From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Apr 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:01:00 +0200 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 Sun Apr 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for March 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 65 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 49 hermandw (at) skynet.be 46 twm (at) cix.co.uk 35 ehaa (at) starpower.net 31 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 23 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 22 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 20 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 17 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 17 svenpran (at) online.no 15 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 14 cibor (at) poczta.fm 13 john (at) asimere.com 11 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 11 adam (at) irvine.com 8 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 8 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 8 geller (at) nifty.com 6 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 6 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 5 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 4 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 4 ljtrent (at) adelphia.net 4 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 4 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 3 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 3 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 3 joanandron (at) worldnet.att.net 3 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 schoderb (at) msn.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 2 david.g.martin (at) btinternet.com 2 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 2 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 1 mustikka (at) charter.net 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 emu (at) fwi.net.au 1 anne (at) baa-lamb.co.uk 1 anna (at) ecats.co.uk 1 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 1 adam (at) tameware.com 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 J.P.Pals (at) uva.nl From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 1 04:18:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:18:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460C6797.1000701@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: This issue arose in the "De Whale" thread, but since it deals with a completely different topic I am starting a spinoff thread. * * * Richard Hills: >>>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. Steve Willner: >>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. Richard Hills: Oh, he (and at least two other experts at the Canberra Bridge Club with the same habit) eschew unparliamentary language. But they gain many imps and matchpoints by flustering nervous bunnies when they ask for minute details about consequences and implications which have never been thought about by the bunny partnership. Steve Willner: >>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. Richard Hills: Not 100% to his advantage. Gains on roundabouts can be counterbalanced by losses on swings. A question by my RHO could put his partner in a UI position, restricting my LHO when defending our eventual contract. 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. Marvin French: >Especially if the information is plainly disclosed on >the convention card. Players should not be free to >force an opponent to create UI unnecessarily. Richard Hills: I agree everyone would benefit if system/convention cards were better designed, and if pre-alert disclosure of basic system and frequent unexpected conventions was mandatory at the start of each round. In my opinion correct explanations becoming AI would be a cure worse than the disease in an expert tournament. I am warming to an ACBL Board of Directors suggestion that, in a novice tournament, players should be allowed to refer to their own system/convention card at all times, which would ensure that novice bids and novice explanations were consistent with the written 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 1 05:15:02 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:15:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps (Butler Pairs) Dlr: North Vul: North-South A972 T7652 92 98 QJ643 5 4 AJ83 QJ85 AK6 765 AKJ32 KT8 KQ9 T743 QT4 The bidding proceeds: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard --- Pass 1C (1) Pass 1S Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3C (3) Pass 3D (4) Pass 3S (5) Pass 4H (6) Pass 4S (7) Pass 4NT(8) 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. But alerted and explained (upon request of RHO) as Puppet Stayman. Following the requirements of Law 75D2, I maintained my usual vacant expression. (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). Due to the misinterpretation of 3C as Puppet Stayman, partner fondly thought she was showing an unspecified 4-card major. I alerted 3D because of our up-the-line agreement. RHO (and pard) thought I was alerting due to 3D being a Puppet Stayman response, so RHO did not bother enquiring about this call. (5) Natural, 5 spades, choice of contracts between NT and spades. Alerted and explained (upon request of RHO) as showing 4 hearts and denying 4 spades. (6) 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. Not alerted, due to the ABF