South off the hook Now, WTP ? Apparently, the TD and AC got it right. Of course, it should have been specified that artificial doubles were alertable in that specific competition (they aren't in Belgium), which would have given some weight to the "should have protected oneself" bit, but as I said it already I don't like that catchphrase under current Q/A regulations. Best regards alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 23 16:12:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:12:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4603EE50.3010000@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Heramn wrote:> >> If you say "I don't know", you've created UI and given MI. > > But if you say "I can't remember" you haven't created MI. > Yes you have. They are entitled to know what it is, and you haven't told them. I realize that the method of going from the table and letting partner explain it is a way to avoid giving this MI, but at the cost of UI and unnecessary additional info. >> If you say "3/0", and that's wrong, you've created UI and given MI. > > Yes > >> If you say "3/0", and that's right, you've done nothing wrong. > > You have still created UI. Partner now knows you have correctly > understood his intent where before he would not have been sure. > As I've said before - that happens all the time. It's a form of MI that we don't consider harmful. You and I, here, on blml, know that the player saying "3/0" is not certain of that. But the partner, at the table, does not know that (or if he does - it's because he knew all along and there is no UI). So to him, there is absolutely no difference between a confident partner who says "3/0" and an uncertain one who confidently says "3/0". In both cases, he knows you have correctly understood. But that is UI that we never rule against. > 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 23 17:07:16 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:07:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <4603D895.7000806@meadows.pair.com> References: <4603990B.20404@skynet.be> <006501c76d3d$c5e4fe60$6fa387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4603D895.7000806@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <4603FB34.4000805@NTLworld.com> [Brain meadows] Unless Richard and Herman are lying, it is now public knowledge that they've seen a pre-release version of the new Laws. Since they were the ones who chose to reveal it, exactly what harm has been done to anything by the rest of us knowing that? Even the mandarins of Whitehall have been dragged, admittedly kicking and screaming in some cases, towards the principle of open information. Maybe it's time for the WBF(LC) to make some moves in that direction? [nige1] IMO, Brian is right. Why not consider a few criticisms and corrections *before* official publication? What harm can it do to web-publish drafts for comment? At this late stage, it would be merely "belt and braces". The WBFLC is, of course, free to reject any/all suggestions; and the WBFLC would still be solely responsible for any mistakes. For the sake of Bridge, assuming that the game survives the coming revision of its rules, let us hope that the WBFLC is less secretive in future decades. From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 23 11:40:49 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:40:49 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__the_De_Wael_Question___?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_=5BSEC=3DPERSONAL=5D?= References: <4603990B.20404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4603AEB0.000001.12431@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- >> When a player is not certain of the meaning of his >> partner's 5D call, and he states without reservation >> "1 or 4 key-cards", what law is he breaking? > > Law 75C. > Herman : "A player shall disclose information conveyed to him through partnership agreement". What information does this person have that he has not disclosed? If anything, the information that "I am not 100% certain of that last statement". AG : Please allow me to add that, since L75C only creates obligations, rather than creating interdictions or specifying procedures, only *not* doing something can contrevene to this law. Doing something never will. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070323/40187137/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/20070323/40187137/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070323/40187137/attachment-0001.gif From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 24 02:24:27 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:24:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <200703211422.l2LEMmQO018079@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703211422.l2LEMmQO018079@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46047DCB.3060802@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> UI only applies to unseen cards > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > I still disagree with the above assertion. And I still maintain it. > If partner (for example in > answering a question) informs > you that she has misinterpreted > your agreed methods, you may > have UI about a forthcoming > debacle The problem here is not the information; it's the route by which you gain it. For example, if you are playing with a pickup partner and know perfectly well you haven't discussed which Blackwood responses to use, it is entirely proper to take that knowledge into account. Using the UI laws attacks the symptom rather than the problem. Better is to use the MI laws or L73B1: answering a question incorrectly is an infraction, and there are many ways it can cause damage. One of those is alerting partner that you don't understand the system. If this damages opponents, L12A1, etc. The difference is that instead of LAs and "suggested over another," the Director will evaluate what would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. The outcome will often but not always be the same as under Richard's interpretation. Ordinary UI -- relating to the cards partner holds -- is a different matter. That's what L16A is about. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 24 02:37:33 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:37:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200703231417.l2NEHoDY028618@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703231417.l2NEHoDY028618@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <460480DD.7040703@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) >>Dble(2) ? >> >>(1) 12-14 >>(2) 5-card minor and 4-card major ... >>What call do you make? I don't understand the point. You are asking what the player should have done after the MI, but the proper question is what the player would have done if given correct information (that the double was penalty). That seems fairly obvious, though of course exact details depend on methods available. There is, I suppose, some question of whether MI was present in the actual circumstances, but your question doesn't address that. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sat Mar 24 04:28:03 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:28:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460480DD.7040703@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703231417.l2NEHoDY028618@cfa.harvard.edu> <460480DD.7040703@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46049AC3.5060304@cs.elte.hu> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> >> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) >>>Dble(2) ? >>> >>>(1) 12-14 >>>(2) 5-card minor and 4-card major >>> >>> >... > > >>>What call do you make? >>> >>> > >I don't understand the point. You are asking what the player should >have done after the MI, but the proper question is what the player would >have done if given correct information (that the double was penalty). >That seems fairly obvious, though of course exact details depend on >methods available. > >There is, I suppose, some question of whether MI was present in the >actual circumstances, but your question doesn't address that. > > > I think Richard asked the right question. In a MI situation we should decide wheter the NOS's action was considerable after the MI. The fact that their demage is consequence of the MI depends on that. If we disagreed north's pass it would mean that we thought the demage had been coused by his bad play, not the MI. Of course, the main question is if there were any MI, but it could be discussed after the facts are known. cheers Laci From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Mar 24 03:52:40 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:52:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200703231417.l2NEHoDY028618@cfa.harvard.edu> <460480DD.7040703@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004601c76dbf$7d83a8b0$6400a8c0@rota> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) >>>Dble(2) ? >>> >>>(1) 12-14 >>>(2) 5-card minor and 4-card major > ... >>>What call do you make? > > I don't understand the point. You are asking what the player should > have done after the MI, but the proper question is what the player would > have done if given correct information (that the double was penalty). > That seems fairly obvious, though of course exact details depend on > methods available. It is also necessary to determine whether it is reasonable that the MI caused the damage. If all rational players would bid 2C either with or without MI, then the MI caused no damage, and the player's bad score after passing was self-inflicted damage. Given that several BLML readers who would bid 2C seriously considered passing, but none would pass a penalty double, we have determined that the MI did cause the damage. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 24 15:30:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Réf._:_Re:__the_De_Wael_Question__[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4603EE50.3010000@skynet.be> Message-ID: Heramn wrote: > >> If you say "I don't know", you've created UI and given MI. > > > > But if you say "I can't remember" you haven't created MI. > > Yes you have. They are entitled to know what it is, and you haven't > told them. Nevertheless they have not been misinformed. They are free to consult the CC, ask my partner or call the TD and ensure that they get the information somehow. > >> If you say "3/0", and that's right, you've done nothing wrong. > > > > You have still created UI. Partner now knows you have correctly > > understood his intent where before he would not have been sure. > > > > As I've said before - that happens all the time. It's a form of MI > that we don't consider harmful. You and I, here, on blml, know that > the player saying "3/0" is not certain of that. But the partner, at > the table, does not know that (or if he does - it's because he knew > all along and there is no UI). So to him, there is absolutely no > difference between a confident partner who says "3/0" and an > uncertain one who confidently says "3/0". In both cases, he knows you > have correctly understood. Unless the 4N bidder knows that they didn't actually discuss 1430/3041 but merely hopes you will guess right. > But that is UI that we never rule against. We rule against it when we discover it. OK, it's not always easy to discover (particular when someone lies and says "0 or 3" when the truth is "undiscussed but we agreed RKCB". This should be so simple. DON'T bl**dy well lie to your opponents. If you have forgotten then tell them. If you haven't explicitly agreed it then tell them. If you have reason to suspect it is more likely 1430 then 3041 tell them. But tell them the truth. If you create UI for partner that is his problem (and yours) trust him not to take advantage and find a new partner if you can't trust him. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 24 16:46:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:46:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460547D1.90005@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Heramn wrote: >>>> If you say "I don't know", you've created UI and given MI. >>> But if you say "I can't remember" you haven't created MI. >> Yes you have. They are entitled to know what it is, and you haven't >> told them. > > Nevertheless they have not been misinformed. They are free to consult > the CC, ask my partner or call the TD and ensure that they get the > information somehow. > So you have misinformed them - they are getting the right information from somewhere else. In my world, they will get the right information, and any adjustment from it, after the deal (or before the lead). >>>> If you say "3/0", and that's right, you've done nothing wrong. >>> You have still created UI. Partner now knows you have correctly >>> understood his intent where before he would not have been sure. >>> >> As I've said before - that happens all the time. It's a form of MI >> that we don't consider harmful. You and I, here, on blml, know that >> the player saying "3/0" is not certain of that. But the partner, at >> the table, does not know that (or if he does - it's because he knew >> all along and there is no UI). So to him, there is absolutely no >> difference between a confident partner who says "3/0" and an >> uncertain one who confidently says "3/0". In both cases, he knows you >> have correctly understood. > > Unless the 4N bidder knows that they didn't actually discuss 1430/3041 > but merely hopes you will guess right. > But in that case he already knows that we are uncertain - so that is no news to him. So it's no UI. And if my explanation fits his hand, there is also no UI to take from it. >> But that is UI that we never rule against. > > We rule against it when we discover it. But we can't discover it - or rather, we always have that UI. Whenever a player correctly explains his partner's bids, there is this UI. And no, we don't rule against it! Never! > OK, it's not always easy to > discover (particular when someone lies and says "0 or 3" when the truth > is "undiscussed but we agreed RKCB". > But either the partner knows that there is no firm agreement, and so he learns nothing new (well, he learns that his partner can keep a straight face) or he does not know that his parter was actually in doubt. In the second case, he learns nothing. There is not even the UI of there being doubt! > This should be so simple. DON'T bl**dy well lie to your opponents. And where in the lawbook does it say that you are not allowed to lie? The only thing the lawbook sets out is that the opponents must be fully informed _about the agreements_. The lawbook makes no mention of you being obliged to tell them what you had for dinner or that you slept with your opponent's wife last week. By saying "3/0", the opponents are in possession of everything they are entitled to know. And nothing is going to force me to tell them more. > If you have forgotten then tell them. If you haven't explicitly agreed > it then tell them. If you have reason to suspect it is more likely 1430 > then 3041 tell them. But tell them the truth. No - it does not say so in the laws. > If you create UI for partner that is his problem (and yours) trust him > not to take advantage and find a new partner if you can't trust him. > And this is where you are wrong. I do trust my partner to do the ethical thing, but I cannot trust my partner anymore to do the correct thing, after I've given him UI. Without the UI, he may well make the correct bid (bridge-result-wise); with the UI, he may not be allowed to make that same bid! Which is why I hold deeply to the belief that before everything, I must be allowed to keep from handing UI to my partner. I will do everything that the laws instruct me to do - including telling the opponents everything there is to know about our system, but I won't go any further than that. And so I don't tell them I am uncertain. There is nothing in the laws that instructs me to tell that. Look it up, there's nothing there. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 24 17:27:06 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:27:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland Message-ID: <4605515A.5050806@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Laszlo Hegedus > In a MI situation we should > decide wheter the NOS's action was considerable after the MI. The fact > that their demage is consequence of the MI depends on that. It's at best a secondary question. Many jurisdictions have rules about "irrational, wild, or gambling" actions or similar phrases. Also, you need to verify that the MI made the losing choice more likely. But the main question is what would have happened if the correct information had been given. If the answer is that the misinformed player would have made the winning choice, the score should nearly always be adjusted. I'm afraid all too many TD's and AC's get this wrong, so Laci is in good company. From mustikka at charter.net Sat Mar 24 18:43:52 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:43:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <460547D1.90005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c76e3b$fdffbcf0$0e035e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- (snipped bunches) >> This should be so simple. DON'T bl**dy well lie to your opponents. HDW writes in response to TWM: > And where in the lawbook does it say that you are not allowed to lie? >> If you have forgotten then tell them. If you haven't explicitly agreed >> it then tell them. If you have reason to suspect it is more likely 1430 >> then 3041 tell them. But tell them the truth. > HDW writes again: > No - it does not say so in the laws. HDW expects the lawbook to say it is forbidden to *lie to the opponents about one's agreements*? Or have I managed to completely misunderstand what was said? Telling lies is considered unethical in any culture I am aware of; IMO there need be no law and no lawbook to outlaw lying. Raija From geller at nifty.com Sat Mar 24 20:53:33 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:53:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-2022-jp?b?UhskQnFHGyhCLl86X1JlOl9fdGhlX0RlX1dhZWxf?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?UXVlc3Rpb25fX1tTRUM9VU5PRkZJQ0lBTF0=?= In-Reply-To: <000b01c76e3b$fdffbcf0$0e035e47@DFYXB361> References: <000b01c76e3b$fdffbcf0$0e035e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200703241953.AA07907@geller204.nifty.com> Assuming you have a convention card filled out, just give it to the oppts. Tell them you're sorry you forgot whether you're using 1430 or 0414, but if they look at your card they can find the actual agreement. -Bob raija ????????: > >----- Original Message ----- > >(snipped bunches) > > >>> This should be so simple. DON'T bl**dy well lie to your opponents. > >HDW writes in response to TWM: >> And where in the lawbook does it say that you are not allowed to lie? > > > > >>> If you have forgotten then tell them. If you haven't explicitly agreed >>> it then tell them. If you have reason to suspect it is more likely 1430 >>> then 3041 tell them. But tell them the truth. >> >HDW writes again: >> No - it does not say so in the laws. > > > >HDW expects the lawbook to say it is forbidden to *lie to the opponents >about one's agreements*? Or have I managed to completely misunderstand what >was said? Telling lies is considered unethical in any culture I am aware >of; IMO there need be no law and no lawbook to outlaw lying. > >Raija > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 24 22:19:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:19:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000b01c76e3b$fdffbcf0$0e035e47@DFYXB361> References: <460547D1.90005@skynet.be> <000b01c76e3b$fdffbcf0$0e035e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <460595CB.9050301@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > (snipped bunches) > > >>> This should be so simple. DON'T bl**dy well lie to your opponents. > > HDW writes in response to TWM: >> And where in the lawbook does it say that you are not allowed to lie? > > > > >>> If you have forgotten then tell them. If you haven't explicitly agreed >>> it then tell them. If you have reason to suspect it is more likely 1430 >>> then 3041 tell them. But tell them the truth. > HDW writes again: >> No - it does not say so in the laws. > > > > HDW expects the lawbook to say it is forbidden to *lie to the opponents > about one's agreements*? Or have I managed to completely misunderstand what > was said? Telling lies is considered unethical in any culture I am aware > of; IMO there need be no law and no lawbook to outlaw lying. > Yes indeed you have completely misunderstood. I did not speak aboout lying _about one's agreements_. The whole point is just that the player is correctly describing the agreements! What the player is lying about, if such a strong word needs to be used, is about whether or not he is certain about those agreements. I repeat the challenge to all to find in the lawbook a reference about that. As to the ethicallity of lying about whatever else, just consider that you know that you have the ace of spades, yet you do not tell that to your opponents, do you? That is just as much "lying" as the thing that I al hiding from my opponents. It's information they would like to have, but that they are not entitled to. I am not telling them. If you want to call that lying, go ahead, but if you believe that such lying is unethical, then your ideas about ethics are far removed from mine. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 25 03:27:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:27:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] the De Wael Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4603D895.7000806@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=+ The next code of laws is still in its formative stages >>and until it is settled and adopted, we hope in Shanghai, >>I cannot discuss it here. If Richard and/or Herman is >>among those we have consulted upon any matter the >>confidentiality in that remains. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Brian Meadows: >Would it be too much to ask exactly what purpose you feel >you're serving by the degree of secrecy you seem to be >trying to maintain? After all, what you're working on are >the **laws of a game**, not some bunch of military secrets. Otto von Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made." Brian Meadows: >Unless Richard and Herman are lying, it is now public >knowledge that they've seen a pre-release version of the >new Laws. Since they were the ones who chose to reveal it, >exactly what harm has been done to anything by the rest of >us knowing that? Richard Hills: The point is that I committed a shocking breach of trust by my unauthorised revelation of a confidential detail. Brian Meadows: >Even the mandarins of Whitehall have been dragged, >admittedly kicking and screaming in some cases, towards the >principle of open information. Maybe it's time for the >WBF(LC) to make some moves in that direction? Richard Hills: The point is that it was improper for me to unilaterally over-rule the WBF decision to keep all details of the next code of laws confidential. My deep apologies to the Drafting Committee in general and to Grattan Endicott in particular. The Lord's Prayer: "Lead us not into temptation..." Richard Hills: To minimise any further blabbermouth temptation, I am going to unsubscribe from blml for a while. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Mar 25 13:45:49 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:45:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <460547D1.90005@skynet.be> <000b01c76e3b$fdffbcf0$0e035e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <002a01c76ed4$affb69c0$f09087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "The best words in the best order" ~ S T Coleridge. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 6:43 PM > > HDW expects the lawbook to say it is forbidden > to *lie to the opponents about one's agreements*? > Or have I managed to completely misunderstand > what was said? Telling lies is considered unethical > in any culture I am aware of; IMO there need be > no law and no lawbook to outlaw lying. > > Raija > +=+ It should be understood, Raija, that Herman postulates argument and debates it in the manner of sophists who are prepared to enter into debate on a subject however specious. He knows, as you and I know, that it is unlawful to misinform opponents as to the partnership's *agreements* and that Laws 72B2 and 90A would apply to any purposeful disregard of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 25 17:19:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf._:_Re:__the_De_Wael_Question__[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002a01c76ed4$affb69c0$f09087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ It should be understood, Raija, that Herman > postulates argument and debates it in the manner of > sophists who are prepared to enter into debate on a > subject however specious. He knows, as you and I > know, that it is unlawful to misinform opponents as > to the partnership's *agreements* and that Laws > 72B2 and 90A would apply to any purposeful > disregard of the law. Herman's argument is (I believe) somewhat more intricate than that. His position is that even if you haven't actually agreed which RKCB responses you are playing he will rule that you have an agreement to play 3041 if you bid 5C with 3KCs and your partner (with 1 KC) correctly guesses that you have 3KCs rather than 1/4. Thus because he is *going* to rule the existence of such an agreement you aren't lying if you tell opps you *have* such an agreement. IMO his approach breaches the third law of Librarianship* but, technically, not the laws of bridge. Tim * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Space From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 25 22:05:08 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:05:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f._:_Re:__the_De_Wael_Question__[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan wrote: >> > >> +=+ It should be understood, Raija, that Herman >> postulates argument and debates it in the manner of >> sophists who are prepared to enter into debate on a >> subject however specious. He knows, as you and I >> know, that it is unlawful to misinform opponents as >> to the partnership's *agreements* and that Laws >> 72B2 and 90A would apply to any purposeful >> disregard of the law. > > Herman's argument is (I believe) somewhat more intricate than that. > His position is that even if you haven't actually agreed which RKCB > responses you are playing he will rule that you have an agreement to > play 3041 if you bid 5C with 3KCs and your partner (with 1 KC) correctly > guesses that you have 3KCs rather than 1/4. Thus because he is *going* > to rule the existence of such an agreement you aren't lying if you tell > opps you *have* such an agreement. IMO his approach breaches the third > law of Librarianship* but, technically, not the laws of bridge. > > Tim +=+ As a player Herman is in no position to rule anything. I have avoided the use of 'lie'. Herman is announcing an agreement that does not exist. If he does that he will be required to show that the laws authorize him to do so. See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 26 02:46:28 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:46:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> References: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <460717E4.7000107@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] Herman's argument is (I believe) somewhat more intricate than that. His position is that even if you haven't actually agreed which RKCB responses you are playing he will rule that you have an agreement to play 3041 if you bid 5C with 3KCs and your partner (with 1 KC) correctly guesses that you have 3KCs rather than 1/4. Thus because he is *going* to rule the existence of such an agreement you aren't lying if you tell opps you *have* such an agreement. IMO his approach breaches the third law of Librarianship* but, technically, not the laws of bridge. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Space [Grattan Endicott] +=+ As a player Herman is in no position to rule anything. I have avoided the use of 'lie'. Herman is announcing an agreement that does not exist. If he does that he will be required to show that the laws authorize him to do so. See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. [nige1] Available from the Unseen University Library. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 26 10:22:04 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:22:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460480DD.7040703@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703231417.l2NEHoDY028618@cfa.harvard.edu> <200703231417.l2NEHoDY028618@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070326101842.021681a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:37 23/03/2007 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>--- Pass Pass 1NT(1) > >>Dble(2) ? > >> > >>(1) 12-14 > >>(2) 5-card minor and 4-card major >... > >>What call do you make? > >I don't understand the point. You are asking what the player should >have done after the MI, but the proper question is what the player would >have done if given correct information (that the double was penalty). IBTD. It is quite possible that the double be artificial, but the player doubled because he forgot it, or because he has a clever sequence in mind (perhaps he has a 2-suited 19-count). In that case, we must consider the possibility that the double won't be left in. For the time being, there is no MI, and the proper question is "given that double is, somewhat unexpectedly, two-suited, and LHO doesn't know RHO has a big hand, what is the best action ?" Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 26 10:41:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:41:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> References: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <46078724.2040006@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > 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: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:19 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f._:_Re:__the_De_Wael_Question__[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Grattan wrote: >>> +=+ It should be understood, Raija, that Herman >>> postulates argument and debates it in the manner of >>> sophists who are prepared to enter into debate on a >>> subject however specious. He knows, as you and I >>> know, that it is unlawful to misinform opponents as >>> to the partnership's *agreements* and that Laws >>> 72B2 and 90A would apply to any purposeful >>> disregard of the law. >> Herman's argument is (I believe) somewhat more intricate than that. >> His position is that even if you haven't actually agreed which RKCB >> responses you are playing he will rule that you have an agreement to >> play 3041 if you bid 5C with 3KCs and your partner (with 1 KC) correctly >> guesses that you have 3KCs rather than 1/4. Thus because he is *going* >> to rule the existence of such an agreement you aren't lying if you tell >> opps you *have* such an agreement. IMO his approach breaches the third >> law of Librarianship* but, technically, not the laws of bridge. >> >> Tim > +=+ As a player Herman is in no position to rule anything. > I have avoided the use of 'lie'. Herman is announcing an > agreement that does not exist. If he does that he will be > required to show that the laws authorize him to do so. Herman, as a player, expects the director to rule as Herman the director would. Now let's see where this Grattan's interpretation leads Herman the player. He is fairly confident that his partner is showing 3/0 KC, and wants his opponents to have the same information. So he says "3/0". His partner indeed has 3 KC. For whatever reason his opponents call the director, and here comes director Herman/Grattan. "What's the problem?" says the TD. "We're not certain if player Herman has not omitted to tell us something - we know him, and he's never sure of his agreements, so maybe he has forgotten to tell us he was unsure." Answer from TD Herman "well, the partner did have 3 aces did he not? What are you bothering me for?" Answer from TD Grattan "well, player Herman, were you certain or not?" - player Herman: "about 85% certain". I am not going to speak for TD Grattan as to his ruling. Now one point of my argument is: if the Directors cannot agree on what the laws say - how are players going to know what to do? And I do admit that maybe there is only one director who disagrees here (although I would like to see some support from those that silently agree with me) but I am still asking to be shown in the Lawbook where it says that I, Herman the player, must reveal to my opponents that I am only 85% certain of what our agreements actually are. > See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Mar 26 10:44:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:44:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> References: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <460787E4.5020403@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Trying to find that on ECATS - link broken -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 26 11:37:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:37:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <460787E4.5020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Trying to find that on ECATS - link broken For your convenience: 8. Actions authorised in the laws The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ?extraneous? and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. I think the clause "may be deemed an infraction" is all important! Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 26 12:56:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:56:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?windows-1252?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWa?= =?windows-1252?q?el=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4607A6E9.3090802@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >>> See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> Trying to find that on ECATS - link broken > > For your convenience: > > 8. Actions authorised in the laws > The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was > stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not > expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is > not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ?extraneous? and it > may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used > in the auction or the play. > > > I think the clause "may be deemed an infraction" is all important! > With all due respect, I totally fail to see the importance. Please enlighten me, Grattan and/or Sven. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 26 11:37:33 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:37:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] the_De_Wael_Question Message-ID: <200703260937.AA07931@geller204.nifty.com> See below, also see attached file. -Bob 8. Actions authorised in the laws The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. Herman De Wael writes: >gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >Trying to find that on ECATS - link broken > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WBFLC Min 980824.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/2c435ad1/attachment-0001.obj From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 26 13:25:37 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:25:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> [minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998] The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ?extraneous? and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. [Sven Pran] I think the clause "may be deemed an infraction" is all important! [nige1] Sven has a good point: even if guessing *is extraneous* *and* information deriving from it *is used* in the auction or play, Herman can still argue that director *may* decide whether or not to rule it an infraction, *at his discretion*. The 1998 minute epitomises current problems with the rules of bridge. Few directors and fewer players are aware of it. Anyway, it's vague, complex and subjective. (I remember quoting it in my argument that it was an infraction to lead to the next trick while cards are still exposed to the current trick. Only Tim West-Meads agreed with me). Whatever the legal standing of Herman's protocol, surely the law-makers should consider his idea of insisting that "if you're unsure then you must guess (and you must accept the consequences if you guess wrong)." Herman's suggestion has obvious downsides but the benefits seem overwhelming. The main argument *for* Herman is that most players are *never* sure of their agreements. (I'm never sure of anything). We *always* have to guess. Some arguments *against*... [A] Some BLMLers argue that you need not have to know your system. They have a valid theoretical case but it is amazing how often players, who claim "no agreement" seem to guess right, in practice. [B] Others suggest that it is OK to introduce an undiscussed call -- perhaps in the hope that partner will understand it. [i] If you really think partner is likely to understand the call, then it is the subject of an implicit agreement (at least potentially). [ii] If partner is unlikely to understand the call, then your effort is *random*, hence banned by most jurisdictions, except at the highest levels. Many partnerships seem to use "Ghestem" as a random overcall :) The best argument against Herman's idea is advanced by those who point out other information sources. You might suggest opponents try [i] Your convention card -- but they are often incomplete :( [ii] Calling the director "who can ask you to leave the table while partner explains". This procedure is time-consuming. Does it appear in any law or rule book? Is it just as "extraneous" as Herman's protocol? Anyway, this is an excellent solution, if partner is legally obliged to divulge what he intended the call to mean. But is that really the current law? From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 26 14:04:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:04:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <4607A6E9.3090802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c76f9e$e1805b70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >>> See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. > >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >>> > >> Trying to find that on ECATS - link broken > > > > For your convenience: > > > > 8. Actions authorised in the laws > > The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action > was > > stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if > not > > expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this > is > > not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct > procedure > > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ?extraneous? and > it > > may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is > used > > in the auction or the play. > > > > > > I think the clause "may be deemed an infraction" is all important! > > > > With all due respect, I totally fail to see the importance. > Please enlighten me, Grattan and/or Sven. Well, I haven't followed this thread in detail so let me limit myself to an interpretation on this minute without any consideration about its relevancy to the ongoing discussion: A particular action in a particular situation may be found stated in the laws as authorized (or legal), it may be found stated as unauthorized (or illegal) or it may not be found mentioned at all. The minute simply (IMHO) makes it clear that an unmentioned action can (implicitly) be taken neither as authorized/legal nor as unauthorized/illegal. Its state in a particular situation must be a matter of judgment by the Director, a judgment that can of course be appealed. ("it may be deemed an infraction of law") Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 26 13:37:32 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:37:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> <460717E4.7000107@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004801c76fa2$738a5860$198687d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f._:_Re:__the_De_Wael_Question__[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Tim West-Meads] > Herman's argument is (I believe) somewhat more intricate than that. > His position is that even if you haven't actually agreed which RKCB > responses you are playing he will rule that you have an agreement to > play 3041 if you bid 5C with 3KCs and your partner (with 1 KC) correctly > guesses that you have 3KCs rather than 1/4. Thus because he is *going* > to rule the existence of such an agreement you aren't lying if you tell > opps you *have* such an agreement. IMO his approach breaches the third > law of Librarianship* but, technically, not the laws of bridge. > > * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Space > > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ As a player Herman is in no position to rule anything. I have > avoided the use of 'lie'. Herman is announcing an agreement that does > not exist. If he does that he will be required to show that the laws > authorize him to do so. See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. > > [nige1] > Available from the Unseen University Library. > +=+ "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." WBFLC. 24 Aug 98. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 26 14:13:02 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:13:02 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOF?= =?iso-8859-1?q?FICIAL=5D?= References: <46078724.2040006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4607B8C7.000001.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael And I do admit that maybe there is only one director who disagrees here (although I would like to see some support from those that silently agree with me) but I am still asking to be shown in the Lawbook where it says that I, Herman the player, must reveal to my opponents that I am only 85% certain of what our agreements actually are. AG : And I'd like to know what the Laws have to say about the right way to establish the exact percentage of confidence. If I give the wrong %age, am I liable to penalty ? And how will it be ascertained ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/4754cea3/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/20070326/4754cea3/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/4754cea3/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 26 15:14:35 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:14:35 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Wael?= References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Nigel [B] Others suggest that it is OK to introduce an undiscussed call -- perhaps in the hope that partner will understand it. [i] If you really think partner is likely to understand the call, then it is the subject of an implicit agreement (at least potentially). [ii] If partner is unlikely to understand the call, then your effort is *random*, hence banned by most jurisdictions, except at the highest levels. Many partnerships seem to use "Ghestem" as a random overcall :) AG : I don't buy that. The notion of "potential agreement" isn't germane to the game of bridge. Either you have an agreement, that is "you've discussed the situation or have a general agreement covering this situation", or you haven't. There are indeed cases where no agreement exists about a bid and yet a majority of the payers agree about the meaning. That's what bidding quizzes are made of (see eg problem A in 4/2007 "Challenge the Champs"). Apart from that, to the majority of blmlists who consider UI as a lesser infraction than MI as long as it isn't used, may I ask why it would be incorrect to answer "I think it should be such-and-such, but we didn't discuss it". Sometimes, it may even be lawful (in the Dungeoneering sense) to answer "if we read the same lines, it's such-and-such". That might happen if you've agreed to play a third person's system. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/48e22a77/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/20070326/48e22a77/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 36281 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/48e22a77/attachment-0001.gif From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 26 15:15:17 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:15:17 +0900 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <4607B8C7.000001.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <4607B8C7.000001.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but they can. -Bob Alain Gottcheiner ????????: > > > > >-------Message original------- > > > >De : Herman De Wael > >And I do admit that maybe there is only one director who disagrees > >here (although I would like to see some support from those that > >silently agree with me) but I am still asking to be shown in the > >Lawbook where it says that I, Herman the player, must reveal to my > >opponents that I am only 85% certain of what our agreements actually are. > > > >AG : And I'd like to know what the Laws have to say about the right way to establish the exact percentage of confidence. If I give the wrong %age, am I liable to penalty ? And how will it be ascertained ? >______________________________________________________________________ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:31:33 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:31:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> > [B] Others suggest that it is OK to introduce an undiscussed call -- > perhaps in the hope that partner will understand it. > [i] If you really think partner is likely to understand the call, then > it is the subject of an implicit agreement (at least potentially). > [ii] If partner is unlikely to understand the call, then your effort is > *random*, hence banned by most jurisdictions, except at the highest > levels. Consider the following. I am partnering a a player and (regretfully) have no idea what system we're playing. (This happens a lot more often than you might think playing online). I get dealt the following S KQx H xx D xx C KQ9632 and pass in first seat. The auction proceeds as follows P - (P) - 1S - (P) I'm going respond 2C and if the opponents ask what this shows, I'm going to reply "No Agreement". Please tell me if this is a random bid or an implicit agreement that we are/are not playing Drury. (If I do have an implicit agreement, please let me know if I'm playing Drury) From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 26 16:06:48 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:06:48 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Robert Geller Date : 26/03/2007 15:16:00 A : Alain Gottcheiner Cc : blml; Herman De Wael Sujet : why no convention card? Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but they can. Sure it could, in many cases . But the fact that you don't know means the sequence will often be of the less-standard type, which means it might not be written. Anyway, this mannerism hints to your not knowing, and that's UI according to some. But it seems that, even when a bid"s meaning is on your CC, you have to answer questions correctly. Many AC rulings have mentioned that. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/fa6cfa68/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/20070326/fa6cfa68/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 36281 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/fa6cfa68/attachment-0001.gif From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 26 16:07:26 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:07:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000901c76fb0$3393a5f0$679e87d9@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. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml]R?f._:_Re:__the_De_Wael_Question__[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] 8. Actions authorised in the laws The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. I think the clause "may be deemed an infraction" is all important! +=+ My view is that important is ".... other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; ... " Of course, if Herman chooses to delude himself that this does not apply to representing as an agreement what is not an agreement, why should I trouble myself with his specious argument? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 26 16:12:49 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:12:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <200703261412.AA07942@geller204.nifty.com> I don't know the rules in your country, but here in Japan each pair is required to have two identically, completely filled out, convention cards if they want to play anything more than a standard meat-and-potatoes system. If they were playing 1430 and didn't have two identical filled-out convention cards they would already be in violation of this rule and subject to penalty.... So I hope you will forgive me for suggesting that the premise of this discussion is unrealistic. Of course it might be the case in your country that the regulations don't require convention cards to be filled out. If this is the case may I suggest that this rule be adopted and enforced. Cheers, Bob Alain Gottcheiner ????????: > > > > >-------Message original------- > > > >De : Robert Geller > >Date : 26/03/2007 15:16:00 > >A : Alain Gottcheiner > >Cc : blml; Herman De Wael > >Sujet : why no convention card? > > > >Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't > >be resolved by showing the opponents your convention card, which > >presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but > >they can. > > > >Sure it could, in many cases . But the fact that you don't know means the >sequence will often be of the less-standard type, which means it might not >be written. > >Anyway, this mannerism hints to your not knowing, and that's UI according to >some. > > > >But it seems that, even when a bid"s meaning is on your CC, you have to >answer questions correctly. Many AC rulings have mentioned that. > > > >Best regards > > > > Alain ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 26 16:30:25 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:30:25 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_why_no_convention_card?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= References: <200703261412.AA07942@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4607D900.000001.58227@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Robert Geller I don't know the rules in your country, but here in Japan each pair is required to have two identically, completely filled out, convention cards if they want to play anything more than a standard meat-and-potatoes system. If they were playing 1430 and didn't have two identical filled-out convention cards they would already be in violation of this rule and subject to penalty.... I was referring to the general case, not to the specific BW case. Even a completely filled-out CC can't contain everything. And our CC model is much more complete than the US or French model. But anyway, both 3041 and 4130 are our meat-and-potatoes (category B), hence I don't think penalties would be in order. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/50778662/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/20070326/50778662/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 36281 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070326/50778662/attachment-0001.gif From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 26 17:34:50 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:34:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Are the laws clear on telling pard to ask a question? Message-ID: <4607E81A.7060905@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > I do not see why UI caused by a break in tempo should be treated > differently to UI caused by an incorrect explanation. If the BiT tells something about unseen cards, we use the normal UI Laws. No problem. It's hard for me to imagine that a BiT can tell something else, and I'd have to be convinced that the "something else" really is UI. > a player who has just misbid gains UI from their partner's _correct_ > explanation This, on the other hand, is a real problem. As things stand today, the correct explanation is deemed to be UI, fully as serious as any other UI. That wasn't always true; from 1975 to 1987, the correct explanation was deemed UI but a less serious form. While I don't have an answer I am entirely comfortable with, I think the present treatment of correct explanations is badly flawed. Misbids plus correct explanaions often force TD's to invent fantasy bidding systems, and there's no objective way to do that. Further, gratuitous questions that place opponents in a UI position are rewarded, and I don't think that's the way the game should be played. Jeff Rubens -- with whom I don't share much agreement on what the Laws ought to be -- has suggested that correct alerts and explanations should be AI. As I say, I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I think it's better than what we have. At any rate, I think preserving the principle I've stated and changing how we rule these cases would be an improvement. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 26 18:26:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:26:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4607F447.3060804@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: >> [B] Others suggest that it is OK to introduce an undiscussed call -- >> perhaps in the hope that partner will understand it. >> [i] If you really think partner is likely to understand the call, then >> it is the subject of an implicit agreement (at least potentially). >> [ii] If partner is unlikely to understand the call, then your effort is >> *random*, hence banned by most jurisdictions, except at the highest >> levels. > > Consider the following. I am partnering a a player and (regretfully) > have no idea what system we're playing. (This happens a lot more > often than you might think playing online). I get dealt the following > > S KQx > H xx > D xx > C KQ9632 > > and pass in first seat. The auction proceeds as follows > > P - (P) - 1S - (P) > > I'm going respond 2C and if the opponents ask what this shows, I'm > going to reply "No Agreement". Please tell me if this is a random bid > or an implicit agreement that we are/are not playing Drury. (If I do > have an implicit agreement, please let me know if I'm playing Drury) > OK Richard, I'll bite. You bid 2C and partner understands this to be "not-Drury, ergo natural". When asked how you both managed to understand that it was this, you and he will both state "we did not agree on anything, and I believe that the standard in this on-line community would be not Drury". How is that any different from you bidding 2Cl over 1NT and you and he both understanding this to be Stayman. Your statement "no agreement" may well be correct, but it is not complete. Against most opponents on the same community, it will be sufficient, as they will also believe "non-Drury" to be the standard. But if I would be your opponent, I who have never played on-line, I would ask you to explain what the most common meaning of the call would be. You would obviously comply and tell me. As a director, I would rule that you did have an implicit agreement, and I would expect you to have informed your opponents. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 26 18:28:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:28:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <000901c76fb0$3393a5f0$679e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000901c76fb0$3393a5f0$679e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4607F4CB.7040307@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ My view is that important is ".... other actions if not expressly > forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; ... > " > Of course, if Herman chooses to delude himself that this does > not apply to representing as an agreement what is not an agreement, > why should I trouble myself with his specious argument? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I still fail to see what this has got to do with the discussion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:23:31 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:23:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <4607F447.3060804@skynet.be> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> <4607F447.3060804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0703261023k46b81bb7qdf53118c4ab0a5d8@mail.gmail.com> There is a world of difference between your hypothical Stayman example and Drury. Using a 2C to a 1NT opening as Stayman is almost universal in online bridge. I suspect that the only counter examples are 1. Established partnership's that have explictly defined a 2C response as a game forcing relay or Gladiator or Keri or whatever 2. Rank novices who have such a limited comprehesion regarding bidding that they aren't really playing "bridge". I agree that I should explain that a 2C response to partner's 1NT opening is Stayman. In a similar vein, if I were asked what range that 1NT opening showed, I would say that I expect that it shows ~15-17 HCPs. In contrast, there is no such consensual understanding surrounding Drury. For example, Drury isn't included as part of BBO's Standard American Yellow Card description. I don't know any way to identify what percentage of BBO players believe that Drury is on by default. In general, the way that one deals with this issue is by avoiding ambiguous bids in a pickup partnership. Its best to stick to bread-and-butter sequences where one hopes there is little or no room for misunderstandings. In the case of my "hypothetical" 2C response to partner's third seat 1S opening - This is the type of bid that I normally avoid making. However, in this case, I have club length AND spade support. Accordingly, I will (probably) be well position in the auction regardless of whether partner interpretes my bid as Drury OR natural. > If I would be your opponent, I who have never played on-line, I > would ask you to explain what the most common meaning of the call > would be. You would obviously comply and tell me. No, I wouldn't. I'd say that "Your guess is as good as mine" and explain that partner and I don't have any agreement. On 3/26/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard willey wrote: > >> [B] Others suggest that it is OK to introduce an undiscussed call -- > >> perhaps in the hope that partner will understand it. > >> [i] If you really think partner is likely to understand the call, then > >> it is the subject of an implicit agreement (at least potentially). > >> [ii] If partner is unlikely to understand the call, then your effort is > >> *random*, hence banned by most jurisdictions, except at the highest > >> levels. > > > > Consider the following. I am partnering a a player and (regretfully) > > have no idea what system we're playing. (This happens a lot more > > often than you might think playing online). I get dealt the following > > > > S KQx > > H xx > > D xx > > C KQ9632 > > > > and pass in first seat. The auction proceeds as follows > > > > P - (P) - 1S - (P) > > > > I'm going respond 2C and if the opponents ask what this shows, I'm > > going to reply "No Agreement". Please tell me if this is a random bid > > or an implicit agreement that we are/are not playing Drury. (If I do > > have an implicit agreement, please let me know if I'm playing Drury) > > > > OK Richard, I'll bite. > > You bid 2C and partner understands this to be "not-Drury, ergo > natural". When asked how you both managed to understand that it was > this, you and he will both state "we did not agree on anything, and I > believe that the standard in this on-line community would be not > Drury". How is that any different from you bidding 2Cl over 1NT and > you and he both understanding this to be Stayman. > Your statement "no agreement" may well be correct, but it is not > complete. Against most opponents on the same community, it will be > sufficient, as they will also believe "non-Drury" to be the standard. > But if I would be your opponent, I who have never played on-line, I > would ask you to explain what the most common meaning of the call > would be. You would obviously comply and tell me. > > As a director, I would rule that you did have an implicit agreement, > and I would expect you to have informed your opponents. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Conservatives: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, covered by an Exxon slush fund From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 26 19:54:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Wrote: > > Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't > be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which > presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but > they can. Because when one shows them the CC both cards clearly state "RKCB" but not whether 1430 or 3041. Cases where one (or even both) players have *forgotten* an agreement (or some detail thereof) are easily handled. The cases we are meant to be considering are where the uncertainty arises because this agreement (or detail) has never been discussed. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 26 22:32:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:32:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4607B8C7.000001.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <639AA9A7-4774-4460-BF40-A9F4892E1D9C@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 26, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't > be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which > presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but > they can. Once upon a time, in order to stop an opponent from badgering my novice partner with questions which were clearly confusing and frustrating her, I suggested to that opponent that the answers to her questions were on our CC, at which she might like to have a look. Her supercilious reply: "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions." The next thing I said, of course, was "Director, please!" :-) From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 27 00:18:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <200703262058.AA07946@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: > Our federation's convention card form has a box for 1430 which is > either checked or isn't. See attached. Then please assume that either the imaginary hand was being played somewhere other than Japan or that you have been told the reason the 1430 box hasn't been checked isn't because 3041 has been agreed but because the issue wasn't discussed. If that doesn't work consider a scenario for which the Japanese CC *doesn't* have a check box (e.g. would 1S-3S-4D deny 2nd round club control?). Tim From geller at nifty.com Tue Mar 27 00:24:54 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:24:54 +0900 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200703262224.AA07948@geller204.nifty.com> >If that doesn't work consider a scenario for which the Japanese CC >*doesn't* have a check box (e.g. would 1S-3S-4D deny 2nd round club >control?). -> The two are different. RKBC is artificial. 5C must show either 0/3 or 1/4; it's just a question of which. But in the cue bid auction 4D shows a diamond control, but negative inferences from having bypassed 4C might well not have been discussed by that pair. In the absence of a specific agreemement, no problems would be created by answered a question about the negative inferences to be drawn from the failure to bid 4C by "no agreement", "we haven't ever discussed it", "not sure", "I don't know", or the like. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Mar 27 02:37:12 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:37:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E=5F=3A=5FRe=3A=5F=5Fthe=5FDe=5FWael?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FQuestion=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <46078724.2040006@skynet.be> References: <000001c76f19$10081860$ebcd403e@Mildred> <46078724.2040006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46086738.2000208@comcast.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > And I do admit that maybe there is only one director who disagrees > here (although I would like to see some support from those that > silently agree with me) but I am still asking to be shown in the > Lawbook where it says that I, Herman the player, must reveal to my > opponents that I am only 85% certain of what our agreements actually are. I sympathize with the problem while disagreeing with the solution. I agree with Grattan's interpretations of the laws and regulations as written. I also believe they should be rewritten in the spirit of Herman's ideal. A player with a reasonable expectation of having an agreement should disclose it and pay the UI/MI prices when his expectation does not meet reality. The player should not be allowed to hide behind "no agreement" unless he really, honestly doesn't know. I believe this to be more ethical than the current legal interpretation. -Todd From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 27 01:43:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:43:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0703261023k46b81bb7qdf53118c4ab0a5d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> <4607F447.3060804@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0703261023k46b81bb7qdf53118c4ab0a5d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46085ABF.1010509@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > There is a world of difference between your hypothical Stayman example > and Drury. > actually, I don't believe there is. > Using a 2C to a 1NT opening as Stayman is almost universal in online > bridge. I suspect that the only counter examples are > Yes indeed, it is universal. But we are talking of only two people here: you and your partner. You both have the same idea about what 2Cl over 1NT usually means, yet you do not have a formal agreement about it. The 2Cl non-Drury example is exactly the same, in that sense. You and your partner apparently have the same idea about it, without a formal agreement. > > I agree that I should explain that a 2C response to partner's 1NT > opening is Stayman. In a similar vein, if I were asked what range > that 1NT opening showed, I would say that I expect that it shows > ~15-17 HCPs. > Yet you have no formal agreement about either (in some cases). > In contrast, there is no such consensual understanding surrounding > Drury. For example, Drury isn't included as part of BBO's Standard > American Yellow Card description. I don't know any way to identify > what percentage of BBO players believe that Drury is on by default. > In general, the way that one deals with this issue is by avoiding > ambiguous bids in a pickup partnership. Its best to stick to > bread-and-butter sequences where one hopes there is little or no room > for misunderstandings. > And that is also an understanding. Knowing that without agreement one plays "standard" and knowing what standard means. And apparently you have the same knowledge as your partner. That, to me, can be interpreted as a implicit understanding. > In the case of my "hypothetical" 2C response to partner's third seat > 1S opening - This is the type of bid that I normally avoid making. > However, in this case, I have club length AND spade support. > Accordingly, I will (probably) be well position in the auction > regardless of whether partner interpretes my bid as Drury OR natural. > >> If I would be your opponent, I who have never played on-line, I >> would ask you to explain what the most common meaning of the call >> would be. You would obviously comply and tell me. > > No, I wouldn't. I'd say that "Your guess is as good as mine" and > explain that partner and I don't have any agreement. > But that is only true if my guess is indeed as good as yours. When you know your partner better than I do, your guess is better than mine. And that can be interpreted as, or ruled as, misinformation. And this is where I came into this discussion. If my knowledge could be ruled implicit understandings, then it is better for me to divulge that knowledge to my opponents. I rather play like that than hide behind "no agreement" and leaving my opponents in the dark. If I have guessed wrong, then I prefer to have all three things against me: MI, UI, and a wrong contract to booth. That is the penalty for getting the agreements stuffed up. But if I guess right, I don't want to have a director ruling against me on MI. And to think that some people actually accuse me of doing something illegal by trying to be helpful to my opponents ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 27 04:58:16 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:58:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> Alain Gottscheiner writes: > Robert Geller writes: >>Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't >>be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which >>presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but >>they can. >Sure it could, in many cases . But the fact that you don't know means the >sequence will often be of the less-standard type, which means it >might not be written. >Anyway, this mannerism hints to your not knowing, and that's UI according to >some. Agreed, but not as bad as confirming to partner that you misinterpreted a bid. >But it seems that, even when a bid"s meaning is on your CC, you have to answer >questions correctly. Many AC rulings have mentioned that. However, players are expected to protect themselves. If West asks South, "What does that bid mean?" and South says, "It's on the CC", he has given a satisfactory explanation (assuming it is actually on the CC). If West refuses to look at the CC, I don't think any AC will rule that West has been damaged by MI. From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 26 22:58:40 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:58:40 +0900 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200703262058.AA07946@geller204.nifty.com> Our federation's convention card form has a box for 1430 which is either checked or isn't. See attached. -Bob Tim West-Meads ????????: >Robert Wrote: >> >> Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't >> be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which >> presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but >> they can. > >Because when one shows them the CC both cards clearly state "RKCB" but >not whether 1430 or 3041. Cases where one (or even both) players have >*forgotten* an agreement (or some detail thereof) are easily handled. >The cases we are meant to be considering are where the uncertainty >arises because this agreement (or detail) has never been discussed. > >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ConvCard(Todai).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 85615 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070327/fae13282/attachment-0001.pdf From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Mar 27 09:13:32 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:13:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4608C41C.3020301@meteo.fr> Tim West-Meads a ?crit : > Robert wrote: > >> Our federation's convention card form has a box for 1430 which is >> either checked or isn't. See attached. > > Then please assume that either the imaginary hand was being played > somewhere other than Japan or that you have been told the reason the > 1430 box hasn't been checked isn't because 3041 has been agreed but > because the issue wasn't discussed. > > If that doesn't work consider a scenario for which the Japanese CC > *doesn't* have a check box (e.g. would 1S-3S-4D deny 2nd round club > control?). it's not the problem as it was initially proposed in this thread. it was actually a question of forgotten agreement and not undiscussed bid. the quote: "We are bidding away toward slam and I bid 4NT RKC only to realise i had no idea which version we were playing. Its on the CC but I cant look at that while bidding. Pd replies 5C's and i bid 5D's queen ask (hearts agreed) when LHO asks what the 4NT was, the 5C's and the 5D's." jpr > > Tim > -- _______________________________________________ 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 geller at nifty.com Tue Mar 27 09:29:50 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:29:50 +0900 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <4608C41C.3020301@meteo.fr> References: <4608C41C.3020301@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <200703270729.AA07959@geller204.nifty.com> >it's not the problem as it was initially proposed in this thread. it was >actually a question of forgotten agreement and not undiscussed bid. >the quote: >"We are bidding away toward slam and I bid 4NT RKC only to realise i had >no idea which version we were playing. Its on the CC but I cant look at >that while bidding. Pd replies 5C's and i bid 5D's queen ask (hearts >agreed) when LHO asks what the 4NT was, the 5C's and the 5D's." I understand what the problem is. But I'm not sure you do. You forgot your agreement, so you don't know what pard's response means. But the oppts can look at the convention card and see what you've agreed. Just tell them you forgot. Of course the fact that you forgot is UI to partner, but no problem. He just has to accept whatever decision, 5, or 6 or 7, that you arrive at. So what's the problem? I can't imagine that any director in any country of the world would object to your telling the oppts you forgot, but look at my cc. Also, unless we're talking about sheer beginners, I can't imagine any oppts who would ask what's 4NT and so on till after the auction is over. This just seems to be a contrived way to gin up an unrealistic problem for the sake of discussion itself..... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 27 09:35:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:35:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> David Grabiner wrote: > Alain Gottscheiner writes: > >> Robert Geller writes: > >>> Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't >>> be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which >>> presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but >>> they can. > >> Sure it could, in many cases . But the fact that you don't know means the >> sequence will often be of the less-standard type, which means it >> might not be written. > >> Anyway, this mannerism hints to your not knowing, and that's UI according to >> some. > > Agreed, but not as bad as confirming to partner that you misinterpreted a bid. > >> But it seems that, even when a bid"s meaning is on your CC, you have to answer >> questions correctly. Many AC rulings have mentioned that. > > However, players are expected to protect themselves. If West asks South, "What > does that bid mean?" and South says, "It's on the CC", he has given a > satisfactory > explanation (assuming it is actually on the CC). If West refuses to look at the > CC, > I don't think any AC will rule that West has been damaged by MI. > I acknowledge that answering "look at the CC" is a solution to some of the examples given in this thread. But it's not the problem we were answering. I believe that, as a player, I am entitled to answer with my guess, rather than admit to my opponents and my partner that I don't really know if I am right. Let me give one example of this. I ask for aces and get a reply, but am not 100% certain about the answer scheme. Before the final pass, an opponent asks me what the answer meant. I now have 2 possibilities: a) I answer "4/1, but I'm not sure" or some such b) I answer "4/1" There can be two situations: 1) partner indeed has 4/1 KC. 2) partner has 3/0 KC. That brings 4 combinations: in b1), there is nothing to rule. slam made. in b2), the slam goes down. Or if it is made, the opponents will have trouble explaining why they should have doubled with the answer "3/0". in a1), there is again nothing to rule, since there is no MI in a2), not only does the slam go down, but the last opponent has had a chance to double it, because he was tipped off about me not being certain. Since a1) and b1) end up the same, I believe that the difference between b1) and b2) makes it better for me to choose b). I believe I am allowed this. Nothnig in the laws tells me that my opponents are entitled to knowing about my doubts. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Mar 27 11:51:57 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:51:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > I acknowledge that answering "look at the CC" is a solution to some of > the examples given in this thread. But it's not the problem we were > answering. I believe that, as a player, I am entitled to answer with > my guess, rather than admit to my opponents and my partner that I > don't really know if I am right. > Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the Laws? I cannot find it. I only find "agreements". What "entitles" you to answer with a guess (while at the same time carefully hiding this from your opponents, to whom you present a facade of confidence)? This is a cheap charade at best, and a flagrant violation at worst. How about a slam investigation: you know that your partnership holds more than 33 points combined. You bid RKCB and get the answer 4/1. Hm. You hold AK of trumps, so he cannot have 4. He cannot have 1 either, as you are not missing that many HCP. So you tell them your agreement is 3/0, yes? You purposely keep the opponents in the dark that partner has forgotten the system (and you know about that). You keep information away from your opps. So if nothing bad happens (and no TD would have ruled against you anyway) everybody is happy, but if telling the truth about your agreements (and you are 100% sure it is 4/1, not 3/0) could get you in trouble because the opps misdefend or some such and the TD has to clear up the mess, you have lied about your agreements and probably get away with murder because nobody suspects you. You have described partner`s hand correctly, didn`t you? Bah. In the Drury example you try to read partner`s response, guess at what pard thought your bid was, and then sell it as an "agreement"? Argh. > Let me give one example of this. I ask for aces and get a reply, but > am not 100% certain about the answer scheme. Before the final pass, an > opponent asks me what the answer meant. I now have 2 possibilities: > > a) I answer "4/1, but I'm not sure" or some such > b) I answer "4/1" > > There can be two situations: > > 1) partner indeed has 4/1 KC. > 2) partner has 3/0 KC. > > That brings 4 combinations: > in b1), there is nothing to rule. slam made. > in b2), the slam goes down. Or if it is made, the opponents will have > trouble explaining why they should have doubled with the answer "3/0". > > in a1), there is again nothing to rule, since there is no MI > in a2), not only does the slam go down, but the last opponent has had > a chance to double it, because he was tipped off about me not being > certain. > > Since a1) and b1) end up the same, I believe that the difference > between b1) and b2) makes it better for me to choose b). > Who cares a damn "what makes it better for you"?? The question is what is inside the laws, and what is outside. We do not play Bridge by making it better for ourselves. We play it by making sure opps learn about our agreements, we deal with any UI as it comes along and - if need be - we take our lumps right then and there if we cannot wriggle out of this mess inside the laws. WTP? > I believe I am allowed this. Nothnig in the laws tells me that my > opponents are entitled to knowing about my doubts. > And nothing tells you that you are entitled to put on a show, explaining "agreements" with confidence while you are torn in two by doubt. This is not the Oscars, you know? What is the problem with explaining your agreement, or if there is none the background against which you see this bid, giving opps all pertinent information while wording it in a way that partner has no useable UI? And if he has, so be it. Partner can handle it. If it restricts his choices, too bad. I should have read that script and remembered the agreement. If this restriction causes a bad score it is entirely my own fault, not the fault of the laws or the TD.Anyone who doesn`t get his act together, be it temporarily (we all have our blackouts) or habitually, deserves whatever score happens to him. May be a good lesson. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 27 13:00:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:00:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> I acknowledge that answering "look at the CC" is a solution to some of >> the examples given in this thread. But it's not the problem we were >> answering. I believe that, as a player, I am entitled to answer with >> my guess, rather than admit to my opponents and my partner that I >> don't really know if I am right. >> > > Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the Laws? I > cannot find it. I only find "agreements". Nor can I. Which is precisely why I don't believe I should add my guess is just a guess. But let's continue: > What "entitles" you to answer > with a guess My opponents are entitled to know what the system is, and the best I can do is guess at what that system is. Why should I not do my utmost in trying to accomodate them. If I have guessed correctly, and the director rules that there was an agreement after all, then I have misinformed my opponents. it strikes me as extemely odd that you would _forbid_ me to explain what my partner's bid (probably) means. Really, this baffles me beyond belief. >(while at the same time carefully hiding this from your > opponents, to whom you present a facade of confidence)? As I've repeated over and over again, there is absolutely no requirement for me to inform my opponents about the doubts that are in my mind. If my attitude misleads them into thinking that I am quite confident about my system, then that is their problem. Read L73E. I cannot imagine that does not also extend to the manner in which I explain my system. I am not even misleading, I am simply "avoiding giving information by making ... in unvarying tempo and manner". > This is a cheap > charade at best, and a flagrant violation at worst. Very harsh words - please give me the law reference saying which law I am breaking. > How about a slam > investigation: you know that your partnership holds more than 33 points > combined. You bid RKCB and get the answer 4/1. Hm. You hold AK of > trumps, so he cannot have 4. He cannot have 1 either, as you are not > missing that many HCP. So you tell them your agreement is 3/0, yes? No, you don't. Since you know it's 4/1, that's what you tell them. I've never said otherwise. > You > purposely keep the opponents in the dark that partner has forgotten the > system (and you know about that). No, they are not in the dark, since they don't know how many aces I have. But even if I did keep them in the dark, where does it say that they are entitled to know that my partner has forgotten the system? > You keep information away from your > opps. Yes I do, I don't tell them I have AK of trumps either. That is information they are not entitled to, so I have no qualms about keeping that information from opponents. Where does it say I have to tell them "He's shown 4/1 but since I hold AK of trumps he must be mistaken"? Nowhere does it say that. And I repeat, I would not reply "3/0" either. > So if nothing bad happens (and no TD would have ruled against you > anyway) everybody is happy, but if telling the truth about your > agreements (and you are 100% sure it is 4/1, not 3/0) could get you in > trouble because the opps misdefend or some such and the TD has to clear > up the mess, you have lied about your agreements and probably get away > with murder because nobody suspects you. You have described partner`s > hand correctly, didn`t you? > Bah. Indeed Bah if I were to explain "3/0", but I'm not. I'm saying "4/1". > In the Drury example you try to read partner`s response, guess at what > pard thought your bid was, and then sell it as an "agreement"? Argh. > But that is exactly what the director is also going to do. He's going to look at the hands, find out that partner has made a Drury call, and that I've responded as if it were Drury. He's going to ask, why did you not explain it as Drury, and I'm gonna say (no: you're gonna say) "I was not 100% certain that we had agreed Drury". The Director is going to rule it is an agreement. Argh. >> Let me give one example of this. I ask for aces and get a reply, but >> am not 100% certain about the answer scheme. Before the final pass, an >> opponent asks me what the answer meant. I now have 2 possibilities: >> >> a) I answer "4/1, but I'm not sure" or some such >> b) I answer "4/1" >> >> There can be two situations: >> >> 1) partner indeed has 4/1 KC. >> 2) partner has 3/0 KC. >> >> That brings 4 combinations: >> in b1), there is nothing to rule. slam made. >> in b2), the slam goes down. Or if it is made, the opponents will have >> trouble explaining why they should have doubled with the answer "3/0". >> >> in a1), there is again nothing to rule, since there is no MI >> in a2), not only does the slam go down, but the last opponent has had >> a chance to double it, because he was tipped off about me not being >> certain. >> >> Since a1) and b1) end up the same, I believe that the difference >> between b1) and b2) makes it better for me to choose b). >> > > Who cares a damn "what makes it better for you"?? The question is what > is inside the laws, and what is outside. Yes indeed. And from among all the things that are inside the laws, I am allowed to choose what is better for me. So tell me again where I am going outside of the laws. > We do not play Bridge by making > it better for ourselves. Yes we do, we are trying to win the tournament. > We play it by making sure opps learn about our > agreements, Which is exactly what I am trying to do! I'm not hiding behind "no agreement", you are! > we deal with any UI as it comes along and - if need be - we > take our lumps right then and there if we cannot wriggle out of this > mess inside the laws. WTP? > You are. Sorry. This is too ludicrous for words. >> I believe I am allowed this. Nothnig in the laws tells me that my >> opponents are entitled to knowing about my doubts. >> > > And nothing tells you that you are entitled to put on a show, explaining > "agreements" with confidence while you are torn in two by doubt. Nothing tells me I have to tell them I have the King when I smoothly duck when they play towards AQ on the table. > This is > not the Oscars, you know? Isn't it? Smooth playing and bidding is not just allowed, it is even encouraged. > What is the problem with explaining your > agreement, or if there is none the background against which you see this > bid, giving opps all pertinent information while wording it in a way > that partner has no useable UI? "we have agreed nothing, but here in this club everyone plays 2Cl as Drury after a third hand opening". What is so pertinent about that sentence which is not included in the statement "Drury"? > And if he has, so be it. Partner can > handle it. If it restricts his choices, too bad. I should have read that > script and remembered the agreement. If this restriction causes a bad > score it is entirely my own fault, not the fault of the laws or the > TD.Anyone who doesn`t get his act together, be it temporarily (we all > have our blackouts) or habitually, deserves whatever score happens to > him. May be a good lesson. > I agree with all that. I don't agree with the fact that I am obliged to give out that UI when there are no laws telling me that the information I am withholding has to be disclosed. Read Laws 75A and 75C again and tell me where it says that "doubt" needs to be disclosed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 27 13:12:37 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070327/15f5d745/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 27 13:24:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:24:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000a01c77062$89305320$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the Laws? I > cannot find it. I only find "agreements". What "entitles" you to answer > with a guess (while at the same time carefully hiding this from your > opponents, to whom you present a facade of confidence)? This is a cheap > charade at best, and a flagrant violation at worst. How about a slam > investigation: you know that your partnership holds more than 33 points > combined. You bid RKCB and get the answer 4/1. Hm. You hold AK of > trumps, so he cannot have 4. He cannot have 1 either, as you are not > missing that many HCP. So you tell them your agreement is 3/0, yes? You > purposely keep the opponents in the dark that partner has forgotten the > system (and you know about that). You keep information away from your > opps. So if nothing bad happens (and no TD would have ruled against you > anyway) everybody is happy, but if telling the truth about your > agreements (and you are 100% sure it is 4/1, not 3/0) could get you in > trouble because the opps misdefend or some such and the TD has to clear > up the mess, you have lied about your agreements and probably get away > with murder because nobody suspects you. You have described partner`s > hand correctly, didn`t you? I have another example that IMO corroborates Matthias' opinion above: If you hold 2 aces and bid 4NT which by agreement is 4-Ace Blackwood, then you know that partner has misbid or forgotten the agreement if he bids 5S (showing exactly 3 aces), a pack only contains 4 aces. If opponents then ask for an explanation you tell them that the agreement is 3 aces, if you say anything else or add information to the effect that partner must have misbid or forgotten the agreement then you violate L75C. You may however (and I believe you should) include the information that your partner has shown a habit of forgetting the agreements and call according to RKCB (or whatever) if that is a fact. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 27 14:32:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:32:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000a01c77062$89305320$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c77062$89305320$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46090ED8.3010206@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I have another example that IMO corroborates Matthias' opinion above: > > If you hold 2 aces and bid 4NT which by agreement is 4-Ace Blackwood, then > you know that partner has misbid or forgotten the agreement if he bids 5S > (showing exactly 3 aces), a pack only contains 4 aces. > > If opponents then ask for an explanation you tell them that the agreement is > 3 aces, if you say anything else or add information to the effect that > partner must have misbid or forgotten the agreement then you violate L75C. > The problem with all these cases is that none of them is attacking the real question. In Sven's case, the player "knows" that 5S is 3 aces, and he "knows" that partner has made a mistake. Of course he should then explain what he "knows". No problem about that. The player also knows that when his partner's hand will be examined and the director is called, he can point to the CC and prove that his explanation is correct. But the cases we are discussing here are those where the player does not know what the system is. Now, he hears his partner bid 5S, and, from his hand, deduces this must be 2+trump King. The player now also knows that if he's going to explain this with his a priori guess, then the director will be called and he will not be able to prove that partner made a misbid. To explain "3 aces" in that situation would seem to me to be a deliberate misexplanation. Now of course he could be saying "I thought we were playing that as 3 aces but I see he has only 2 + TC" but that will just reveal his own holding (UI to partner, interesting but not entitled information to opponents). So why should he not simply say "2A+ TK"? Yes, a priori he thought it was different, but now he thinks otherwise. > You may however (and I believe you should) include the information that your > partner has shown a habit of forgetting the agreements and call according to > RKCB (or whatever) if that is a fact. > Which is good if you always do that, but UI if you only do it when you see the fifth ace in your hand. And besides, unhelpful to opponents. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 27 16:11:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:11:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <46085ABF.1010509@skynet.be> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> <4607F447.3060804@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0703261023k46b81bb7qdf53118c4ab0a5d8@mail.gmail.com> <46085ABF.1010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070327084828.02b42eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:43 PM 3/26/07, Herman wrote: >richard willey wrote: > > There is a world of difference between your hypothical Stayman example > > and Drury. > >actually, I don't believe there is. > > > Using a 2C to a 1NT opening as Stayman is almost universal in online > > bridge. I suspect that the only counter examples are > >Yes indeed, it is universal. But we are talking of only two people >here: you and your partner. You both have the same idea about what 2Cl >over 1NT usually means, yet you do not have a formal agreement about it. There are more than two people here; there are also opponents, without whom there is nothing to discuss. They, too, "have the same idea about what 2C over 1NT usually means". I have no formal agreement about it, and whatever implicit understanding I may have about it is as much with my opponents as with my partner. If I say I have no agreement (which happens to be the truth), the chance that my opponents will think it's anything other than Stayman is equal to the chance that my partner will, in this case virtually nil. >The 2Cl non-Drury example is exactly the same, in that sense. You and >your partner apparently have the same idea about it, without a formal >agreement. But in any sense that makes sense, it is totally different. In the Stayman example, both partner and opponents will assume that with no agreement you will assume it to be Stayman (and be right). In the Drury case, neither partner nor opponents will know -- but they'll both still be working with the same information, which is what full disclosure requires. (That's from Richard's hypothetical; in my experience, "no agreement" would be generally assumed to mean no Drury.) > > I agree that I should explain that a 2C response to partner's 1NT > > opening is Stayman. In a similar vein, if I were asked what range > > that 1NT opening showed, I would say that I expect that it shows > > ~15-17 HCPs. > >Yet you have no formal agreement about either (in some cases). Because where Richard plays, "no agreement" about an opening 1NT creates a common presumption of 15-17 HCP. As in the other cases, the opponents know that as well as you or your partner does. > > In contrast, there is no such consensual understanding surrounding > > Drury. For example, Drury isn't included as part of BBO's Standard > > American Yellow Card description. I don't know any way to identify > > what percentage of BBO players believe that Drury is on by default. > > In general, the way that one deals with this issue is by avoiding > > ambiguous bids in a pickup partnership. Its best to stick to > > bread-and-butter sequences where one hopes there is little or no room > > for misunderstandings. > >And that is also an understanding. Knowing that without agreement one >plays "standard" and knowing what standard means. >And apparently you have the same knowledge as your partner. That, to >me, can be interpreted as a implicit understanding. I do not accept that if I walk into a bridge event, pick up a partner as the game is starting and proceed to play without any discussion of methods, my partnership has "implicit understandings" about virtually every one of our bids. And I'm surely not, as Herman seems to suggest, manifesting an "implicit understanding" every time I decide correctly what one of my partner's bids means. In short, disclosure obligations apply to *partnership* agreements, whether implicit or explicit. If my understanding with my partner over the meaning of our calls is the same understanding I would have with my LHO or my RHO were I partnering them without any discussion of methods (such as that 2C in response to 1NT is to be taken as Stayman), that cannot be called a "partnership" agreement. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 27 16:39:22 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:39:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070327092831.02aa9690@pop.starpower.net> At 09:58 PM 3/26/07, David wrote: >Alain Gottscheiner writes: > > > Robert Geller writes: > > >>Could someone please explain why this whole scenario couldn't > >>be resoved by showing the opponents your convention card, which > >>presumably lists the correct agreement? You can't look at it, but > >>they can. > > >Sure it could, in many cases . But the fact that you don't know > means the > >sequence will often be of the less-standard type, which means it > >might not be written. > > >Anyway, this mannerism hints to your not knowing, and that's UI > according to > >some. > >Agreed, but not as bad as confirming to partner that you >misinterpreted a bid. > > >But it seems that, even when a bid"s meaning is on your CC, you have > to answer > >questions correctly. Many AC rulings have mentioned that. > >However, players are expected to protect themselves. If West asks >South, "What >does that bid mean?" and South says, "It's on the CC", he has given a >satisfactory >explanation (assuming it is actually on the CC). If West refuses to >look at the >CC, >I don't think any AC will rule that West has been damaged by MI. I make it a practice never to ask about the opponents' methods unless and until I have ascertained that the answer isn't on their CC. ISTM that that both minimizes the UI I might pass to my partner and goes a fair way towards fulfilling my obligation to "protect myself", such as it is. Admittedly, it doens't work as well as it should in the not uncommon case where I have to start with, "Do you folks have a convention card?", but that's their fault, not mine. Marv French (who hasn't been heard from here much lately) has argued that this practice should be required by regulation, and makes a pretty good case. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 27 15:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <200703262224.AA07948@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: > > >If that doesn't work consider a scenario for which the Japanese CC > >*doesn't* have a check box (e.g. would 1S-3S-4D deny 2nd round club > >control?). > > -> > The two are different. RKBC is artificial. 5C must show either 0/3 > or 1/4; it's just a question of which. The 4D cue-bid is also artificial (as played by most) as it can be made on a singleton or void. > But in the cue bid auction 4D shows a diamond control, but negative > inferences from having bypassed 4C might well not have been > discussed by that pair. But the principle is the same. The type of RKCB might well not have been discussed. There is no requirement for a pair to have an agreed meaning for 5C any more than they can be required to have an agreed meaning re the bypassing of 4C. > In the absence of a specific agreemement, no problems would be created > by answered a question about the negative inferences to be drawn from > the failure to bid 4C by "no agreement", "we haven't ever discussed > it", "not sure", "I don't know", or the like. The problem caused is exactly the same - it was important to an opponent to know what the bid showed but the bidding pair had no agreement. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 27 16:59:58 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:59:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> At 06:12 AM 3/27/07, Nigel wrote: >[nige1] >[B] Others suggest that it is OK to introduce an undiscussed call -- >perhaps in the hope that partner will understand it. >[i] If you really think partner is likely to understand the call, then >it is the subject of an implicit agreement >(at least potentially). >[ii] If partner is unlikely to understand the call, then your effort is >*random*, hence banned by most jurisdictions, except at the highest >levels. Many partnerships seem to use "Ghestem" as a random overcall :) > >[Alain Gottcheiner] >I don't buy that. The notion of "potential agreement" isn't germane to >the game of bridge. >Either you have an agreement, that is "you've discussed the situation >or have a general agreement covering this situation", or you haven't. >There are indeed cases where no agreement exists about a bid and yet a >majority of the payers agree about the meaning. That's what bidding >quizzes are made of (see eg problem A in 4/2007 "Challenge the Champs"). >Apart from that, to the majority of blmlists who consider UI as a >lesser infraction than MI as long as it isn't used, may I ask why it >would be incorrect to answer "I think it should be such-and-such, but >we didn't discuss it". Sometimes, it may even be lawful (in the >Dungeoneering sense) to answer "if we read the same lines, it's >such-and-such". That might happen if you've agreed to play a third >person's system. > >[nige2] >Fair enough Alain. Dropping the qualifier "at least potentially", >simplifies and improves my argument: I should have written "If you >really think partner is likely to understand the call, then *you >think* it is the subject of an (implicit) agreement." > >I agree that "There are indeed cases where no agreement exists about a >bid and yet a majority of the players agree about the meaning." Many >would argue that this sort understanding is just "general knowledge >and experience". > >IMO, such understandings are still *implicit agreements*. You must >allow for the possibility that your opponents don't belong to the >"majority" who share your understanding. Hence I agree with Herman >that your guess should be divulged. > >Our principal concern should not not be whether *current* rules allow >this. Our hope must be that *future* rules will make "guessing" mandatory. If you have a specific agreement with your partner, you must "allow for the possibility that your opponents don't... share your understanding", but what "the 'majority'" understands has nothing to do with that. But if "the possibility that your opponents don't belong to the 'majority' who share your understanding" is the same as the possibility that your partner doesn't belong to the "majority" who share your understanding, it is correct and proper to state that you have no agreement -- in context, that is exactly what "no agreement" means! There's a vast difference between "I haven't got a clue" and "your guess is as good as mine"; "no agreement" means the latter, not the former, and is entirely appropriate when the latter can be presumed to be the truth. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070327/3ddc88db/attachment.htm From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Mar 27 17:32:11 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:32:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Finland, convention card, Finland (was: something different) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070327092831.02aa9690@pop.starpower.net> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327092831.02aa9690@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <460938FB.8070107@comcast.net> Eric Landau wrote: > Marv French (who hasn't been heard from here much lately) has argued > that this practice should be required by regulation, and makes a pretty > good case. It seems to be required in some areas. http://personal.inet.fi/kerho/bridge55/faq.html "No announcements are made, ever. Read the convention card!" I look forward to playing bridge in Finland in May. Anyone here able to humor my poor play and worse Finnish? -Todd From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Mar 27 16:53:48 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:53:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> What "entitles" you to answer >> with a guess >> > > My opponents are entitled to know what the system is, and the best I > can do is guess at what that system is. Come again? The best you can do is know your system, or have a correct CC, or have the TD send you away and let partner explain if the TD deems that the sensible thing to do. Guessing is a distant 44th or thereabouts. Even "I have forgotten, but it can only be A or B" is better than guessing. > Why should I not do my utmost > in trying to accomodate them. If I have guessed correctly, and the > director rules that there was an agreement after all, then I have > misinformed my opponents. it strikes me as extemely odd that you would > _forbid_ me to explain what my partner's bid (probably) means. > I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You have to explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems to remember it. > Really, this baffles me beyond belief. > > >> (while at the same time carefully hiding this from your >> opponents, to whom you present a facade of confidence)? >> > > As I've repeated over and over again, there is absolutely no > requirement for me to inform my opponents about the doubts that are in > my mind. If my attitude misleads them into thinking that I am quite > confident about my system, then that is their problem. Read L73E. I > cannot imagine that does not also extend to the manner in which I > explain my system. I am not even misleading, I am simply "avoiding > giving information by making ... in unvarying tempo and manner". > > >> This is a cheap >> charade at best, and a flagrant violation at worst. >> > > Very harsh words - please give me the law reference saying which law I > am breaking. > 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to your opponents. > >> How about a slam >> investigation: you know that your partnership holds more than 33 points >> combined. You bid RKCB and get the answer 4/1. Hm. You hold AK of >> trumps, so he cannot have 4. He cannot have 1 either, as you are not >> missing that many HCP. So you tell them your agreement is 3/0, yes? >> > > No, you don't. Since you know it's 4/1, that's what you tell them. > I've never said otherwise. > That so? Herman, if you only tell them the straight system, what then is this discussion about? If the system is "sorry, didn`t talk about it, but the backgound is such and such", why not tell them so? And I would not dream of telling them 3/0. I may tell them that something is wrong (in a social game, or behind screens), but otherwise I tell them 4/1 and let the TD handle it if there is a problem. > >> You >> purposely keep the opponents in the dark that partner has forgotten the >> system (and you know about that). >> > > No, they are not in the dark, since they don't know how many aces I > have. But even if I did keep them in the dark, where does it say that > they are entitled to know that my partner has forgotten the system? > They are not entitled to that. But if your hand comes down as dummy they see for themselves that a wheel has come off, and they do if partner`s hand is on the table. From there they are on their own again, as long as you can prove that your explanation is correct. If you can`t the TD will rule against you if there was damage and the case is closed. Easy, isn`t it? > >> You keep information away from your >> opps. >> > > Yes I do, I don't tell them I have AK of trumps either. That is > information they are not entitled to, so I have no qualms about > keeping that information from opponents. Where does it say I have to > tell them "He's shown 4/1 but since I hold AK of trumps he must be > mistaken"? Nowhere does it say that. And I repeat, I would not reply > "3/0" either. > That is good to hear. Herman, I may do you wrong, but being only human I have to rely on my fallible memory. I distinctly remember reading something from you (I may be wrong, and I apologize if I misconstrued something) to the effect that you would sooner tell opps what you think partner means his bid as ( in other words: what partner thinks the agreement is) than what you remember the agreement to be (if you have cause to think that there is a difference). If this is the case (and I am pretty sure it did not get that totally wrong) you are in violation of Law 75 as set out in the footnote to 75D2. It is essential to fully disclose when an agreement is implicit rather than explicit, and what room for different interpretation there is. To explain something as A when it is pretty likely that it is A, but just might be B, thereby giving the impression that you are on firm ground here is just plain wrong. That is not full disclosure. If you have an explicit agreement that`s what you tell them (that much seems to be agreed upon between us). If you have no explicit agreement you tell them what the implicit agreement may be made up of. If I get you right you would do the following: Say you had some disaster with a pick-up partner. He meant A, you assumed B. -1400, case closed. Now you play with him again, unexpectedly (some guy from out of town, never expected to see him again, let alone play Bridge with him). You did not agree on how to handle the situation after the first disaster, but now your hand tells you that it is (for example) B. You explain it as B, right? I would explain it as "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, we did not agree how to play it". You give UI, I don`t. There may be cases (especially when partner is convinced there is an explicit agreement) where it is the other way around, but the laws and TDs can handle that, can`t they? > >> So if nothing bad happens (and no TD would have ruled against you >> anyway) everybody is happy, but if telling the truth about your >> agreements (and you are 100% sure it is 4/1, not 3/0) could get you in >> trouble because the opps misdefend or some such and the TD has to clear >> up the mess, you have lied about your agreements and probably get away >> with murder because nobody suspects you. You have described partner`s >> hand correctly, didn`t you? >> Bah. >> > > Indeed Bah if I were to explain "3/0", but I'm not. I'm saying "4/1". > > >> In the Drury example you try to read partner`s response, guess at what >> pard thought your bid was, and then sell it as an "agreement"? Argh. >> >> > > But that is exactly what the director is also going to do. He's going > to look at the hands, find out that partner has made a Drury call, and > that I've responded as if it were Drury. He's going to ask, why did > you not explain it as Drury, and I'm gonna say (no: you're gonna say) > "I was not 100% certain that we had agreed Drury". The Director is > going to rule it is an agreement. Argh. > No Herman. I tell them: This may be natural or it may be Drury. We did not discuss this, but my partner often plays Drury. On the other hand he knows that I usually do not play Drury, but that I know quite well that he likes to play Drury. I do not tell them what I think this bid is, but I tell them everything (except my cards) I can base my next bid on. I try to make sure they have the same background as I have. If I fail in this the TD will tell me so, so where is the problem? If I forgot an agreement I tell them so, and tell them to look on the CC if it is listed there. >> Who cares a damn "what makes it better for you"?? The question is what >> is inside the laws, and what is outside. >> > > Yes indeed. And from among all the things that are inside the laws, I > am allowed to choose what is better for me. So tell me again where I > am going outside of the laws. > In not disclosing every information you have. > >> We do not play Bridge by making >> it better for ourselves. >> > > Yes we do, we are trying to win the tournament. > Which is beside the point. The point is that you try to evade controversy by telling them what you think the bid means, not what you think it should mean by agreement or -absent an explicit agreement - what your implicit agreement encompasses. So if you guess right there is no problem, because nobody knows about your failure to disclose fully, if you guess wrong you gave MI. I give all available information at once, so (if I left nothing out) there is no MI. There may be some UI, but in most situations I will be able to choose my words careful enough to give no UI (It is not UI to partner that we do not, in fact, have an explicit agreement. If he thinks we have, and I have woken him up to this, this is of course UI. Whether this will demonstrably suggest any action over another is debatable. I think that in most cases it does not). If partner can`t handle the UI (which should not often be the case), too bad for me. TD gives AS. That`s life. As a non-playing TD I occasionally have to fill in for a hand or two with some unknown partner. 1NT-p-2D. So I explain: we have not played together, most people here play this as transfer. Or, if playing with a beginner: You probably know better than I do what is taught in the beginner class. May be natural or transfer. (I have to look into beginners books again, I truly do not know. Shame, really) > >> We play it by making sure opps learn about our >> agreements, >> > > Which is exactly what I am trying to do! I'm not hiding behind "no > agreement", you are! > Oh no. I have not ever used the expression "no agreement" here, nor do I do so at the table. If it is undiscussed I say so, but tell them everything relevant I know about the situation, which usually is a lot if I play in my club. My memory is somewhat peculiar in that I can remeber hands from 20 years ago, but I cannot go to the supermarket without first making a list of things to buy. So I remember lots of things people did against me and form some opinions about unexpected bids if I should happen to partner them, and I tell this to my opps, as I am obliged to do. Yes, there may be UI, maybe leading to a bad score for me, but there will never be MI as long as I properly disclose everything. This is what the laws tell me to do. I do not try to guess how I may be able to circumnavigate certain problems by telling only half of the story. As long as my memory serves me and my judgment what information is relevant is correct I will never give MI (sure, I am human, so I may err sometimes, but not on purpose). Occasionally I will create UI, that is true, but I am confident to keep that to a minimum, and the TD will protect my opps from that. I follow Law 75 A and C as much as I am able to. You, IMO, don`t. >> This is >> not the Oscars, you know? >> > > Isn't it? Smooth playing and bidding is not just allowed, it is even > encouraged. > What does that have to do with not disclosing fully that an agreement is implicit at best? > >> What is the problem with explaining your >> agreement, or if there is none the background against which you see this >> bid, giving opps all pertinent information while wording it in a way >> that partner has no useable UI? >> > > "we have agreed nothing, but here in this club everyone plays 2Cl as > Drury after a third hand opening". What is so pertinent about that > sentence which is not included in the statement "Drury"? > Only that you are basing your answer on an implicit agreement. If truly everyone plays Drury there is no UI either, is there? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 27 17:02:05 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:02:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] If you have a specific agreement with your partner, you must "allow for the possibility that your opponents don't... share your understanding", but what "the 'majority'" understands has nothing to do with that. But if "the possibility that your opponents don't belong to the 'majority' who share your understanding" is the same as the possibility that your partner doesn't belong to the "majority" who share your understanding, it is correct and proper to state that you have no agreement -- in context, that is exactly what "no agreement" means! There's a vast difference between "I haven't got a clue" and "your guess is as good as mine"; "no agreement" means the latter, not the former, and is entirely appropriate when the latter can be presumed to be the truth. [nige1] I was answering a point about "A majority of the players agree about the meaning" by Eric Gottcheiner. Eric Landau's argument is perfectly reasonable. I agree that "no agreement" should be equivalent to "your guess is as good as mine". It is just that I doubt whether that statement is usually true; and even when it happens to be true, whether you can be sure of its truth. As practical matter, in my experience of such cases, when opponents claim no agreement, their guesses are *better* than mine -- perhaps because of their experience together *or* mutual convention preferences*or* common background *or *shared reading materials* or whatever. From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Mar 27 18:12:33 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:12:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46094271.7060103@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nigel wrote: | As practical matter, in my experience of | such cases, when opponents claim no agreement, their guesses are | *better* than mine -- perhaps because of their experience together *or* | mutual convention preferences*or* common background *or *shared reading | materials* or whatever. | Might *the cards that they can see in their own hands* merit inclusion somewhere in that list? Brian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGCUJx+G6elSFbVVQRAghPAJ4iG3aN2+0wwJUV14UU6Z3Xv89RtgCfXitw +j0PjAJaw9FOR6ui3Qq2K3Y= =6+aw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 27 19:39:45 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:39:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <460922E2.9090900@skynet.be> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> <4607F447.3060804@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0703261023k46b81bb7qdf53118c4ab0a5d8@mail.gmail.com> <46085ABF.1010509@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327084828.02b42eb0@pop.starpower.net> <460922E2.9090900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070327122723.02b42d80@pop.starpower.net> At 08:57 AM 3/27/07, Herman wrote: >What I was trying to explain with my example is that "no agreement" >does not mean "no agreement", but rather "no other agreements than >those that you and I both know". That is true both for the Drury >example and for the Stayman one. > >In the Stayman example, all 4 players know it's Stayman. In the Drury >example, there can be two possibilities: either all four of the >players know the default is non-Drury, in which case "no agreement" >may be a full explanation, or the opponents don't know this. In that >second case, the explanation "no agreement" is incomplete and >misinformation. OK? > >So there are 2 kinds of explanation commonly referred to as "no >agreement": >- the one in which the opponents know what it means, >- the one in which the opponents know less than the bidders. > >In the second case, the explanation should be changed to "non-drury" >(or whatever). The first case is not interesting enough to talk about. > >Now do you see why I insist on a full explanation, not some "no >agreement" bullshit. > >And yes, I do realize that there are cases where "no agreement" really >is the only thing that can be said. But I believe they are very rare >and very far between. That is as cogent a justification of the "De Wael school" as Herman has yet produced. Unfortunately, however, the key premise of the above argument is simply false. Because there is, of course, a third possibility in the "Drury example": that the opponents *do* "know this" but *partner* doesn't -- which, in the situations where "no agreement" is appropriate by non-DWs standards, is just as likely as the reverse. In that third case, which Herman overlooks, the DWs succeeds in simultaneously giving MI to the opponents and UI to partner, where the consensually "lawful" approach does neither. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 27 22:44:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:44:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <46094271.7060103@meadows.pair.com> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> <46094271.7060103@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <46098232.9090900@NTLworld.com> [nige1] As practical matter, in my experience of such cases, when opponents claim no agreement, their guesses are *better* than mine -- perhaps because of their experience together *or* mutual convention preferences *or* common background *or *shared reading materials* or whatever. [Brian Meadows] Might *the cards that they can see in their own hands* merit inclusion somewhere in that list? [nige2] It suppose it might; but partner and I can also see *the 13 cards in our own hands*; so that advantage tends to cancel out over time :) From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 23:27:12 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:27:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0703271427l503bf757j17f39e4c50ade063@mail.gmail.com> > I was answering a point about "A majority of the players agree about > the meaning" by Eric Gottcheiner. Eric Landau's argument is perfectly > reasonable. I agree that "no agreement" should be equivalent to "your > guess is as good as mine". It is just that I doubt whether that > statement is usually true; and even when it happens to be true, whether > you can be sure of its truth. As practical matter, in my experience of > such cases, when opponents claim no agreement, their guesses are > *better* than mine -- perhaps because of their experience together *or* > mutual convention preferences*or* common background *or *shared reading > materials* or whatever. I think that its worthwhile to contrast a couple different cases: Case One: You are playing with a "random" partner. Perhaps you were thrown together at the partnership desk 5 minutes beofre a game. Alternatively, you might be playing together in an Indy on BBO. Your partnership has not had any chance for any kind of detailed system discussion. Case Two: You are a member of an experienced partnership. You have just encountered a previously undefined bidding. However, this sequence could be considered analagous to a number of defined sequences or might be similar (but not identical) to an existing meta-agreement in your partnership. I would argue that these two cases are quite different. In general, when I am discussion situations where I have "no agreement" with partner, I am discussing the first case. I do admit that its possible that some individuals might be better positioned to make an accurate guess about "random" partner's bidding style. However, I believe that most of those examples would fall under the category "general bridge knowledge". -- Conservatives: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, covered by an Exxon slush fund From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 28 00:47:54 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:47:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0703271512n2daecd4w5eb5d5e54cc4d7d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703271427l503bf757j17f39e4c50ade063@mail.gmail.com> <460991E3.7050002@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703271512n2daecd4w5eb5d5e54cc4d7d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46099F1A.1070800@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] You mgiht want to rethink some of your basic assumptions: I just checked the the number of tables in play on BBO. Right "now" there are 758 tables in play in the BBO Main Bridge Club. In addition, there are 232 tables playing team matches and another 301 tables playing in tournaments. From what I can tell, roughly a third of the tournaments are Indys. I'd guess that at least a third of the "partnerships" who are playing are pickup. This pattern goes on at BBO 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (When I ran some stats a couple years back, the toal number of tables served by BBO over the course of a week was larger than the ACBL Nationals or any other large tournament in the world). Given BBO's current growth, its going to be serving more tables than the largest Zones in the near future. I suspect that if you combine BBO and OKB, these two online sites are already host more tables than the ACBL, the French Bridge Federation, what have you. My "Case Two" is much more common than you might think. [nige1] Thank you for those fascinating statistics. Recently, however, somebody on BLML, (: presumably not Richard Willey :) pointed out that on-line play presents different legal problems from face-to-face play -- especially as regards disclosure. For example, On-line, it is usually the bidder himself who alerts and explains his own bid. Before play, you can agree a complete system (even if neither opponent knows all its ramifications) and there are clever on-line disclosure facilities which display the conventional meaning of each bid as you make it -- even if you are a first-time partnership. IMO, programmers have done a brilliant job of improvising simple clear fair rules for the on-line game. And face-to-face law-makers might benefit from studying them. But there will always remain differences. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 28 02:41:54 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:41:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <46099F1A.1070800@NTLworld.com> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703271427l503bf757j17f39e4c50ade063@mail.gmail.com> <460991E3.7050002@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703271512n2daecd4w5eb5d5e54cc4d7d4@mail.gmail.com> <46099F1A.1070800@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4609B9D2.8090005@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] You mgiht want to rethink some of your basic assumptions: I just checked the the number of tables in play on BBO. Right "now" there are 758 tables in play in the BBO Main Bridge Club. In addition, there are 232 tables playing team matches and another 301 tables playing in tournaments. From what I can tell, roughly a third of the tournaments are Indys. I'd guess that at least a third of the "partnerships" who are playing are pickup. This pattern goes on at BBO 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (When I ran some stats a couple years back, the toal number of tables served by BBO over the course of a week was larger than the ACBL Nationals or any other large tournament in the world). Given BBO's current growth, its going to be serving more tables than the largest Zones in the near future. I suspect that if you combine BBO and OKB, these two online sites are already host more tables than the ACBL, the French Bridge Federation, what have you. My "Case Two" is much more common than you might think. [nige1 with some typos corrected] Thank you for those fascinating statistics. Recently, however, somebody on BLML (: presumably not Richard Willey :) pointed out that on-line play presents different legal problems from face-to-face play -- especially as regards disclosure. For example, on-line, it is usually the bidder himself who alerts and explains his own bid. Before play, a partnership can agree a complete system (even if neither partner knows all its ramifications) and there are clever on-line disclosure facilities that display the conventional meaning of each bid as you make it -- even if you are a first-time partnership. IMO, programmers have done a brilliant job of improvising simple clear fair rules for the on-line game. And face-to-face law-makers might benefit from studying them. But there will always remain differences. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 28 04:17:08 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:17:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com><4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1><4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001801c770df$35ce7810$01c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: William Shakespeare: Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? Polonius: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or like a whale? Polonius: Very like a whale. Herman De Wael: >>>it strikes me as extremely odd that you would _forbid_ me >>>to explain what my partner's bid (probably) means. Matthias Berghaus: >>I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You >>have to explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems >>to remember it. Richard Hills: It seems to me that Herman illegally wants to describe a cloud as a whale, while Matthias legally wants to describe a cloud as a cloud. Serendipitously last night, I was the victim of a cloudy auction from a long-standing partner, despite us playing the simple Dorothy Acol system (instead of my preferred complex Symmetric Relay system - system notes emailed on request). Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, West, hold: QJ643 4 QJ85 765 The bidding proceeds: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C (1) Pass 1S Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3C (3) Pass 3D (4) Pass 3S Pass 4H (5) Pass 4S Pass 4NT(6) Pass ? (1) Explicit partnership agreement shows at least 4 clubs (2) Explicit partnership agreement shows 19-20 balanced with less than 4 spades (3) Explicit partnership agreement check-back for shape (4) Explicit partnership agreement shows 4 diamonds, and also explicit partnership agreement that 3 spades are neither promised nor denied (up-the-line showing of shape by explicit partnership agreement) (5) Explicit partnership agreement that 3NT is required with less than three spades, so implicit partnership agreement that 4H shows the ace of hearts and 3 spades (6) In analogous auctions with spades directly or indirectly agreed as trumps 4NT would be, by explicit partnership agreement, old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood (with a 5C response showing 0 or 3 keycards in spades), so we therefore have an implicit partnership agreement that 4NT is also old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood in this particular auction What call do you make? What other call do you consider making? The cloudy whale (or De Wael) problem is, of course, that partner's decision to over-ride my signoff in 4S with a 4NT call is inconsistent with her previous limit bid of 2NT. There are two obvious possibilities: (a) a wheel fell off somewhere in the auction, so pard is desperately trying to signoff in 4NT, expecting notrumps to score ten tricks but spades to score fewer, or (b) partner has discovered another ace during the auction, so with a 23-count is catching up with Keycard Blackwood. Robert Geller: >Also, unless we're talking about sheer beginners, I can't >imagine any oppts who would ask what's 4NT and so on till >after the auction is over. This just seems to be a >contrived way to gin up an unrealistic problem for the >sake of discussion itself..... Richard Hills: Truth is stranger than fiction. My expert RHO has a bad habit of Spanish Inquisition interrogation of opponents during the auction (a habit which verges on a Law 74A2 infraction), so he did indeed enquire about the meaning of partner's 4NT bid during the auction. What explanation do you give? What other explanation do you consider giving? 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 Mar 28 09:11:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:11:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070327122723.02b42d80@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c76f8a$64edbb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703260631m67a9c284q6dcdf82d3e5c174c@mail.gmail.com> <4607F447.3060804@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0703261023k46b81bb7qdf53118c4ab0a5d8@mail.gmail.com> <46085ABF.1010509@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327084828.02b42eb0@pop.starpower.net> <460922E2.9090900@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327122723.02b42d80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <460A1526.9090406@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > That is as cogent a justification of the "De Wael school" as Herman has > yet produced. Unfortunately, however, the key premise of the above > argument is simply false. Because there is, of course, a third > possibility in the "Drury example": that the opponents *do* "know this" > but *partner* doesn't -- which, in the situations where "no agreement" > is appropriate by non-DWs standards, is just as likely as the reverse. > Yes Brian, but that third case is so rare as to be absent in my previous considerations. Tomorrow, for the third time in her career, my sister will be playing in a bridge tournament (with me). During our first outing, we called Stayman "Alzheimer", and the first time she found out there was something like a double was when a red card appeared on the table. Since then, we referred to this as the "partner please say something - bid". Of course in such an environment, my explanations to opponents (and to partner) tend to be a little bit off the legal track. But I doubt if 2 months from now the same illegalities will persist. > In that third case, which Herman overlooks, the DWs succeeds in > simultaneously giving MI to the opponents and UI to partner, where the > consensually "lawful" approach does neither. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 09:13:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:13:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460A1589.4090600@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > But the principle is the same. The type of RKCB might well not have > been discussed. There is no requirement for a pair to have an agreed > meaning for 5C any more than they can be required to have an agreed > meaning re the bypassing of 4C. > No, that's logically impossible. If I ask aces with 4NT, I must be hoping we will be playing the same answer structure, else I have absolutely no use for the reply. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 09:46:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:46:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> Message-ID: <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> What "entitles" you to answer >>> with a guess >>> >> My opponents are entitled to know what the system is, and the best I >> can do is guess at what that system is. > > Come again? The best you can do is know your system, I meant "the best I can do when I don't know what my system is". Obviously that excludes knowing what my system is. > or have a correct CC, What if I don't have one? > or have the TD send you away and let partner explain if the TD deems > that the sensible thing to do. Yes, that is a possibility. > Guessing is a distant 44th or > thereabouts. Maybe 2nd, yes. One which I want to be using when I don't want to tell my partner I'm uncertain. > Even "I have forgotten, but it can only be A or B" is > better than guessing. > No it's not. My opponents are entitled to know it it is A or B. >> Why should I not do my utmost >> in trying to accomodate them. If I have guessed correctly, and the >> director rules that there was an agreement after all, then I have >> misinformed my opponents. it strikes me as extemely odd that you would >> _forbid_ me to explain what my partner's bid (probably) means. >> > > I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You have to > explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems to remember it. > Ehhh, no. The director will rule as if your partner knows _the_ system, so you had better explain that same thing. >> >>> This is a cheap >>> charade at best, and a flagrant violation at worst. >>> >> Very harsh words - please give me the law reference saying which law I >> am breaking. >> > > 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to your opponents. > But my uncertainty is not part of my agreements!!!!!!!!! >> >>> How about a slam >>> investigation: you know that your partnership holds more than 33 points >>> combined. You bid RKCB and get the answer 4/1. Hm. You hold AK of >>> trumps, so he cannot have 4. He cannot have 1 either, as you are not >>> missing that many HCP. So you tell them your agreement is 3/0, yes? >>> >> No, you don't. Since you know it's 4/1, that's what you tell them. >> I've never said otherwise. >> > > That so? Herman, if you only tell them the straight system, what then is > this discussion about? If the system is "sorry, didn`t talk about it, > but the backgound is such and such", why not tell them so? Indeed, but very many of our friends here seem to be saying "sorry, didn't talk about it", without the reference to the background. You are very correct in adding that background, so that the opponents can draw the same conclusion as you did. But my point is that if you tell them the background, and they draw a conclusion from it, and that conclusion is not the same as the one you drew from it, then you are still in a MI situation. So to me, only the sentence "sorry, didn`t talk about it, but the backgound is such and such, which leads me to believe it's AA" is a full explanation. And my second point being that I am not obliged to add "we didn't talk about it" leads me to say that it's just as good replying "AA". > And I would > not dream of telling them 3/0. I may tell them that something is wrong > (in a social game, or behind screens), but otherwise I tell them 4/1 and > let the TD handle it if there is a problem. > >> >>> You >>> purposely keep the opponents in the dark that partner has forgotten the >>> system (and you know about that). >>> >> No, they are not in the dark, since they don't know how many aces I >> have. But even if I did keep them in the dark, where does it say that >> they are entitled to know that my partner has forgotten the system? >> > > They are not entitled to that. But if your hand comes down as dummy they > see for themselves that a wheel has come off, and they do if partner`s > hand is on the table. From there they are on their own again, as long as > you can prove that your explanation is correct. If you can`t the TD will > rule against you if there was damage and the case is closed. Easy, isn`t it? > This is you agreeing with me, isn't it? >> >>> You keep information away from your >>> opps. >>> >> Yes I do, I don't tell them I have AK of trumps either. That is >> information they are not entitled to, so I have no qualms about >> keeping that information from opponents. Where does it say I have to >> tell them "He's shown 4/1 but since I hold AK of trumps he must be >> mistaken"? Nowhere does it say that. And I repeat, I would not reply >> "3/0" either. >> > > That is good to hear. Herman, I may do you wrong, but being only human I > have to rely on my fallible memory. I distinctly remember reading > something from you (I may be wrong, and I apologize if I misconstrued > something) to the effect that you would sooner tell opps what you think > partner means his bid as ( in other words: what partner thinks the > agreement is) than what you remember the agreement to be (if you have > cause to think that there is a difference). If this is the case (and I > am pretty sure it did not get that totally wrong) you are in violation > of Law 75 as set out in the footnote to 75D2. It is essential to fully > disclose when an agreement is implicit rather than explicit, and what > room for different interpretation there is. If you have understood something like that from me, then I must have been unclear. It is not my intention to say "3/0" when I know we are playing "4/1". > To explain something as A when it is pretty likely that it is A, but > just might be B, thereby giving the impression that you are on firm > ground here is just plain wrong. That is not full disclosure. The doubt has got nothing to do with the system. The system has been fully disclosed. As to it being "wrong", that word is not in the lawbook. I choose to decide what's right and wrong in the way I play bridge. I won't do anything illegal, but I'm not going by what you believe to be right or wrong. > If you have an explicit agreement that`s what you tell them (that much > seems to be agreed upon between us). > If you have no explicit agreement you tell them what the implicit > agreement may be made up of. Not "may be", "is". Even an implicit agreement exists - it's not something fictitious, it's real! > If I get you right you would do the > following: Say you had some disaster with a pick-up partner. He meant A, > you assumed B. -1400, case closed. Now you play with him again, > unexpectedly (some guy from out of town, never expected to see him > again, let alone play Bridge with him). You did not agree on how to > handle the situation after the first disaster, but now your hand tells > you that it is (for example) B. You explain it as B, right? I would > explain it as "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, we > did not agree how to play it". > You give UI, I don`t. OK, if that is the truth. But is it, often? Isn't it more common that we are playing in a semi-regular partnership, and that among the meta-agreements there is something like "Herman is always right", which means the likelihood of it now being B is higher? Should you not disclose that meta-agreement? Which means that your explanation would more likely be: "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, we did not agree how to play it, but he's the docile one, so now he most likely has B". And isn't that basically the same answer as my "B"? > There may be cases > (especially when partner is convinced there is an explicit agreement) > where it is the other way around, but the laws and TDs can handle that, > can`t they? > Yes, if it does turn out to be A again, you have another -1400, or a TD ruling. We both have. Your explanation does not alter the fact that the TD will rule against you. Because the opponents are entitled to know if it is A or B, and if A and B are far enough apart, your explanation will mean exactly the same to them ("B") as mine. And your exonerating sentence will not sway the director into not ruling in their favour. I am not pretending that you are doing something illegal in adding that sentence. But I am saying that I do nothing illegal in not adding it. It is information they are quite interested in, yes, but it is not information they are entitled to. >>> >> But that is exactly what the director is also going to do. He's going >> to look at the hands, find out that partner has made a Drury call, and >> that I've responded as if it were Drury. He's going to ask, why did >> you not explain it as Drury, and I'm gonna say (no: you're gonna say) >> "I was not 100% certain that we had agreed Drury". The Director is >> going to rule it is an agreement. Argh. >> > > No Herman. I tell them: This may be natural or it may be Drury. We did > not discuss this, but my partner often plays Drury. On the other hand he > knows that I usually do not play Drury, but that I know quite well that > he likes to play Drury. This is not enough though. Because there is some pecking order in your partnership that means you two DO know which of the two it is. When my partners ask if I play Drury, my reply is so negative ("no, because I want to be able to open a H1H") that they will not be playing Drury with me. That is an extreme case, but the same is true in small amounts in your partnership. Which does not preclude of course, that situations might crop up where your answer "50/50 guess, truely" can be right. But I believe that to be a minority. Because partner will know it's 50/50 as well, and he won't bid it like that. > I do not tell them what I think this bid is, but I tell them everything > (except my cards) I can base my next bid on. I try to make sure they > have the same background as I have. If I fail in this the TD will tell > me so, so where is the problem? > If I forgot an agreement I tell them so, and tell them to look on the CC > if it is listed there. > > > > >>> Who cares a damn "what makes it better for you"?? The question is what >>> is inside the laws, and what is outside. >>> >> Yes indeed. And from among all the things that are inside the laws, I >> am allowed to choose what is better for me. So tell me again where I >> am going outside of the laws. >> > > In not disclosing every information you have. > The laws don't tell me I should disclose every information I have. I should disclose everything known "by agreement". My doubts (and my cards) are not part of that. >> >>> We do not play Bridge by making >>> it better for ourselves. >>> >> Yes we do, we are trying to win the tournament. >> > > Which is beside the point. The point is that you try to evade > controversy by telling them what you think the bid means, not what you > think it should mean by agreement or -absent an explicit agreement - > what your implicit agreement encompasses. Of course! that's the same thing isn't it? Every time I explain something (even when I am 99% certain), I explain "what I think it means". So do you. We are never 100% certain. So we cannot explain "what it should mean by agreement", we can only explain "what we think the agreement is". > So if you guess right there is > no problem, because nobody knows about your failure to disclose fully, > if you guess wrong you gave MI. I give all available information at > once, so (if I left nothing out) there is no MI. But again you are calling MI failing to add your doubts. Which I tell you is not MI. I onlyu leave out stuff that I think they are not entitled to. > There may be some UI, > but in most situations I will be able to choose my words careful enough > to give no UI (It is not UI to partner that we do not, in fact, have an > explicit agreement. If he thinks we have, and I have woken him up to > this, this is of course UI. Whether this will demonstrably suggest any > action over another is debatable. I think that in most cases it does > not). If partner can`t handle the UI (which should not often be the > case), too bad for me. TD gives AS. That`s life. > As a non-playing TD I occasionally have to fill in for a hand or two > with some unknown partner. 1NT-p-2D. So I explain: we have not played > together, most people here play this as transfer. Or, if playing with a > beginner: You probably know better than I do what is taught in the > beginner class. May be natural or transfer. (I have to look into > beginners books again, I truly do not know. Shame, really) > OK with that. But this is a situation where their guess is indeed better than yours. How often does that happen - and do you think it is the situation this thread is based on? If you do, then we've been really wasting our time here. >> >>> We play it by making sure opps learn about our >>> agreements, >>> >> Which is exactly what I am trying to do! I'm not hiding behind "no >> agreement", you are! >> > > Oh no. I have not ever used the expression "no agreement" here, nor do I > do so at the table. If it is undiscussed I say so, but tell them > everything relevant I know about the situation, which usually is a lot > if I play in my club. Yeah, but that's not what some people do. And I want to teach then that they should not do it. > My memory is somewhat peculiar in that I can > remeber hands from 20 years ago, but I cannot go to the supermarket > without first making a list of things to buy. So I remember lots of > things people did against me and form some opinions about unexpected > bids if I should happen to partner them, and I tell this to my opps, as > I am obliged to do. Yes, there may be UI, maybe leading to a bad score > for me, but there will never be MI as long as I properly disclose > everything. This is what the laws tell me to do. I do not try to guess > how I may be able to circumnavigate certain problems by telling only > half of the story. As long as my memory serves me and my judgment what > information is relevant is correct I will never give MI (sure, I am > human, so I may err sometimes, but not on purpose). Occasionally I will > create UI, that is true, but I am confident to keep that to a minimum, > and the TD will protect my opps from that. I follow Law 75 A and C as > much as I am able to. You, IMO, don`t. > The read L75A and C again. I tell them everything that is included in L75A and C. Doubts are not in there. > > >>> This is >>> not the Oscars, you know? >>> >> Isn't it? Smooth playing and bidding is not just allowed, it is even >> encouraged. >> > > What does that have to do with not disclosing fully that an agreement is > implicit at best? > My point is that there is full disclosure - the rest is poker. >> >>> What is the problem with explaining your >>> agreement, or if there is none the background against which you see this >>> bid, giving opps all pertinent information while wording it in a way >>> that partner has no useable UI? >>> >> "we have agreed nothing, but here in this club everyone plays 2Cl as >> Drury after a third hand opening". What is so pertinent about that >> sentence which is not included in the statement "Drury"? >> > > Only that you are basing your answer on an implicit agreement. If truly > everyone plays Drury there is no UI either, is there? > > No, there isn't. But then this is not a problem situation, is it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 28 10:34:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <4608C41C.3020301@meteo.fr> Message-ID: JP wrote: > it's not the problem as it was initially proposed in this thread. it > was actually a question of forgotten agreement and not undiscussed > bid. JP, the thread has wandered all over the place (and had a variety of titles). In the parts I have been addressing recently the focus has been on what to say when the true answer is "undiscussed". Of course if one has temporarily forgotten but knows the real answer is on the CC one can say "It's on the CC". Indeed even if one knows the answer but would prefer not to give UI confirming that to partner you may politely refer opps to the CC - and don't take any guff from them about not looking at CCs Ed ;) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 28 11:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460A1589.4090600@skynet.be> Message-ID: > *From:* Herman De Wael > *To:* blml > *Date:* Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:13:13 +0200 > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > But the principle is the same. The type of RKCB might well not > > have been discussed. There is no requirement for a pair to have an > > agreed meaning for 5C any more than they can be required to have an > > agreed meaning re the bypassing of 4C. > > > > No, that's logically impossible. If I ask aces with 4NT, I must be > hoping we will be playing the same answer structure, else I have > absolutely no use for the reply. Why? I might be hoping that partner will show 2 Aces (with or without trump queen) which will be the same response regardless of what version we are playing. I might know that partner cannot have 4 aces and be prepared to play in 5M opposite 0/1 and that if he has 3 he will raise my 5M sign-off to 6 (which I can then raise to 7). I might have decided to treat partner's 5C/5D response as 1430 knowing there is a good chance (but no certainty) that he will guess 1430. I might be fully aware of the risks that we will get to a poor spot if he decides to play 3041 but believe that I'll be in an even worse spot if I bid anything other than 4N. A less experienced player might bid 4N not even aware that there are two choices of response style while his experienced (but unknown) partner simply has no idea of which single style the 4N bidder is aware. Tim. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Mar 28 13:59:00 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:59:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> I snipped a lot here. If something got too much truncated the blame is on me. > What if I don't have one? > Well, anyone playing without a CC deserves what he gets (and yes, I have done so myself on occasion, but I expect the TD to rule against me). .......... >> Even "I have forgotten, but it can only be A or B" is >> better than guessing. >> >> > > No it's not. My opponents are entitled to know it it is A or B. > So they are. If my answer is not enough the TD should send me away (and instruct the opps to explain their next bid as: if it is A....) ......... > >> I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You have to >> explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems to remember it. >> >> > > Ehhh, no. The director will rule as if your partner knows _the_ > system, so you had better explain that same thing. > Well, if no CC is present (and the thread title suggests as much) the TD will so rule (in most cases. Sometimes partner`s idea will be so queer that the TD will have no doubt, but this is a rare occurence). So what? I knew I could have a problem when I sat down to play without a CC, didn`t I? ........ > >> 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to your opponents. >> >> > > But my uncertainty is not part of my agreements!!!!!!!!! > No, but the fact that this bid is open to a different interpretation than the one you have given is part of "special information conveyed through partnership agreement or partnership experience", especially what that different information may be. Whether you are in doubt yourself is indeed entirely up to you. ........ >> That so? Herman, if you only tell them the straight system, what then is >> this discussion about? If the system is "sorry, didn`t talk about it, >> but the backgound is such and such", why not tell them so? >> > > Indeed, but very many of our friends here seem to be saying "sorry, > didn't talk about it", without the reference to the background. You > are very correct in adding that background, so that the opponents can > draw the same conclusion as you did. But my point is that if you tell > them the background, and they draw a conclusion from it, and that > conclusion is not the same as the one you drew from it, then you are > still in a MI situation. Hello? I am in no way responsible for the conclusions my opps draw from my explanations if I presented them in a factual way without suggesting something. If I did my explanations right they have no one to blame but themselves. "Sorry, undiscussed" is indeed often (very often, in fact) an incomplete explanation. > So to me, only the sentence "sorry, didn`t > talk about it, but the backgound is such and such, which leads me to > believe it's AA" is a full explanation. And my second point being that > I am not obliged to add "we didn't talk about it" leads me to say that > it's just as good replying "AA". > I violently disagree that one should say anything beginning with "which leads me to believe" or words to that effect. I may offer my opps the perceived probabilities, but only on request and with a firm warning that some of it is speculation, and they will get the warning before the request. I may even (in the presence of the TD) send my partner for a coffee, but I will never tell them what I believe, or where that background leads me. ............... > >> To explain something as A when it is pretty likely that it is A, but >> just might be B, thereby giving the impression that you are on firm >> ground here is just plain wrong. That is not full disclosure. >> > > The doubt has got nothing to do with the system. The system has been > fully disclosed. As to it being "wrong", that word is not in the > lawbook. I choose to decide what's right and wrong in the way I play > bridge. I won't do anything illegal, but I'm not going by what you > believe to be right or wrong. > I am going by what I believe the lawbook to say about right or wrong. I think you do the same, but with a different result. Perhaps we will not get closer than that. I think my interpretation is the way the law is intended to work, and that is always the way I try to look at it. As far as I can make out everyone who helped form the current laws and whose opinion I have heard seems to agree with my viewpoint. If I got that wrong maybe these people will correct me. > >> If you have an explicit agreement that`s what you tell them (that much >> seems to be agreed upon between us). >> If you have no explicit agreement you tell them what the implicit >> agreement may be made up of. >> > > Not "may be", "is". Even an implicit agreement exists - it's not > something fictitious, it's real! > Agreed. Put that down as "sloppy writing". > >> If I get you right you would do the >> following: Say you had some disaster with a pick-up partner. He meant A, >> you assumed B. -1400, case closed. Now you play with him again, >> unexpectedly (some guy from out of town, never expected to see him >> again, let alone play Bridge with him). You did not agree on how to >> handle the situation after the first disaster, but now your hand tells >> you that it is (for example) B. You explain it as B, right? I would >> explain it as "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, we >> did not agree how to play it". >> > > You give UI, I don`t. > > OK, if that is the truth. But is it, often? Isn't it more common that > we are playing in a semi-regular partnership, and that among the > meta-agreements there is something like "Herman is always right", > which means the likelihood of it now being B is higher? Should you not > disclose that meta-agreement? Which means that your explanation would > more likely be: "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, > we did not agree how to play it, but he's the docile one, so now he > most likely has B". And isn't that basically the same answer as my "B"? > > >> There may be cases >> (especially when partner is convinced there is an explicit agreement) >> where it is the other way around, but the laws and TDs can handle that, >> can`t they? >> >> > > Yes, if it does turn out to be A again, you have another -1400, or a > TD ruling. We both have. Your explanation does not alter the fact that > the TD will rule against you. Because the opponents are entitled to > know if it is A or B, and if A and B are far enough apart, your > explanation will mean exactly the same to them ("B") as mine. And your > exonerating sentence will not sway the director into not ruling in > their favour. > > I am not pretending that you are doing something illegal in adding > that sentence. But I am saying that I do nothing illegal in not adding > it. It is information they are quite interested in, yes, but it is not > information they are entitled to. > > >>>> >>>> >>> But that is exactly what the director is also going to do. He's going >>> to look at the hands, find out that partner has made a Drury call, and >>> that I've responded as if it were Drury. He's going to ask, why did >>> you not explain it as Drury, and I'm gonna say (no: you're gonna say) >>> "I was not 100% certain that we had agreed Drury". The Director is >>> going to rule it is an agreement. Argh. >>> >>> >> No Herman. I tell them: This may be natural or it may be Drury. We did >> not discuss this, but my partner often plays Drury. On the other hand he >> knows that I usually do not play Drury, but that I know quite well that >> he likes to play Drury. >> > > This is not enough though. Because there is some pecking order in your > partnership that means you two DO know which of the two it is. When my > partners ask if I play Drury, my reply is so negative ("no, because I > want to be able to open a H1H") that they will not be playing Drury > with me. That is an extreme case, but the same is true in small > amounts in your partnership. Which does not preclude of course, that > situations might crop up where your answer "50/50 guess, truely" can > be right. But I believe that to be a minority. Because partner will > know it's 50/50 as well, and he won't bid it like that. > > >> I do not tell them what I think this bid is, but I tell them everything >> (except my cards) I can base my next bid on. I try to make sure they >> have the same background as I have. If I fail in this the TD will tell >> me so, so where is the problem? >> If I forgot an agreement I tell them so, and tell them to look on the CC >> if it is listed there. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Who cares a damn "what makes it better for you"?? The question is what >>>> is inside the laws, and what is outside. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes indeed. And from among all the things that are inside the laws, I >>> am allowed to choose what is better for me. So tell me again where I >>> am going outside of the laws. >>> >>> >> In not disclosing every information you have. >> >> > > The laws don't tell me I should disclose every information I have. I > should disclose everything known "by agreement". My doubts (and my > cards) are not part of that. > > >>> >>> >>>> We do not play Bridge by making >>>> it better for ourselves. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes we do, we are trying to win the tournament. >>> >>> >> Which is beside the point. The point is that you try to evade >> controversy by telling them what you think the bid means, not what you >> think it should mean by agreement or -absent an explicit agreement - >> what your implicit agreement encompasses. >> > > Of course! that's the same thing isn't it? > Every time I explain something (even when I am 99% certain), I explain > "what I think it means". So do you. We are never 100% certain. So we > cannot explain "what it should mean by agreement", we can only explain > "what we think the agreement is". > > >> So if you guess right there is >> no problem, because nobody knows about your failure to disclose fully, >> if you guess wrong you gave MI. I give all available information at >> once, so (if I left nothing out) there is no MI. >> > > But again you are calling MI failing to add your doubts. Which I tell > you is not MI. I onlyu leave out stuff that I think they are not > entitled to. > > >> There may be some UI, >> but in most situations I will be able to choose my words careful enough >> to give no UI (It is not UI to partner that we do not, in fact, have an >> explicit agreement. If he thinks we have, and I have woken him up to >> this, this is of course UI. Whether this will demonstrably suggest any >> action over another is debatable. I think that in most cases it does >> not). If partner can`t handle the UI (which should not often be the >> case), too bad for me. TD gives AS. That`s life. >> As a non-playing TD I occasionally have to fill in for a hand or two >> with some unknown partner. 1NT-p-2D. So I explain: we have not played >> together, most people here play this as transfer. Or, if playing with a >> beginner: You probably know better than I do what is taught in the >> beginner class. May be natural or transfer. (I have to look into >> beginners books again, I truly do not know. Shame, really) >> >> > > OK with that. But this is a situation where their guess is indeed > better than yours. How often does that happen - and do you think it is > the situation this thread is based on? If you do, then we've been > really wasting our time here. > > >>> >>> >>>> We play it by making sure opps learn about our >>>> agreements, >>>> >>>> >>> Which is exactly what I am trying to do! I'm not hiding behind "no >>> agreement", you are! >>> >>> >> Oh no. I have not ever used the expression "no agreement" here, nor do I >> do so at the table. If it is undiscussed I say so, but tell them >> everything relevant I know about the situation, which usually is a lot >> if I play in my club. >> > > Yeah, but that's not what some people do. And I want to teach then > that they should not do it. > > >> My memory is somewhat peculiar in that I can >> remeber hands from 20 years ago, but I cannot go to the supermarket >> without first making a list of things to buy. So I remember lots of >> things people did against me and form some opinions about unexpected >> bids if I should happen to partner them, and I tell this to my opps, as >> I am obliged to do. Yes, there may be UI, maybe leading to a bad score >> for me, but there will never be MI as long as I properly disclose >> everything. This is what the laws tell me to do. I do not try to guess >> how I may be able to circumnavigate certain problems by telling only >> half of the story. As long as my memory serves me and my judgment what >> information is relevant is correct I will never give MI (sure, I am >> human, so I may err sometimes, but not on purpose). Occasionally I will >> create UI, that is true, but I am confident to keep that to a minimum, >> and the TD will protect my opps from that. I follow Law 75 A and C as >> much as I am able to. You, IMO, don`t. >> >> > > The read L75A and C again. I tell them everything that is included in > L75A and C. Doubts are not in there. > > >> >> >> >>>> This is >>>> not the Oscars, you know? >>>> >>>> >>> Isn't it? Smooth playing and bidding is not just allowed, it is even >>> encouraged. >>> >>> >> What does that have to do with not disclosing fully that an agreement is >> implicit at best? >> >> > > My point is that there is full disclosure - the rest is poker. > > >>> >>> >>>> What is the problem with explaining your >>>> agreement, or if there is none the background against which you see this >>>> bid, giving opps all pertinent information while wording it in a way >>>> that partner has no useable UI? >>>> >>>> >>> "we have agreed nothing, but here in this club everyone plays 2Cl as >>> Drury after a third hand opening". What is so pertinent about that >>> sentence which is not included in the statement "Drury"? >>> >>> >> Only that you are basing your answer on an implicit agreement. If truly >> everyone plays Drury there is no UI either, is there? >> >> >> > > No, there isn't. But then this is not a problem situation, is it? > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Mar 28 14:24:03 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:24:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F_Expa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?nded_version-_sent_the_other_one_too_early?= In-Reply-To: <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <460A5E63.1050303@t-online.de> I snipped a lot here. If something got too much truncated the blame is on me. > What if I don't have one? > Well, anyone playing without a CC deserves what he gets (and yes, I have done so myself on occasion, but I expect the TD to rule against me). .......... >> Even "I have forgotten, but it can only be A or B" is >> better than guessing. >> >> > > No it's not. My opponents are entitled to know it it is A or B. > So they are. If my answer is not enough the TD should send me away (and instruct the opps to explain their next bid as: if it is A....) ......... > >> I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You have to >> explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems to remember it. >> >> > > Ehhh, no. The director will rule as if your partner knows _the_ > system, so you had better explain that same thing. > Well, if no CC is present (and the thread title suggests as much) the TD will so rule (in most cases. Sometimes partner`s idea will be so queer that the TD will have no doubt, but this is a rare occurence). So what? I knew I could have a problem when I sat down to play without a CC, didn`t I? ........ > >> 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to your opponents. >> >> > > But my uncertainty is not part of my agreements!!!!!!!!! > No, but the fact that this bid is open to a different interpretation than the one you have given is part of "special information conveyed through partnership agreement or partnership experience", especially what that different information may be. Whether you are in doubt yourself is indeed entirely up to you. ........ >> That so? Herman, if you only tell them the straight system, what then is >> this discussion about? If the system is "sorry, didn`t talk about it, >> but the backgound is such and such", why not tell them so? >> > > Indeed, but very many of our friends here seem to be saying "sorry, > didn't talk about it", without the reference to the background. You > are very correct in adding that background, so that the opponents can > draw the same conclusion as you did. But my point is that if you tell > them the background, and they draw a conclusion from it, and that > conclusion is not the same as the one you drew from it, then you are > still in a MI situation. Hello? I am in no way responsible for the conclusions my opps draw from my explanations if I presented them in a factual way without suggesting something. If I did my explanations right they have no one to blame but themselves. "Sorry, undiscussed" is indeed often (very often, in fact) an incomplete explanation. > So to me, only the sentence "sorry, didn`t > talk about it, but the backgound is such and such, which leads me to > believe it's AA" is a full explanation. And my second point being that > I am not obliged to add "we didn't talk about it" leads me to say that > it's just as good replying "AA". > I violently disagree that one should say anything beginning with "which leads me to believe" or words to that effect. I may offer my opps the perceived probabilities, but only on request and with a firm warning that some of it is speculation, and they will get the warning before the request. I may even (in the presence of the TD) send my partner for a coffee, but I will never tell them what I believe, or where that background leads me. ............... > >> To explain something as A when it is pretty likely that it is A, but >> just might be B, thereby giving the impression that you are on firm >> ground here is just plain wrong. That is not full disclosure. >> > > The doubt has got nothing to do with the system. The system has been > fully disclosed. As to it being "wrong", that word is not in the > lawbook. I choose to decide what's right and wrong in the way I play > bridge. I won't do anything illegal, but I'm not going by what you > believe to be right or wrong. > I am going by what I believe the lawbook to say about right or wrong. I think you do the same, but with a different result. Perhaps we will not get closer than that. I think my interpretation is the way the law is intended to work, and that is always the way I try to look at it. As far as I can make out everyone who helped form the current laws and whose opinion I have heard seems to agree with my viewpoint. If I got that wrong maybe these people will correct me. > >> If you have an explicit agreement that`s what you tell them (that much >> seems to be agreed upon between us). >> If you have no explicit agreement you tell them what the implicit >> agreement may be made up of. >> > > Not "may be", "is". Even an implicit agreement exists - it's not > something fictitious, it's real! > Agreed. Put that down as "sloppy writing". > >> If I get you right you would do the >> following: Say you had some disaster with a pick-up partner. He meant A, >> you assumed B. -1400, case closed. Now you play with him again, >> unexpectedly (some guy from out of town, never expected to see him >> again, let alone play Bridge with him). You did not agree on how to >> handle the situation after the first disaster, but now your hand tells >> you that it is (for example) B. You explain it as B, right? I would >> explain it as "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, we >> did not agree how to play it". >> > > You give UI, I don`t. > > OK, if that is the truth. But is it, often? Isn't it more common that > we are playing in a semi-regular partnership, and that among the > meta-agreements there is something like "Herman is always right", > which means the likelihood of it now being B is higher? Should you not > disclose that meta-agreement? Which means that your explanation would > more likely be: "last time he did that he had A, I thought he had B, > we did not agree how to play it, but he's the docile one, so now he > most likely has B". And isn't that basically the same answer as my "B"? No, I don`t agree. If this meta-agreement exists it should definitely be part of the explanation, but it just is not the same. > > >> There may be cases >> (especially when partner is convinced there is an explicit agreement) >> where it is the other way around, but the laws and TDs can handle that, >> can`t they? >> >> > > Yes, if it does turn out to be A again, you have another -1400, or a > TD ruling. We both have. Your explanation does not alter the fact that > the TD will rule against you. Because the opponents are entitled to > know if it is A or B, and if A and B are far enough apart, your > explanation will mean exactly the same to them ("B") as mine. And your > exonerating sentence will not sway the director into not ruling in > their favour. No,Herman,my explanation certainly does not amount to the same as your "B". The TD may still rule against me, that depends upon how satisfied he is with my explanation, but if I did my job well he will not rule against me. The opps are not entitled to know whether it is A or B, they are only entitled to every tiny little bit of information I can give them. If I cannot honestly tell them A or B, then they only get "may be A or B, and this is the complete background". They are only entitled to A or B if there is an agreement (explicit or implicit, but the operative word here is "agreement". > > I am not pretending that you are doing something illegal in adding > that sentence. But I am saying that I do nothing illegal in not adding > it. It is information they are quite interested in, yes, but it is not > information they are entitled to. 75C > > >>>> >>>> >>> But that is exactly what the director is also going to do. He's going >>> to look at the hands, find out that partner has made a Drury call, and >>> that I've responded as if it were Drury. He's going to ask, why did >>> you not explain it as Drury, and I'm gonna say (no: you're gonna say) >>> "I was not 100% certain that we had agreed Drury". The Director is >>> going to rule it is an agreement. Argh. >>> >>> >> No Herman. I tell them: This may be natural or it may be Drury. We did >> not discuss this, but my partner often plays Drury. On the other hand he >> knows that I usually do not play Drury, but that I know quite well that >> he likes to play Drury. >> > > This is not enough though. Because there is some pecking order in your > partnership that means you two DO know which of the two it is. Not in my partnerships, no. I (and my partners) have to fight for every agreement, and we do. No pecking. Shouting maybe (away from the table), but no pecking. I have seen partnerships where your argument applies, so I do not reject it completely, but you should not reject the other part either. > When my > partners ask if I play Drury, my reply is so negative ("no, because I > want to be able to open a H1H") that they will not be playing Drury > with me. That is an extreme case, but the same is true in small > amounts in your partnership. Which does not preclude of course, that > situations might crop up where your answer "50/50 guess, truely" can > be right. But I believe that to be a minority. Because partner will > know it's 50/50 as well, and he won't bid it like that. Sometimes he has no choice, but I agree with most of the text above. Still it is possible to disclose that. ...... > > The laws don't tell me I should disclose every information I have. I > should disclose everything known "by agreement". My doubts (and my > cards) are not part of that. Indeed they are not. But your partnership experience is, and that covers more than your agreements. Even your "pecking order" is part of the partnership experience. .................. > Every time I explain something (even when I am 99% certain), I explain > "what I think it means". So do you. We are never 100% certain. So we > cannot explain "what it should mean by agreement", we can only explain > "what we think the agreement is". Why can`t we be 100% certain? Sure we can, and I often have been when it turned out that I was wrong. I even lost bets. But that is somewhat beside the point. > > >> So if you guess right there is >> no problem, because nobody knows about your failure to disclose fully, >> if you guess wrong you gave MI. I give all available information at >> once, so (if I left nothing out) there is no MI. >> > > But again you are calling MI failing to add your doubts. Which I tell > you is not MI. I onlyu leave out stuff that I think they are not > entitled to. So, in the end, we disagree what they are entitled to. ....... > > My point is that there is full disclosure - the rest is poker. > But at Poker you hide information. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 15:15:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:15:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <460A6A8E.6050807@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > I snipped a lot here. If something got too much truncated the blame is > on me. > > ........ >> >>> 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to your opponents. >>> >>> >> But my uncertainty is not part of my agreements!!!!!!!!! >> > > No, but the fact that this bid is open to a different interpretation > than the one you have given is part of "special information conveyed > through partnership agreement or partnership experience", especially > what that different information may be. Whether you are in doubt > yourself is indeed entirely up to you. > But the meaning of the bid does not include a different interpretation. It is A or B. If I believe it to be A (85% chance) or B (15% chance) then I should still tell them A, because that is the meaning. If I only include A in my choice of next bid, B is totally irrelevant, and the amount of doubt (either 45%, 15% or 0.5%) I do not need to disclose. Of course, if my next bid caters for the possibility that it might be B as well, I am more inclined to also include B in the explanation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 15:19:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:19:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <460A6B4B.102@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > I am going by what I believe the lawbook to say about right or wrong. I > think you do the same, but with a different result. Perhaps we will not > get closer than that. > Perhaps not, no - but you should take head of my factual arguments, like the one that the letter of the laws seem to underline some of my views (doubts are not among the things that need to be divulged). > I think my interpretation is the way the law is intended to work, and > that is always the way I try to look at it. As far as I can make out > everyone who helped form the current laws and whose opinion I have heard > seems to agree with my viewpoint. If I got that wrong maybe these people > will correct me. > Ehm, I could say the same thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 15:27:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:27:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F_Expa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?nded_version-_sent_the_other_one_too_early?= In-Reply-To: <460A5E63.1050303@t-online.de> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5E63.1050303@t-online.de> Message-ID: <460A6D4A.1040404@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> >> Yes, if it does turn out to be A again, you have another -1400, or a >> TD ruling. We both have. Your explanation does not alter the fact that >> the TD will rule against you. Because the opponents are entitled to >> know if it is A or B, and if A and B are far enough apart, your >> explanation will mean exactly the same to them ("B") as mine. And your >> exonerating sentence will not sway the director into not ruling in >> their favour. > > No,Herman,my explanation certainly does not amount to the same as your > "B". The TD may still rule against me, that depends upon how satisfied > he is with my explanation, but if I did my job well he will not rule > against me. The opps are not entitled to know whether it is A or B, they > are only entitled to every tiny little bit of information I can give > them. If I cannot honestly tell them A or B, then they only get "may be > A or B, and this is the complete background". They are only entitled to > A or B if there is an agreement (explicit or implicit, but the operative > word here is "agreement". > And this is where we are in disagreement. Your partner has made a call, with a hand that conforms to meaning A but not to meaning B. You have (quite correctly) explained that it can be only those two (eliminating for the opponents the meaning C, good on you), and have then proceeded to guess, without telling which one you guessed (OK, that limits some UI - but has given some other). It turns out you have also guessed A. Your opponents are in the dark. Over A, they would bid A2, but over B, they bid B2. Your RHO bids according to B2, and your LHO interprets it as A2. They end up in a ludicrous contract. They are obviously damaged. Don't you think the TD is going to rule that A was your system all along and they have been MI? >> I am not pretending that you are doing something illegal in adding >> that sentence. But I am saying that I do nothing illegal in not adding >> it. It is information they are quite interested in, yes, but it is not >> information they are entitled to. > > 75C > Again, NO. Doubt is not something "conveyed by partnership agreement". > > Indeed they are not. But your partnership experience is, and that covers > more than your agreements. Even your "pecking order" is part of the > partnership experience. > which is why I explain that. And why I don't like explanations like "it could be A or B", especially when it turns out that partners are on the same wavelength all along. >>> >> But again you are calling MI failing to add your doubts. Which I tell >> you is not MI. I onlyu leave out stuff that I think they are not >> entitled to. > > So, in the end, we disagree what they are entitled to. > ....... > > Indeed we do. And I think L75 supports my stance. > >> My point is that there is full disclosure - the rest is poker. >> > > But at Poker you hide information. > While at bridge you put down your aces in front of you, of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 28 16:34:18 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:34:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] De Wael In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0703271427l503bf757j17f39e4c50ade063@mail.gmail.co m> References: <4607ADB1.8000505@NTLworld.com> <4607C739.00000D.