Alert Regulation defining calls above 3NT as "self-alerting". (7) Up to this point partner has not received any UI to awaken her to a wheel falling off. But my somewhat unusual 4S was AI which caused her to wake up. She initially thought that I might have forgotten Puppet Stayman but, on re-examining the bidding box cards, realised to her horror that she was the one who had gotten a bog-standard checkback sequence wrong. She therefore pressed the eject button with 4NT, in a desperate hope that I would interpret 4NT as a signoff. (8) 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. Since I had UI that a wheel had fallen off, thus UI that 4NT was intended as a natural signoff, my only legal logical alternative was to respond 5C (0 or 3 keycards) to Keycard Blackwood in spades. And, of course, partner passed my 5C response to "Blackwood". My virtue was rewarded, since 5C is the only East-West game which makes against any defence. :-) 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 Apr 1 05:36:14 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 04:36:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] I am warming to an ACBL Board of Directors suggestion that, in a novice tournament, players should be allowed to refer to their own system/convention card at all times, which would ensure that novice bids and novice explanations were consistent with the written card. {Nigel] I've made similar proposals in BLML: that if a pair adopt an untrammelled *standard system* convention card (or one with deletions but no additions) then they should not be penalised for misinformation; but it is even better to allow them to consult the card, as Richard suggests. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 1 06:00:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:00:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An problem with the standard WBF Victory Point scale is the issue of "breakage". That is, the majority of imps scored are worth nothing, but a minority of particular imps are worth a full victory point. For example, if to gain 17-13 VP win you need 6-8 imps, your sixth imp is worth a victory point, but your seventh imp or eighth imp are arbitrarily deemed to be irrelevant. Another problem with the standard WBF Victory Point is that the scale is too compressed. With only 26 possible VP scores for a team (and the majority of VP results in teams matches resulting in more bunched possibilities), it is quite likely for two or more teams to have an exact tie for a critical place. One solution is to convert imps to VPs on the basis of 1 imp = 1 VP. This is also less than satisfactory, since it excessively rewards those expert teams who regularly narrowly lose to other expert teams, but also regularly bunny bash weaker teams by huge margins. My local Bridge Federation of the ACT is experimenting with fractional VPs, retaining the logarithmic nature of the WBF Victory Point scale, but ensuring that each individual imp is worth something. Here is the BFACT modification of the WBF Victory Point scale for 9-board matches: Imp difference Winning VPs Losing VPs 0 15.00 15.00 1 15.30 14.70 2 15.65 14.35 3 15.95 14.05 4 16.15 13.85 5 16.40 13.60 6 16.65 13.35 7 16.90 13.10 8 17.20 12.80 9 17.55 12.45 10 17.90 12.10 11 18.25 11.75 12 18.60 11.40 13 18.95 11.05 14 19.30 10.70 15 19.65 10.35 16 20.00 10.00 17 20.35 09.65 18 20.70 09.30 19 21.05 08.95 20 21.40 08.60 21 21.75 08.25 22 22.10 07.90 23 22.45 07.55 24 22.80 07.20 25 23.15 06.85 26 23.50 06.50 27 23.80 06.20 28 24.10 05.90 29 24.40 05.60 30 24.70 05.30 31 25.00 05.00 32 25.00 04.75 33 25.00 04.50 34 25.00 04.25 35 25.00 04.00 36 25.00 03.75 37 25.00 03.50 38 25.00 03.25 39 25.00 03.00 40 25.00 02.75 41 25.00 02.50 42 25.00 02.25 43 25.00 02.00 44 25.00 01.80 45 25.00 01.60 46 25.00 01.40 47 25.00 01.20 48 25.00 01.00 49 25.00 00.80 50 25.00 00.60 51 25.00 00.40 52 25.00 00.20 53 25.00 00.00 Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Sun Apr 1 13:27:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:27:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460F971F.70804@skynet.be> The problem Richard describes has many solutions, but one of the main drawbacks I see is this one: Why stop there? Why not also create a difference between 0 points and 10 points difference (currently both 0IMP). And then, why not create a difference between 2S+1 and 3S= (currently both 140)? And why not give an extra point if you can make the 9th trick on an endplay rather than having it received through a favorable lead? One of the advantages of rounding is that some decisions do not matter all that much. An overtrick may not cost a championship. And specifically, ruling becomes less of a problem. If you award 4S+1, the players will not necessarily appeal and ask for 4S+2 if they know it won't bring them an extra VP. At some point rounding must be acceptable and accepted. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > An problem with the standard WBF Victory Point > scale is the issue of "breakage". That is, the > majority of imps scored are worth nothing, but > a minority of particular imps are worth a full > victory point. > > For example, if to gain 17-13 VP win you need > 6-8 imps, your sixth imp is worth a victory > point, but your seventh imp or eighth imp are > arbitrarily deemed to be irrelevant. > > Another problem with the standard WBF Victory > Point is that the scale is too compressed. > > With only 26 possible VP scores for a team (and > the majority of VP results in teams matches > resulting in more bunched possibilities), it is > quite likely for two or more teams to have an > exact tie for a critical place. > > One solution is to convert imps to VPs on the > basis of 1 imp = 1 VP. This is also less than > satisfactory, since it excessively rewards > those expert teams who regularly narrowly lose > to other expert teams, but also regularly bunny > bash weaker teams by huge margins. > > My local Bridge Federation of the ACT is > experimenting with fractional VPs, retaining the > logarithmic nature of the WBF Victory Point > scale, but ensuring that each individual imp is > worth something. Here is the BFACT modification > of the WBF Victory Point scale for 9-board > matches: > > Imp difference Winning VPs Losing VPs > 0 15.00 15.00 > 1 15.30 14.70 > 2 15.65 14.35 > 3 15.95 14.05 > 4 16.15 13.85 > 5 16.40 13.60 > 6 16.65 13.35 > 7 16.90 13.10 > 8 17.20 12.80 > 9 17.55 12.45 > 10 17.90 12.10 > 11 18.25 11.75 > 12 18.60 11.40 > 13 18.95 11.05 > 14 19.30 10.70 > 15 19.65 10.35 > 16 20.00 10.00 > 17 20.35 09.65 > 18 20.70 09.30 > 19 21.05 08.95 > 20 21.40 08.60 > 21 21.75 08.25 > 22 22.10 07.90 > 23 22.45 07.55 > 24 22.80 07.20 > 25 23.15 06.85 > 26 23.50 06.50 > 27 23.80 06.20 > 28 24.10 05.90 > 29 24.40 05.60 > 30 24.70 05.30 > 31 25.00 05.00 > 32 25.00 04.75 > 33 25.00 04.50 > 34 25.00 04.25 > 35 25.00 04.00 > 36 25.00 03.75 > 37 25.00 03.50 > 38 25.00 03.25 > 39 25.00 03.00 > 40 25.00 02.75 > 41 25.00 02.50 > 42 25.00 02.25 > 43 25.00 02.00 > 44 25.00 01.80 > 45 25.00 01.60 > 46 25.00 01.40 > 47 25.00 01.20 > 48 25.00 01.00 > 49 25.00 00.80 > 50 25.00 00.60 > 51 25.00 00.40 > 52 25.00 00.20 > 53 25.00 00.00 > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6223 9052 > > 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Apr 1 19:07:19 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:07:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition Message-ID: <460FE6C7.5020506@cfa.harvard.edu> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Oh, he (and at least two other experts ... > gain many imps and matchpoints by > flustering nervous bunnies when they ask for minute > details about consequences and implications I don't have any good solution to this one; the bunnies are just going to have to learn to answer questions without getting nervous and to call the TD if there's a problem. > In my opinion correct explanations becoming AI would be > a cure worse than the disease in an expert tournament. I'm curious what you perceive the problems to be. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Apr 1 19:20:10 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:20:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Thai braking Message-ID: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> > An problem with the standard WBF Victory Point > scale is ... the > majority of imps scored are worth nothing, but > a minority of particular imps are worth a full > victory point. ... > Another problem with the standard WBF Victory > Point is that the scale is too compressed. I think you mean "too nearly linear." The WBF scale is much closer to linear than logarithmic, and log is probably not the right functional form anyway. For alternatives, you might want to look at the "Bethe" VP scales, which have the merit of a clear mathematical justification. I believe the EBU scales are similar but not identical to Bethe. Bethe scales for 3-10 boards are in Appendix V of http://usbf.org/docs/COC/usbc2003final.pdf I'm fairly sure the underlying derivation was posted here on BLML, no doubt before 2003. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Apr 1 20:45:02 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:45:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460FFDAE.7090302@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] An problem with the standard WBF Victory Point scale is the issue of "breakage". That is, the majority of imps scored are worth nothing, but a minority of particular imps are worth a full victory point. For example, if to gain 17-13 VP win you need 6-8 imps, your sixth imp is worth a victory point, but your seventh imp or eighth imp are arbitrarily deemed to be irrelevant. Another problem with the standard WBF Victory Point is that the scale is too compressed. With only 26 possible VP scores for a team (and the majority of VP results in teams matches resulting in more bunched possibilities), it is quite likely for two or more teams to have an exact tie for a critical place. One solution is to convert imps to VPs on the basis of 1 imp = 1 VP. This is also less than satisfactory, since it excessively rewards those expert teams who regularly narrowly lose to other expert teams, but also regularly bunny bash weaker teams by huge margins. My local Bridge Federation of the ACT is experimenting with fractional VPs, retaining the logarithmic nature of the WBF Victory Point scale, but ensuring that each individual imp is worth something. Here is the BFACT modification of the WBF Victory Point scale for 9-board matches: Imp difference Winning VPs Losing VPs 0 15.00 15.00 1 15.30 14.70 2 15.65 14.35 3 15.95 14.05 4 16.15 13.85 5 16.40 13.60 6 16.65 13.35 7 16.90 13.10 8 17.20 12.80 9 17.55 12.45 10 17.90 12.10 11 18.25 11.75 12 18.60 11.40 13 18.95 11.05 14 19.30 10.70 15 19.65 10.35 16 20.00 10.00 17 20.35 09.65 18 20.70 09.30 19 21.05 08.95 20 21.40 08.60 21 21.75 08.25 22 22.10 07.90 23 22.45 07.55 24 22.80 07.20 25 23.15 06.85 26 23.50 06.50 27 23.80 06.20 28 24.10 05.90 29 24.40 05.60 30 24.70 05.30 31 25.00 05.00 32 25.00 04.75 33 25.00 04.50 34 25.00 04.25 35 25.00 04.00 36 25.00 03.75 37 25.00 03.50 38 25.00 03.25 39 25.00 03.00 40 25.00 02.75 41 25.00 02.50 42 25.00 02.25 43 25.00 02.00 44 25.00 01.80 45 25.00 01.60 46 25.00 01.40 47 25.00 01.20 48 25.00 01.00 49 25.00 00.80 50 25.00 00.60 51 25.00 00.40 52 25.00 00.20 53 25.00 00.00 [nige1] Brilliant Richard! Now that most competitions are scored on computer, fractional scales seem to be an improvement. Also, like BFACT, all VP scales should specify an earlier cut-off for winning than losing. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 1 23:21:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460CF35A.3070607@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > 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. Yes, it amounts to a full explanation - but there will be times when "juniorish" still includes two distinct possibilities and I won't be able to explain which one is more likely than the other (and neither will partner). > 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 don't pretend. I know. Playing on-line with pick-up partners "undiscussed" is often the whole truth. Sometimes "Undiscussed, but..." is the whole truth. > 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. And I don't disagree with that. If a pair feels damaged because they felt an answer of "undiscussed" was inadequate I will always investigate whether there is information that could have been added. If I find such information (and even it is only "partner usually plays at XXX where WJOs are pretty standard") I will then make a judgement as to whether the lack of additional information contributed to the damage. I just don't feel the best way to deal with inadequate disclosure is to force players to state guesses as certainties. > 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. My advice is to explain as best one can. If there is a level of understanding indicative of a single conclusion the explanation will include that conclusion. If there are two (or more) possible explanations one's best will be limited to explaining the background. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 2 00:29:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:29:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460F971F.70804@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >The problem Richard describes has many solutions, but one of the >main drawbacks I see is this one: > >Why stop there? Why not also create a difference between 0 points >and 10 points difference (currently both 0IMP). And then, why not >create a difference between 2S+1 and 3S= (currently both 140)? Richard Hills: Okay, let me see if I can follow Herman's objection. He seems to be suggesting that it is a "main drawback" to improve a _bad_ scoring method to a _better_ scoring method because a _best_ scoring method is not being adopted instead. Ergo, Herman seems to be arguing that zero improvement is preferable to partial improvement. Well, at least I cannot answer this De Wael argument with my constant cry of "petitio principii". Perhaps "reductio ad absurdum"? :-) Herman De Wael: >And why not give an extra point if you can make the 9th trick on an >endplay rather than having it received through a favorable lead? Richard Hills: The reason I pay table money at my local bridge club is for the psychological gratification of exercising my reasoning skills. I enjoy planning the gain of a 9th trick on an endplay even if the actual lie of the cards means that the endplay fails. :-) Herman De Wael: >One of the advantages of rounding is that some decisions do not >matter all that much. An overtrick may not cost a championship. Richard Hills: A large number of championships have been decided by one overtrick, one imp or one victory point. The huge disadvantage of rounding is that some overtrick decisions are _arbitrarily_ deemed to be meaningless, while other overtrick decisions are _arbitrarily_ deemed to be meaningful. Herman De Wael: >And specifically, ruling becomes less of a problem. If you award >4S+1, the players will not necessarily appeal and ask for 4S+2 if >they know it won't bring them an extra VP. Richard Hills: Yes, of course players should be scored on a sloppy and inferior Victory Point scale so that lazy Directors have more scope to award sloppy and inferior adjusted scores. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Mon Apr 2 02:11:08 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 01:11:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006a01c774bb$69c51ae0$0701a8c0@john> > form anyway. > > For alternatives, you might want to look at the "Bethe" VP scales, which > have the merit of a clear mathematical justification. I believe the EBU > scales are similar but not identical to Bethe. The EBU scales are nothing like the Bethe ones. They divide all outcomes into equal probability, so a score of 19-1 occurs as often as 11-9. the Bethe scales do exactly the opposite, bunching scores round average even more so than the raw imps score. Utterly pointless IMO. The Oz ones are a waste of space too, might just as well use capped imps. That doesn't mean I think the EBU ones are best, although by spreading the field as much as possible they do home in on a winner a lot better than any other model. John > > Bethe scales for 3-10 boards are in Appendix V of > http://usbf.org/docs/COC/usbc2003final.pdf > I'm fairly sure the underlying derivation was posted here on BLML, no > doubt before 2003. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 2 14:17:52 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 05:17:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] Thai braking References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > An problem with the standard WBF Victory Point > > scale is ... the > > majority of imps scored are worth nothing, but > > a minority of particular imps are worth a full > > victory point. > ... > > Another problem with the standard WBF Victory > > Point is that the scale is too compressed. > > I think you mean "too nearly linear." The WBF scale is much closer to > linear than logarithmic, and log is probably not the right functional > form anyway. > > For alternatives, you might want to look at the "Bethe" VP scales, which > have the merit of a clear mathematical justification. I believe the EBU > scales are similar but not identical to Bethe. > > Bethe scales for 3-10 boards are in Appendix V of > http://usbf.org/docs/COC/usbc2003final.pdf > I'm fairly sure the underlying derivation was posted here on BLML, no > doubt before 2003. Bethe's approach gives every imp a vp value (up to a certain maximum). This "experiment" is now mature enough that it should be universally employed. Some on the C&C committee were worried that lower-level players would object to seeing decimal points in the vp scale. That's easily solved by rounding the scale shown on the ACBL convention card (but not in the computer), telling players that the computer will be more exact. The vp total that players get will be a fairly close approximation to what the computer comes up with. I doubt that anyone would object to this. The ACBL continues to use the wrong divisor to make total scores more meaningful. My suggestion to use the number of results instead of the number of comparisons received no reply. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 2 03:28:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:28:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Nigel wrote: > [Richard Hills] > I am warming to an ACBL Board of Directors suggestion > that, in a novice tournament, players should be allowed > to refer to their own system/convention card at all > times, which would ensure that novice bids and novice > explanations were consistent with the written card. > > {Nigel] > I've made similar proposals in BLML: that if a pair adopt an > untrammelled *standard system* convention card (or one with deletions > but no additions) then they should not be penalised for > misinformation; > but it is even better to allow them to consult the card, as Richard > suggests. "A pair" is not the same thing as "players in a novice tournament". From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Apr 3 00:31:55 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:31:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070402151815.01b744f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> As Richard says t 09:00 PM 31/03/2007, you wrote: >An problem with the standard WBF Victory Point >scale is the issue of "breakage". That is, the >majority of imps scored are worth nothing, but >a minority of particular imps are worth a full >victory point. Not the only problem as pointed out by John Probst among others. I have been trying for many years to find who invented the WBF scale which has almost universal currency in Oz. Indeed, I was accused of using an "illegal" scale by one player when I used an "improved" scale of my own devising, some years ago. Congratulation to the Canberra Bridge Federation which seems to have finally "split the VP". Thai breaking indeed. Several years ago I recall about a 4 way tie occurred in a major competition. The tie was decided by local regulations which required each of the opponent's total VP scores to be totalled to see which one of the tied scores was the more worthy (i.e. they had played against better opponents). The advantage of the new system should be in making these arcane deliberations a thing of the past. Unfortunately, in Oz, where master points are the desideratum of all tournament players, a teams match is at present deemed to be drawn if the result is less than 0.2 IMP per board. For the 9 board match, this is rounded up to 2 IMP, which I note from the scale to be a 15.65/14.35 division of the available VPs. When we have discovered that VP's are divisible, can it be long before the same applies to the masterpoints? What next? I use a divisible scale even for IMPs (suggested by de Wael who was quick to promote the end of the world if VP's were allowed in non integral lumps). I think I will take another glass of my prescription now, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From tzimnoch at comcast.net Mon Apr 2 08:49:47 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:49:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4610A78B.4060006@comcast.net> Marvin French wrote: > Bethe's approach gives every imp a vp value (up to a certain > maximum). This "experiment" is now mature enough that it > should be universally employed. Some on the C&C committee > were worried that lower-level players would object