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <4608FC25.1060006@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20070327094951.02aa9540@pop.starpower.net> <460931ED.4040807@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0703271427l503bf757j17f39e4c50ade063@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070328090918.02ad5eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:27 PM 3/27/07, rwilley wrote: > > I was answering a point about "A majority of the players agree about > > the meaning" by Eric Gottcheiner. Eric Landau's argument is perfectly > > reasonable. I agree that "no agreement" should be equivalent to "your > > guess is as good as mine". It is just that I doubt whether that > > statement is usually true; and even when it happens to be true, whether > > you can be sure of its truth. As practical matter, in my experience of > > such cases, when opponents claim no agreement, their guesses are > > *better* than mine -- perhaps because of their experience together *or* > > mutual convention preferences*or* common background *or *shared reading > > materials* or whatever. > >I think that its worthwhile to contrast a couple different cases: > >Case One: You are playing with a "random" partner. Perhaps you were >thrown together at the partnership desk 5 minutes beofre a game. >Alternatively, you might be playing together in an Indy on BBO. Your >partnership has not had any chance for any kind of detailed system >discussion. > >Case Two: You are a member of an experienced partnership. You have >just encountered a previously undefined bidding. However, this >sequence could be considered analagous to a number of defined >sequences or might be similar (but not identical) to an existing >meta-agreement in your partnership. > >I would argue that these two cases are quite different. In general, >when I am discussion situations where I have "no agreement" with >partner, I am discussing the first case. I do admit that its possible >that some individuals might be better positioned to make an accurate >guess about "random" partner's bidding style. However, I believe that >most of those examples would fall under the category "general bridge >knowledge". I agree with Richard's distinction. "No agreement", by itself, is appropriate only in Richard's case one. In case two, where you have no agreement but believe you can deduce the meaning from a generic agreement or from a specific agreement in an analogous situation, it is correct to reply along the lines of, "We have no specific agreement about this sequence, but we do have the agreement(s) that..." Absent a specific agreement cuvering the call in question, your job is to make sure your opponents have the same relevant information that you do. In practice, most of the time the implications of your "but we do have the agreement that..." will be obvious enough that the opponents will hear the message "we don't have an agreement but I'm assuming it to be...", and be correct. That achieves the same effect as a "De Wael school" answer in those cases without the dissimulation. And it doesn't blatantly transgress the disclosure rules in the few genuinely ambiguous cases, as the De Wael school reply does. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 28 17:04:22 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:04:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] chy no convention card ? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070328165657.02171ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Herman : Your partner has made a call, with a hand that conforms to meaning A but not to meaning B. You have (quite correctly) explained that it can be only those two (eliminating for the opponents the meaning C, good on you), and have then proceeded to guess, without telling which one you guessed (OK, that limits some UI - but has given some other). It turns out you have also guessed A. Your opponents are in the dark. Over A, they would bid A2, but over B, they bid B2. Your RHO bids according to B2, and your LHO interprets it as A2. They end up in a ludicrous contract. They are obviously damaged. Don't you think the TD is going to rule that A was your system all along and they have been MI? AG: hope not, else I wouldn't be allowed to guess which side uf the Multi partner's hand is. Until now, I was allowed to pass a Multi 2D on diamonds and a fair hand, guessing partner had the weak type (last time last tuesday). Also, my guess will very often come true. If they botch their ensuing sequence, will I be liable to MI penalties ? Same holds for Crash-type bids. Also consider the possibility of passing a Wagner 2D on a random weak hand, sometimes guessing partner's suit, sometimes just muddling the bidding Of course, the case isn't the same, but it conforms to your description. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 28 21:26:40 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:26:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460A6A8E.6050807@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> <460A6A8E.6050807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070328135522.02ad8c90@pop.starpower.net> At 08:15 AM 3/28/07, Herman wrote: >But the meaning of the bid does not include a different >interpretation. It is A or B. If I believe it to be A (85% chance) or >B (15% chance) then I should still tell them A, because that is the >meaning. If I only include A in my choice of next bid, B is totally >irrelevant, and the amount of doubt (either 45%, 15% or 0.5%) I do not >need to disclose. >Of course, if my next bid caters for the possibility that it might be >B as well, I am more inclined to also include B in the explanation. Herman justifies his position by weasling, with terms like "only include A in my choice of next bid" and "caters for the possibility that it might be B". But the truth is that if Herman believes there is an 85% chance of A and a 15% chance of B, he will choose his next and subsequent calls on the assumption that there is an 85% chance of A and a 15% chance of B. That may, on occasion, lead him to make a different call than he would if he were sure of A (slightly inferior if it is A but avoiding immediate disaster if it turns out to be B), in which case he will be "more inclined to also include B in the explanation" (one hopes he will be sufficiently inclined to actually do so!). But even if he is about to pick the same call he would if he were sure, that 15% probability, of which he remains aware, might affect subsequent calls later in the auction. And even if it doesn't, his selections will be based on somewhat different considerations, with a different weighting, possibly even a different set, of contemplated alternatives. All of which means that the deductions that an opponent might make as to what Herman holds to justify the calls he chooses might be very different, even on the same auction, depending on whether he is informed of that 15% chance of B or misled by Herman's "still tell[ing] them A". Herman's opponents are entitled to develop their own inferences with regard to Herman's actions using the same information about his agreements as he is; it is not up to Herman to force the opponents to make their deductions with incomplete information just because the omission will not affect the result of his. The point Herman doesn't seem to grasp is that none of this is in any way mitigated when his partner does indeed turn up with A. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 28 21:36:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:36:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460A6D4A.1040404@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5E63.1050303@t-online.de> <460A6D4A.1040404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070328143158.02ad1d30@pop.starpower.net> At 08:27 AM 3/28/07, Herman wrote: >And why I don't like explanations like >"it could be A or B", especially when it turns out that partners are >on the same wavelength all along. When both partners are on the same wavelength all along, and what they're both hearing on that wavelength is "it could be A or B", it's hard to imagine what an explanation anyone other than Herman would like better than "it could be A or B" might be like. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 23:47:26 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:47:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070328135522.02ad8c90@pop.starpower.net> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> <460A6A8E.6050807@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070328135522.02ad8c90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <460AE26E.2090904@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:15 AM 3/28/07, Herman wrote: > >> But the meaning of the bid does not include a different >> interpretation. It is A or B. If I believe it to be A (85% chance) or >> B (15% chance) then I should still tell them A, because that is the >> meaning. If I only include A in my choice of next bid, B is totally >> irrelevant, and the amount of doubt (either 45%, 15% or 0.5%) I do not >> need to disclose. >> Of course, if my next bid caters for the possibility that it might be >> B as well, I am more inclined to also include B in the explanation. > > Herman justifies his position by weasling, with terms like "only > include A in my choice of next bid" and "caters for the possibility > that it might be B". > > But the truth is that if Herman believes there is an 85% chance of A > and a 15% chance of B, he will choose his next and subsequent calls on > the assumption that there is an 85% chance of A and a 15% chance of > B. That may, on occasion, lead him to make a different call than he > would if he were sure of A (slightly inferior if it is A but avoiding > immediate disaster if it turns out to be B), in which case he will be > "more inclined to also include B in the explanation" (one hopes he will > be sufficiently inclined to actually do so!). > > But even if he is about to pick the same call he would if he were sure, > that 15% probability, of which he remains aware, might affect > subsequent calls later in the auction. And even if it doesn't, his > selections will be based on somewhat different considerations, with a > different weighting, possibly even a different set, of contemplated > alternatives. All of which means that the deductions that an opponent > might make as to what Herman holds to justify the calls he chooses > might be very different, even on the same auction, depending on whether > he is informed of that 15% chance of B or misled by Herman's "still > tell[ing] them A". Herman's opponents are entitled to develop their > own inferences with regard to Herman's actions using the same > information about his agreements as he is; it is not up to Herman to > force the opponents to make their deductions with incomplete > information just because the omission will not affect the result of his. > > The point Herman doesn't seem to grasp is that none of this is in any > way mitigated when his partner does indeed turn up with A. > Herman does grasp that - but it only occurs when his call IS affected. Not in the main stream of possibilities. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 23:50:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:50:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070328143158.02ad1d30@pop.starpower.net> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5E63.1050303@t-online.de> <460A6D4A.1040404@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070328143158.02ad1d30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <460AE32A.1070200@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:27 AM 3/28/07, Herman wrote: > >> And why I don't like explanations like >> "it could be A or B", especially when it turns out that partners are >> on the same wavelength all along. > > When both partners are on the same wavelength all along, and what > they're both hearing on that wavelength is "it could be A or B", it's > hard to imagine what an explanation anyone other than Herman would like > better than "it could be A or B" might be like. > Because they are _NOT_ on the "A or B" wavelength at all. The are both on the "A" wavelength, and their opponents are entitled to know this. You seem to be thinking of totally different cases here than what I do. I am thinking of cases like a 2Sp overcall over a 1D opening. Is it weak or strong? It can't be both, and an explanation "it could be weak or strong, but I'm bidding 4Sp" is manifestly unhelpful. It is either weak or strong, and opponents are entitled to know which one it is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 28 23:52:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:52:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_why_no_convention_card=3F?= In-Reply-To: <002501c77169$1e8cb0b0$0701a8c0@john> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be><46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <002501c77169$1e8cb0b0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <460AE381.5080507@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : why no convention card? > > >> Maybe 2nd, yes. One which I want to be using when I don't want to tell >> my partner I'm uncertain. > > Why not?. the passing of UI is not illegal. >>> Even "I have forgotten, but it can only be A or B" is >>> better than guessing. >>> >> No it's not. My opponents are entitled to know it it is A or B. > > No they're not. They're entitled to your agreement (if you have one) > And the director will judge that A was our agreement all along. Do you really want to encourage people not to help their opponents? I really don't see why you think I'm the bad guy for giving a clear and unequivocal answer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 29 00:43:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:43:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FD68E44-0FBF-448C-9D3E-721DDF208C8F@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > and don't take any guff from them > about not looking at CCs Ed ;) Not a chance. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 29 03:38:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:38:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460AE32A.1070200@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I am thinking of cases like a 2Sp overcall over a 1D opening. >Is it weak or strong? It can't be both, and an explanation "it >could be weak or strong, but I'm bidding 4Sp" is manifestly >unhelpful. > >Do you really want to encourage people not to help their >opponents? Richard Hills: I really want to encourage people to obey the Laws. An explanation which is required by Law 75A, Law 75C and the footnote to Law 75D2 may be manifestly unhelpful. So what? A desire to be helpful does not excuse an infraction of Law 75A, Law 75C and the footnote to Law 75D2. Herman De Wael: >It is either weak or strong, and opponents are entitled to >know which one it is. Richard Hills: The opponents are never entitled to know about partner's _unilateral_ intentions. The opponents are merely entitled to know about the partnership's _mutual_ explicit or implicit agreements. Herman De Wael: >And the director will judge that A was our agreement all >along. > >I really don't see why you think I'm the bad guy for giving a >clear and unequivocal answer. Richard Hills: It is no excuse for an illegal answer to be clear and unequivocal. Nor is it any excuse to give an illegal answer on the grounds that the director might subsequently misjudge the facts. * * * Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, West, hold: QJ643 4 QJ85 765 The bidding proceeds: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C (1) Pass 1S Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3C (3) Pass 3D (4) Pass 3S Pass 4H (5) Pass 4S Pass 4NT(6) Pass ? [snip] therefore have an implicit partnership agreement that 4NT is also old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood in this particular auction [snip] Truth is stranger than fiction. My expert RHO has a bad habit of Spanish Inquisition interrogation of opponents during the auction (a habit which verges on a Law 74A2 infraction), so he did indeed enquire about the meaning of partner's 4NT bid during the auction. What explanation do you give? What other explanation do you consider giving? * * * At the table I explained 4NT as Keycard Blackwood, in accordance with our implicit partnership agreement. Would Herman (or another blmler) have me do otherwise? 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 Mar 29 04:22:02 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:22:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Finland, Finland, Finland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Committee (minority view): >Started by confirming that the Convention Card was wrongly >filled in. Some members thought that North had not done >enough to protect herself, she could and maybe should have >asked when the Double was not alerted. Wayne Burrows (Kaplan Question part 1 thread): >>I cannot comprehend how directors and appeal committees >>can justify rewarding offenders by giving them scores >>that they could not obtain if they provided accurate >>information. >>..... >>it is an even greater nonsense to reward my opponents for >>incorrectly filling in their card. The Committee (majority view): >It was however the opinion of the Committee that a player >can trust a clear information on the Convention Card. [snip] Richard Hills: It is indeed nonsense that a minority of an EBU Appeals Committee contemplated (and a majority of a Queensland Appeals Committee actually chose) a reward for a pair who incorrectly filled in their system card. If indeed "protect yourself" is relevant when conflicting information is received (such as a missing alert being inconsistent with the system card listing an alertable convention), then a split score should be awarded so that the offending side never benefits from their 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. 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 Thu Mar 29 10:43:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:43:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460B7C3C.1030405@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> I am thinking of cases like a 2Sp overcall over a 1D opening. >> Is it weak or strong? It can't be both, and an explanation "it >> could be weak or strong, but I'm bidding 4Sp" is manifestly >> unhelpful. >> >> Do you really want to encourage people not to help their >> opponents? > > Richard Hills: > > I really want to encourage people to obey the Laws. > > An explanation which is required by Law 75A, Law 75C and the > footnote to Law 75D2 may be manifestly unhelpful. So what? A > desire to be helpful does not excuse an infraction of Law 75A, > Law 75C and the footnote to Law 75D2. > I fail to see why it can be helpful (or even legal) to pretend not to have an agreement, when apparently, two players agree on the meaning of a call. > Herman De Wael: > >> It is either weak or strong, and opponents are entitled to >> know which one it is. > > Richard Hills: > > The opponents are never entitled to know about partner's > _unilateral_ intentions. The opponents are merely entitled to > know about the partnership's _mutual_ explicit or implicit > agreements. > The unilateral intention is based on a hope that the partner is on the same wavelength. The interpretation is based on a similar hope by the partner. Those hopes are in turn based on a great number of previous occurences (talks between the players, even when not partnering one another - habits with other players from the same club - boards played against one another -...). Those previous occurences can (at the very least) be summarized as "in this partnership, more likely A than B". That is an implicit agreement, and the opponents ARE entitled to know that. Really, to imagine that 2 players have the same idea about a bid and there NOT to be any implicit agreement between them strikes me as not doing your job as director. So any explanation that does not include the option chosen by the interpreter is in my book an incomplete explanation. And I believe that is far worse than doing the opposite and omitting that it is not a firm explicit agreement but only a hopeful implicit one. > Herman De Wael: > >> And the director will judge that A was our agreement all >> along. >> >> I really don't see why you think I'm the bad guy for giving a >> clear and unequivocal answer. > > Richard Hills: > > It is no excuse for an illegal answer to be clear and > unequivocal. > And I say again, I refuse to admit that doubt is something the opponents are entitled to. I do not have to tell them if I have agreed RKCB with this player on paper one year ago, one week ago in preparation for this particular tournament, by mouth just prior to the session or not at all. I don't have to tell them I base my judgment on us having played together once three years ago or on us playing with the same partner. I have to tell them that our (implicit/explicit) agreement is 1430, but not how we got there. That is not in the wording of L75C: "disclose all information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". The fact that I wrote down the answers to blackwood in an e-mail is something I know from myself, not something which is "conveyed to me". It is therefore not something I need to disclose to my opponents. > Nor is it any excuse to give an illegal answer on the grounds > that the director might subsequently misjudge the facts. > But is he misjudging the fact? Are you not in "agreement"? Yes, I did read your example - I did not get the point of it - I'll try again: > * * * > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > You, West, hold: > > QJ643 > 4 > QJ85 > 765 > > The bidding proceeds: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1C (1) Pass > 1S Pass 2NT(2) Pass > 3C (3) Pass 3D (4) Pass > 3S Pass 4H (5) Pass > 4S Pass 4NT(6) Pass > ? > > [snip] > > therefore have an implicit partnership agreement that > 4NT is also old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood in this > particular auction > > [snip] > > Truth is stranger than fiction. My expert RHO has a bad > habit of Spanish Inquisition interrogation of opponents > during the auction (a habit which verges on a Law 74A2 > infraction), so he did indeed enquire about the meaning of > partner's 4NT bid during the auction. > > What explanation do you give? > What other explanation do you consider giving? > > * * * > > At the table I explained 4NT as Keycard Blackwood, in > accordance with our implicit partnership agreement. > > Would Herman (or another blmler) have me do otherwise? > But what was your agreement? Your agreement appeared to be that 4NT could not have been Blackwood, and that it must have been! You were seriously in a problem there, but not about explaining, but about deciding which way your partner had been mistaken. You have a duty to your opponents to explain every relevant point, which includes that it cannot be Blackwood. But first it is up to you to decide what it is. I gather you decided it was Blackwood. OK, so, according to my principles, you explain it as Blackwood. And you reply your aces. If it turns out to be something else, you have misinformed, but also a bad score. If it turns out to be Blackwood, nothing has happened. What you cannot do however, is explain that it is Blackwood, because that is what one implicit line of reasoning tells you it is, and then silently follow another line of reasoning (it can't be Blackwood because ...), not give your aces, and, when that second thought appears to be right, try and explain to the director why you and he both happened to get off the (implicit) system at the same time and in the same direction. There are two threads going on at the same time here, and you Richard, seem to argue in both: - is a player allowed to say "no agreement", when he has decided what it should mean - is a player allowed to say "A", when there is no explicit agreement in place. It seems to me that you are trying to disagree with me in two opposite directions at once. Well, there go my chances for immigration into Australia ... Not that I'd want to go live there, ever. I prefer to support the underdogs at cricket. Go Ireland! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 29 14:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460AE32A.1070200@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > You seem to be thinking of totally different cases here than what I > do. I am thinking of cases like a 2Sp overcall over a 1D opening. Is > it weak or strong? It can't be both, and an explanation "it could be > weak or strong, but I'm bidding 4Sp" is manifestly unhelpful. It is > either weak or strong, and opponents are entitled to know which one > it is. No they aren't. They are entitled to know any agreements and implicit understandings as to what it is. Indeed the last time I had this at the table my explanation was "Undiscussed, but I know pard is a junior and he knows I am a trad Acol money bridge player." We hadn't discussed it and there was nothing on either CC. Opps were as well positioned as I to know that either pard was expecting me to read it his way OR had decided to play it my way. Tim From tzimnoch at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 16:35:58 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:35:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460BCECE.9060807@comcast.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > No they aren't. They are entitled to know any agreements and implicit > understandings as to what it is. Indeed the last time I had this at the > table my explanation was "Undiscussed, but I know pard is a junior and > he knows I am a trad Acol money bridge player." We hadn't discussed it > and there was nothing on either CC. Opps were as well positioned as I > to know that either pard was expecting me to read it his way OR had > decided to play it my way. I think this is a good example of good practice. You do know more than your opponents and you disclosed everything relevant and useful to the situation you could. This is a vast improvement from the practice of saying "no agreement" and leaving the discussion at that. But according to law, would "no agreement" be adequate disclosure in this situation. If so, how could the law be rewritten to require this level of disclosure? -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 29 16:42:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:42:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460AE26E.2090904@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5884.90406@t-online.de> <460A6A8E.6050807@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070328135522.02ad8c90@pop.starpower.net> <460AE26E.2090904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070329093615.02b4f980@pop.starpower.net> At 04:47 PM 3/28/07, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > But the truth is that if Herman believes there is an 85% chance of A > > and a 15% chance of B, he will choose his next and subsequent calls on > > the assumption that there is an 85% chance of A and a 15% chance of > > B. That may, on occasion, lead him to make a different call than he > > would if he were sure of A (slightly inferior if it is A but avoiding > > immediate disaster if it turns out to be B), in which case he will be > > "more inclined to also include B in the explanation" (one hopes he > will > > be sufficiently inclined to actually do so!). > > > > But even if he is about to pick the same call he would if he were > sure, > > that 15% probability, of which he remains aware, might affect > > subsequent calls later in the auction. And even if it doesn't, his > > selections will be based on somewhat different considerations, with a > > different weighting, possibly even a different set, of contemplated > > alternatives. All of which means that the deductions that an opponent > > might make as to what Herman holds to justify the calls he chooses > > might be very different, even on the same auction, depending on > whether > > he is informed of that 15% chance of B or misled by Herman's "still > > tell[ing] them A". Herman's opponents are entitled to develop their > > own inferences with regard to Herman's actions using the same > > information about his agreements as he is; it is not up to Herman to > > force the opponents to make their deductions with incomplete > > information just because the omission will not affect the result of > his. > > > > The point Herman doesn't seem to grasp is that none of this is in any > > way mitigated when his partner does indeed turn up with A. > >Herman does grasp that - but it only occurs when his call IS affected. >Not in the main stream of possibilities. We are not communicating. My last paragraph and Herman's say exactly the opposite. "It" occurs whenever the mental process by which Herman chooses his call is affected, whether or not the call he winds up choosing is or is not "affected", by which he means different. I argue that that happens every time, although the occasions on which it actually causes his call to differ may be rare. The opponents are entitled to know the assumptions that went into his choice of call. I don't know how to put it any better than "this is [not] in any way mitigated when his partner does indeed turn up with A". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 29 16:58:33 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:58:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460AE32A.1070200@skynet.be> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5E63.1050303@t-online.de> <460A6D4A.1040404@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070328143158.02ad1d30@pop.starpower.net> <460AE32A.1070200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070329094333.02b4d420@pop.starpower.net> At 04:50 PM 3/28/07, Herman wrote: >You seem to be thinking of totally different cases here than what I >do. I am thinking of cases like a 2Sp overcall over a 1D opening. Is >it weak or strong? It can't be both, and an explanation "it could be >weak or strong, but I'm bidding 4Sp" is manifestly unhelpful. It is >either weak or strong, and opponents are entitled to know which one it is. I'm thinking of cases just like that. "It could be either weak or strong, and (knowing that) I (choose to) bid 4S" is *precisely* the information that the opponents need to be able to infer what Herman might hold to bid 4S, and to which they are thus fully entitled. Either "It is weak; I bid 4S" or "It is strong; I bid 4S" deprives the opponents of the information they need to take those legitimate inferences, thus constitute blatant and intentional misinformation. And those inferences about *Herman's* hand do not in any way depend on whether or not Herman's explanation happens to match Herman's partner's cards. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 29 17:26:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460BCECE.9060807@comcast.net> Message-ID: Todd wrote: > I think this is a good example of good practice. You do > know more than your opponents and you disclosed everything > relevant and useful to the situation you could. This is a > vast improvement from the practice of saying "no agreement" > and leaving the discussion at that. > > But according to law, would "no agreement" be adequate > disclosure in this situation. Not even close IMO - I think L75C requires at least the level of disclosure I gave. Had opps been less knowledgeable I'd have added that juniors play WJOs and money players IJO+. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 29 20:53:34 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:53:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460BCECE.9060807@comcast.net> References: <460BCECE.9060807@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070329134343.02a25eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:35 AM 3/29/07, Todd wrote: >Tim West-Meads wrote: > > No they aren't. They are entitled to know any agreements and implicit > > understandings as to what it is. Indeed the last time I had this > at the > > table my explanation was "Undiscussed, but I know pard is a junior and > > he knows I am a trad Acol money bridge player." We hadn't > discussed it > > and there was nothing on either CC. Opps were as well positioned as I > > to know that either pard was expecting me to read it his way OR had > > decided to play it my way. > > I think this is a good example of good practice. You do >know more than your opponents and you disclosed everything >relevant and useful to the situation you could. This is a >vast improvement from the practice of saying "no agreement" >and leaving the discussion at that. > > But according to law, would "no agreement" be adequate >disclosure in this situation. If so, how could the law be >rewritten to require this level of disclosure? IMO, Tim's level of disclosure is currently required by L75C. However vast your opponents "general knowledge and experience" may be, they cannot be expected to know that Tim is a traditional Acolist partnering a junior. That makes it "special information conveyed... through... partnership experience". Since it is potentially relevant to your understanding of partner's calls and/or to your own choice of calls, it must be disclosed. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Mar 29 20:46:44 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:46:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460C0994.8060409@t-online.de> "No agreement" is not enough if either player is more aware of his partner`s tendencies than the opponents can be expected to be. As soon as there is some common background (playing in the same environment, for example) it is to be disclosed. As a TD I might give the opps nothing if Tim and his partner are as well known to them as to each other, depending on their experience level, but nevertheless this disclosure is as it should be, whether the current laws demand them or not. The "junior and rubber player" case is pretty borderline, and much depends on what the players know about each other, but the scenario per se is a good example of what is called for by the laws. Any information not readily available to the opponents that may have any impact on that particular situation has to be disclosed. Tim`s hypothetical answer strikes me as very complete and thoughtful, telling everything without revealing anything (even *if* it did more than the laws call for, as none of it would lead to any problems). No MI, no UI. Matthias Tim West-Meads schrieb: > Todd wrote: > > >> I think this is a good example of good practice. You do >> know more than your opponents and you disclosed everything >> relevant and useful to the situation you could. This is a >> vast improvement from the practice of saying "no agreement" >> and leaving the discussion at that. >> >> But according to law, would "no agreement" be adequate >> disclosure in this situation. >> > > Not even close IMO - I think L75C requires at least the level of > disclosure I gave. Had opps been less knowledgeable I'd have added that > juniors play WJOs and money players IJO+. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 30 03:27:51 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:27:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <200703291457.l2TEvu82004506@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703291457.l2TEvu82004506@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <460C6797.1000701@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > The cloudy whale (or De Wael) problem is, of course, that > partner's decision to over-ride my signoff in 4S with a 4NT > call is inconsistent with her previous limit bid of 2NT. > > There are two obvious possibilities: > > (a) a wheel fell off somewhere in the auction, so pard is > desperately trying to signoff in 4NT, expecting notrumps to > score ten tricks but spades to score fewer, or > > (b) partner has discovered another ace during the auction, > so with a 23-count is catching up with Keycard Blackwood. Behind screens, you would be able to make your best guess and keep the result. > My expert RHO has a bad > habit of Spanish Inquisition interrogation of opponents > during the auction (a habit which verges on a Law 74A2 > infraction), so he did indeed enquire about the meaning of > partner's 4NT bid during the auction. I don't see what the first has to do with the second. He's entitled to inquire though not to be rude about it. Here it's to his advantage to inquire because it puts you into a UI position, where you may fail to benefit even if your guess is correct. Of course the inquiry should be about the whole auction, not the 4NT bid in particular. This is a good example for my suggestion that correct explanations should be AI or at worst a milder form of UI than incorrect explanations. It's interesting that, despite his attacks on Herman, Richard in the event chose the sort of explanation Herman has been suggesting. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 30 04:42:34 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:42:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] De Whale References: <200703291457.l2TEvu82004506@cfa.harvard.edu> <460C6797.1000701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004001c77275$13c27680$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > This is a good example for my suggestion that correct explanations > should be AI or at worst a milder form of UI than incorrect explanations. > Especially if the information is plainly disclosed on the convention card. Players should not be free to force an opponent to create UI unnecessarily. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 30 05:23:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:23:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460C6797.1000701@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I fail to see why it can be helpful (or even legal) to pretend not >to have an agreement, when apparently, two players agree on the >meaning of a call. Richard Hills: Herman is begging the question, petitio principii, by using the word "pretend". Herman is begging the question, petitio principii, by apparently using the phrase "agree on the meaning" as being always one-to-one identical with "lucky guess about partner's intentions". Herman De Wael: >There are two threads going on at the same time here, and you >Richard, seem to argue in both: >- is a player allowed to say "no agreement", when he has decided >what it should mean Richard Hills A player is allowed to say "no agreement" when there is no agreement, neither explicit nor implicit. For example, suppose that in your local club you are partnering an unknown local player for the first time. LHO opens 1C and partner bids a "no agreement" 2NT. You, LHO and RHO know that 50% of local players use 2NT here as 5/5 in the minors and 50% of local players use 2NT as 5/5 in the majors. RHO enquires about the meaning of 2NT. You are legally entitled to reply "no agreement" (although if RHO was a visitor from Ruritania you would also explain the two 50% possibilities). This "no agreement" response is legal even if you could make an informed guess about which option partner holds due to your own distribution. That is, you by Law should give the same "no agreement" response regardless of whether you hold two singletons in the majors, or alternatively you hold two singletons in the minors. Herman De Wael: >- is a player allowed to say "A", when there is no explicit >agreement in place. Richard Hills: Of course a player is allowed (indeed required) to say "A" when there is an _implicit_ agreement of "A" in place. Herman De Wael: >It seems to me that you are trying to disagree with me in two >opposite directions at once. > >Well, there go my chances for immigration into Australia ... >Not that I'd want to go live there, ever. I prefer to support the >underdogs at cricket. Go Ireland! Richard Hills: Go Bangladesh! (The original homeland of my favourite bridge partner, Hashmat Ali.) :-) 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 Fri Mar 30 09:04:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:04:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460CB696.8060802@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> You seem to be thinking of totally different cases here than what I >> do. I am thinking of cases like a 2Sp overcall over a 1D opening. Is >> it weak or strong? It can't be both, and an explanation "it could be >> weak or strong, but I'm bidding 4Sp" is manifestly unhelpful. It is >> either weak or strong, and opponents are entitled to know which one >> it is. > > No they aren't. They are entitled to know any agreements and implicit > understandings as to what it is. Indeed the last time I had this at the > table my explanation was "Undiscussed, but I know pard is a junior and > he knows I am a trad Acol money bridge player." We hadn't discussed it > and there was nothing on either CC. Opps were as well positioned as I > to know that either pard was expecting me to read it his way OR had > decided to play it my way. > You prove my point excellently. I have no idea what any of the words in your explanation above mean. Obviously your opponents at the time did, and they interpreted your sentence as "presumably weak" (or "presumably strong"). If instead of them, you had been playing against me at the time, you would have received from me a questioning look, or the question, "what the **** is trad Acol money?" and you would have explained further and said "presumably weak" (or "presumably strong"). That means that both your actual opponents and this fictitious me, in reality, received a full explanation that the call was meant to be weak (or strong). Now Tim, do you really believe that you would not tell me what trad Acol money means? Do you not think that if your opponents at the time would say to the director "he said Acol and in the only Acol book I read, that bid is strong", the director would tell you "Tim, you know these people are beginners, and you really could have added something like, ergo that bid is more likely to be weak", and rule against you? Does all this not negate what you say above? You believe that your opponents are not entitled to know "what it means", but yet you tell them "what it means", and you say that it's according to what the laws say. I believe that this is true in all cases like this. If you want to give your opponents all information, then you are telling them "what it means". So please stop argueing that I am wrong in saying that the laws oblige you to tell what your deduction is and agree with me. You would tell them exactly the same thing as I do! And you believe it's the laws that tell you to do so! > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 30 09:12:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:12:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460CB858.4070904@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Todd wrote: > >> I think this is a good example of good practice. You do >> know more than your opponents and you disclosed everything >> relevant and useful to the situation you could. This is a >> vast improvement from the practice of saying "no agreement" >> and leaving the discussion at that. >> >> But according to law, would "no agreement" be adequate >> disclosure in this situation. > > Not even close IMO - I think L75C requires at least the level of > disclosure I gave. Had opps been less knowledgeable I'd have added that > juniors play WJOs and money players IJO+. > Aha, so that is what it means! Well, then you need to update my previous post. No Tim, I do not believe you have given adequate information. You have been playing with this junior for half a session and by now you have come to some sort of agreement about whether you are playing junior style or money style. That is an agreement and it needs to be added to the explanation you gave. You know that there are 2 possibilities, and presumably so does your partner. He has gambled on you picking the right one, and you are about to be gambling on the same thing. When it turns out that you both gamble the same way - how are you going to convince the director that there were absolutely no clues that told you both what direction you were playing. Perhaps in the previous round you also had a bid that could be interpreted differently in the 2 systems. One of you made the call and at the end of the hand the other did not object and say "I'd prefer to play it the other way". That means you created an implicit understanding to play it the way that you both gambled later on. If I were the director, I'd rule that your opponents are entitled to your guess. "Your guess is as good as mine" is simply not true, when it turns out that your guess was correct and theirs wasn't. I still maintain that your opponents are entitled, by present law, to hear which of the two you believe it is. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 30 09:15:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:15:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20070329094333.02b4d420@pop.starpower.net> References: <200703261315.AA07940@geller204.nifty.com> <4607D377.000015.67167@CERAP-MATSH1> <00ef01c7701b$c57426a0$6400a8c0@rota> <4608C93F.30508@skynet.be> <4608E93D.4040100@t-online.de> <4608F935.4030809@skynet.be> <46092FFC.7070000@t-online.de> <460A1D43.6080807@skynet.be> <460A5E63.1050303@t-online.de> <460A6D4A.1040404@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070328143158.02ad1d30@pop.starpower.net> <460AE32A.1070200@skynet.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20070329094333.02b4d420@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <460CB906.5020609@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> You seem to be thinking of totally different cases here than what I >> do. I am thinking of cases like a 2Sp overcall over a 1D opening. Is >> it weak or strong? It can't be both, and an explanation "it could be >> weak or strong, but I'm bidding 4Sp" is manifestly unhelpful. It is >> either weak or strong, and opponents are entitled to know which one it is. > > I'm thinking of cases just like that. > > "It could be either weak or strong, and (knowing that) I (choose to) > bid 4S" is *precisely* the information that the opponents need to be > able to infer what Herman might hold to bid 4S, and to which they are > thus fully entitled. Either "It is weak; I bid 4S" or "It is strong; I > bid 4S" deprives the opponents of the information they need to take > those legitimate inferences, thus constitute blatant and intentional > misinformation. And those inferences about *Herman's* hand do not in > any way depend on whether or not Herman's explanation happens to match > Herman's partner's cards. > But that is precisely what I mean. If I say "it's weak", they can deduce what my hand looks like. If I say "it's strong", they can deduce another type of hand. If I don't say anything, they cannot deduce anything. I believe they ae entitled to know what my hand looks like, if at the end of the hand it turns out that my partner and I were on the same wavelength. You seem to be argueing in favour of less information, while accusing me of giving even less than that! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 30 09:34:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:34:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460CBD9A.6040203@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> I fail to see why it can be helpful (or even legal) to pretend not >> to have an agreement, when apparently, two players agree on the >> meaning of a call. > > Richard Hills: > > Herman is begging the question, petitio principii, by using the word > "pretend". Herman is begging the question, petitio principii, by > apparently using the phrase "agree on the meaning" as being always > one-to-one identical with "lucky guess about partner's intentions". > How is the director to know the guess is "lucky" and not "informed"? > Herman De Wael: > >> There are two threads going on at the same time here, and you >> Richard, seem to argue in both: >> - is a player allowed to say "no agreement", when he has decided >> what it should mean > > Richard Hills > > A player is allowed to say "no agreement" when there is no agreement, > neither explicit nor implicit. For example, suppose that in your > local club you are partnering an unknown local player for the first > time. LHO opens 1C and partner bids a "no agreement" 2NT. You, LHO > and RHO know that 50% of local players use 2NT here as 5/5 in the > minors and 50% of local players use 2NT as 5/5 in the majors. RHO > enquires about the meaning of 2NT. You are legally entitled to reply > "no agreement" (although if RHO was a visitor from Ruritania you > would also explain the two 50% possibilities). Yes Richard, if you are going to continue to make up examples that never happen to prove that there are situations in which you are right, then I'm afraid you're only strengthening my case. Consider the far more likely scenario in which you happen to know what club the stranger comes from, and you also happen to know that in that particular club, 80% plays it one way. Or the scenario under which you realize that in your club 80% plays it some way, and you have an inkling that your unknown partner also knows that and has complied. There are so many possible clues which might lead both of you to the same conclusion! As director, I am not going to search for those clues, but rather assume that they were there when you happen to guess correctly. Those clues need to be disclosed, and ergo it is better to also disclose the guessed meaning. I really don't understand why you're picking on me. This thread started with you guys giving ME flack for disclosing too little (by just saying the guess, not the background), but in the end it is you who is holding back from opponents vital information! > This "no agreement" > response is legal even if you could make an informed guess about > which option partner holds due to your own distribution. That is, > you by Law should give the same "no agreement" response regardless of > whether you hold two singletons in the majors, or alternatively you > hold two singletons in the minors. > I agree that the hand can give a vital clue to the possible meaning - and that you don't have to tell them when that is the reason for your guess. But how are you going to convince the director that this is the only reason for your guess? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 30 12:39:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460CB696.8060802@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > You prove my point excellently. I have no idea what any of the words > in your explanation above mean. Obviously your opponents at the time > did, and they interpreted your sentence as "presumably weak" (or > "presumably strong"). The opponents correctly interpreted my explanation as meaning "I know partner would normally play 2S as weak, he knows I would normally play it as Good Intermediate - but I don't know whether he would expect me to assume "his way" or he would assume "my way". > If instead of them, you had been playing against me at the time Had I been playing against you (an unknown foreigner) I would have given the explanation above rather than the explanation I gave my actual opponents (which they understood perfectly). >, you would have received from me a questioning > look, or the question, "what the **** is trad Acol money?" and you > would have explained further and said "presumably weak" (or > "presumably strong"). That means that both your actual opponents and > this fictitious me, in reality, received a full explanation that the > call was meant to be weak (or strong). But this last bit is simply wrong. I had no idea whether the call was intended as weak or Int+, I knew it would likely be one or the other, I knew why it would be one or the other. That was what I disclosed. > Now Tim, do you really believe that you would not tell me what trad > Acol money means? Herman, I wouldn't even use the term if I thought opponents wouldn't understand it. And of course I'd explain further if I misjudged and they appeared not to understand. > So please stop argueing that I am wrong in saying that the laws > oblige you to tell what your deduction is and agree with me. You > would tell them exactly the same thing as I do! And you believe it's > the laws that tell you to do so! But I wouldn't. I have told opps it is "either weak or Int+". My deduction (at the time) was "Personally I don't care whether it is weak or strong - I have 4 card support and some shape so I'm going to bid 4S." Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 30 12:39:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460CB858.4070904@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > No Tim, I do not believe you have given adequate information. You > have been playing with this junior for half a session and by now you > have come to some sort of agreement about whether you are playing > junior style or money style. Had that been the case I would have disclosed as such. But in the boards we had played this was the first one to arise where the systemic difference was significant. After the hand we agreed to play "juniorish when undiscussed". Playing with a different junior I have previously agreed "moneyish when undiscussed" - we genuinely had no reason to assume one or the other when the hand arose. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 30 13:24:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:24:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460CF35A.3070607@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >> No Tim, I do not believe you have given adequate information. You >> have been playing with this junior for half a session and by now you >> have come to some sort of agreement about whether you are playing >> junior style or money style. > > Had that been the case I would have disclosed as such. But in the > boards we had played this was the first one to arise where the systemic > difference was significant. After the hand we agreed to play "juniorish > when undiscussed". Playing with a different junior I have previously > agreed "moneyish when undiscussed" - we genuinely had no reason to > assume one or the other when the hand arose. > OK, I believe you. But it just proves my point: this happened once. All the other times, your implicit agreements included "juniorish". You obviously explained it as such. Which amounts to a full explanation. Really, we are not that far apart. You pretend there are a small number of cases where "undiscussed" is the truth, and you explain all others fully. I on the other hand believe that others than your extremely ethical self explain far more cases as "undiscussed", when such is not really the case. I maintain that the number of cases where "undiscussed" is the full truth is so small as to not warrant a particular advice to players. When players ask me what they should do when they are uncertain of their agreements, I advice them to take their best guess and explain that one. Your advice would seem to be to explain the whole background to the opponents and allow them to arrive at that same conclusion. If your full explanation points at only one meaning, and that is the same meaning as mine, then our advice turn out to be similar. The differences then are left as twofold: your advice would be to include the background, where I would leave that as optional; and my advice would include the conclusion, where you would leave that optional. In the second difference, I believe that I am totally right, in the first one I am less certain. If the explainer takes the alternative possible meaning into account when selecting his next bid, that alternative meaning should be explained as well. ("I believe it is weak, but just in case it is strong, I have raised it so that partner can complete the game" - not actually being said at the table of course). > 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 anna at ecats.co.uk Fri Mar 30 15:03:58 2007 From: anna at ecats.co.uk (Anna Gudge) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:03:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] the_De_Wael_Question References: <200703260937.AA07931@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <79B571C4586D894185D6A41AF6E3801D4DCFBB@garfield.ecats.co.uk> Thank you for this ... I have fixed the links - hopefully you will now find what you need. The page with all the links is at: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/wbfinfo/WBFlawscommitte/lawscommitt eeindex.asp Kind regards anna Read my blog at www.ecatsbridge.com (latest update 28 March) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Geller [mailto:geller at nifty.com] Sent: 26 March 2007 10:38 To: blml Cc: Herman De Wael; Anna Gudge Subject: Re:the_De_Wael_Question See below, also see attached file. -Bob 8. Actions authorised in the laws The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. Herman De Wael writes: >gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> See minute 8, WBFLC, 24th August 1998. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >Trying to find that on ECATS - link broken > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. For more information, connect to http://www.f-secure.com/ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 30 16:19:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:19:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: References: <460CB696.8060802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070330091227.02acb310@pop.starpower.net> At 05:39 AM 3/30/07, twm wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > So please stop argueing that I am wrong in saying that the laws > > oblige you to tell what your deduction is and agree with me. You > > would tell them exactly the same thing as I do! And you believe it's > > the laws that tell you to do so! > >But I wouldn't. I have told opps it is "either weak or Int+". My >deduction (at the time) was "Personally I don't care whether it is weak >or strong - I have 4 card support and some shape so I'm going to bid 4S." That, in a nutshell, is the fatal flaw in the "De Wael school" approach. Tim's opponents are absolutely entitled to the knowledge that when Tim bid 4S, he didn't care whether partner's bid was weak or strong. Herman would hide this critical piece of information from his opponents. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Mar 31 18:18:57 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:18:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <200703301450.l2UEoFJj003415@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703301450.l2UEoFJj003415@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <460E89F1.4000903@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > Tim's opponents are absolutely entitled to the knowledge > that when Tim bid 4S, he didn't care whether partner's bid was weak or > strong. Are you sure, Eric? It seems odd to me. Tim might bid 4S with any of the following reasons: 1) I don't care. 2) I'm betting partner is weak. 3) I'm betting partner is strong. Why are the opponents entitled to know which one he's thinking? I agree the opponents are entitled to all relevant partnership information and experience -- in this case, very little! -- but not Tim's conclusion, which after all depends on the cards he can see. As Herman has already noted, this is a poor example of where dWS differs from standard practice. Herman isn't talking about brand new partnerships as in Tim's example. For unfamiliar partnerships, the TD will accept "undiscussed" or similar answers such as Tim's quite proper one. The dWS advice is meant for partnerships that really do have an agreement, but the player is momentarily unaware what it is. In such partnerships, the TD is unlikely to accept "undiscussed" as being correct. The question is what the player is supposed to do, and Herman's advice is far from ridiculous. (I wish I'd followed it last week, when partner's understanding of our agreement and not mine turned out to be correct.)