to seeing > decimal points in the vp scale. That's easily solved by > rounding the scale shown on the ACBL convention card (but > not in the computer), telling players that the computer will > be more exact. The vp total that players get will be a > fairly close approximation to what the computer comes up > with. I doubt that anyone would object to this. You've seen the huddled masses around the score board between rounds of an ACBL Swiss, haven't you? They want to know at every moment how much they've got and how far behind first they are. You'll probably find a large objection until you figure a convenient way to display accurate scoring before the next round starts. -Todd From tzimnoch at comcast.net Mon Apr 2 08:56:43 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:56:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070402151815.01b744f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20070402151815.01b744f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4610A92B.4060509@comcast.net> Tony Musgrove wrote: > When we have discovered that VP's are divisible, can it be long > before the same applies to the masterpoints? What next? I > use a divisible scale even for IMPs (suggested by de Wael who > was quick to promote the end of the world if VP's were allowed > in non integral lumps). > > I think I will take another glass of my prescription now, The scale Richard listed is the same as using a 500-point VP scale with the first imp worth 6 VPs and the second imp worth 7 VPs (a rounding error, I'm sure). I think people are just generally less scared of decimals than they are of large numbers. Maybe this explains why Italy was willing to abandon the Lira in favor of the Euro. -Todd From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Apr 3 01:46:07 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:46:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <4610A78B.4060006@comcast.net> References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <4610A78B.4060006@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070402164312.01bc9330@mail.optusnet.com.au> quoth Tod: > You've seen the huddled masses around the score board >between rounds of an ACBL Swiss, haven't you? They want to >know at every moment how much they've got and how far behind >first they are. You'll probably find a large objection >until you figure a convenient way to display accurate >scoring before the next round starts. In the 21st century, you will find the results of each hand wirelessly transmitted to the central computer, which will give you the result of each match before you return to your teammates. More time to apportion the blame. You will see the final results to any number of decimals and the next draw as soon as the last match finishes. Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 2 10:06:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:06:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> The problem Richard describes has many solutions, but one of the >> main drawbacks I see is this one: >> >> Why stop there? Why not also create a difference between 0 points >> and 10 points difference (currently both 0IMP). And then, why not >> create a difference between 2S+1 and 3S= (currently both 140)? > > Richard Hills: > > Okay, let me see if I can follow Herman's objection. He seems to be > suggesting that it is a "main drawback" to improve a _bad_ scoring > method to a _better_ scoring method because a _best_ scoring method > is not being adopted instead. Ergo, Herman seems to be arguing that > zero improvement is preferable to partial improvement. > > Well, at least I cannot answer this De Wael argument with my constant > cry of "petitio principii". Perhaps "reductio ad absurdum"? > > :-) > Yes indeed. Getting changes like this adopted by committees who are basically conservative is a lot of work. No need to do half jobs then. The main point this is trying to "solve" is the rounding. There is then no need to go to a system that just puts the rounding in another place. First you need to see if rounding is really that bad, and if you think it is, do away with it altogether! My main point of contention with the current system of counting is that it is so terribly complicated! Try and explain this to any non-bridge player and you'll get big eyes indeed. And the complications are there to solve problems that existed in the past, but no longer apply today. Why indeed do we want to have a 30-point VP-scale? We clearly don't want to just tally wins and losses, that's certain. But why limit a win to 25? In a good competition, everybody plays everybody, and with the same boards! So why not do away with a scale that is basically just a linear transformation from the IMP-difference. And then to go one better - do we really need the IMP-transformations? Yes, we do, because we feel that the scoring table overvalues games and slams in realtion to overtricks. But could we not do the same by altering the scoring table instead? I believe that for the sake of simplicity, a few small changes in the scoring table should be accepted, making all further translations (IMPs and VPs) unnecessary. You could come off the table, add all your total points, and compare with the total points from the other table and decide you've won the match by 370 points! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 2 11:21:33 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:21:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@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: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > {Nigel] > > I've made similar proposals in BLML: that if a > > pair adopt an untrammelled *standard system* > > convention card (or one with deletions but no > > additions) then they should not be penalised for > > misinformation; but it is even better to allow them > > to consult the card, as Richard suggests. > > (Ed) > "A pair" is not the same thing as "players in a novice > tournament". > +=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation were to allow a player to consult his own convention card when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for a literal interpretation of L40E2.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 2 12:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation > were to allow a player to consult his own convention card > when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for > a literal interpretation of L40E2.) My initial reaction is "Why would this be necessary?" - if the answer is on the CC an opponent can look it up for himself. My secondary reaction is that a visually impaired opponent may have a problem with this (but then that should be dealt with under specific rules for the impaired rather than general rules). If one has a very long CC/system notes I don't believe the current laws forbid one from flicking to the appropriate page and saying "the answer is about here" - providing one doesn't consult the CC while so doing. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 2 13:44:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:44:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4610ECB8.1080102@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott 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: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:28 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish > Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> {Nigel] >>> I've made similar proposals in BLML: that if a >>> pair adopt an untrammelled *standard system* >>> convention card (or one with deletions but no >>> additions) then they should not be penalised for >>> misinformation; but it is even better to allow them >>> to consult the card, as Richard suggests. >> (Ed) >> "A pair" is not the same thing as "players in a novice >> tournament". >> > +=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation > were to allow a player to consult his own convention card > when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for > a literal interpretation of L40E2.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > What would be the point? If he does consult it, he would be deemed to have forgotten his agreement. His partner would have UI, his opponents useful (non-entitled) information. This is exactly the same situation as if he simply tells the table he is uncertain and gives the CC to his opponents to search for the meaning. But, in addition, the player would now have UI as to the meaning of partner's call, and this UI would force him to misinterpret it. At least, without looking, he has some chance of getting the meaning correct. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 14:36:37 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:36:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> References: <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 02/04/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > > > >> The problem Richard describes has many solutions, but one of the > >> main drawbacks I see is this one: > >> > >> Why stop there? Why not also create a difference between 0 points > >> and 10 points difference (currently both 0IMP). And then, why not > >> create a difference between 2S+1 and 3S= (currently both 140)? > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Okay, let me see if I can follow Herman's objection. He seems to be > > suggesting that it is a "main drawback" to improve a _bad_ scoring > > method to a _better_ scoring method because a _best_ scoring method > > is not being adopted instead. Ergo, Herman seems to be arguing that > > zero improvement is preferable to partial improvement. > > > > Well, at least I cannot answer this De Wael argument with my constant > > cry of "petitio principii". Perhaps "reductio ad absurdum"? > > > > :-) > > > > Yes indeed. Getting changes like this adopted by committees who are > basically conservative is a lot of work. No need to do half jobs then. > The main point this is trying to "solve" is the rounding. There is > then no need to go to a system that just puts the rounding in another > place. First you need to see if rounding is really that bad, and if > you think it is, do away with it altogether! > > My main point of contention with the current system of counting is > that it is so terribly complicated! Try and explain this to any > non-bridge player and you'll get big eyes indeed. And the > complications are there to solve problems that existed in the past, > but no longer apply today. Why indeed do we want to have a 30-point > VP-scale? We clearly don't want to just tally wins and losses, that's > certain. But why limit a win to 25? In a good competition, everybody > plays everybody, and with the same boards! So why not do away with a > scale that is basically just a linear transformation from the > IMP-difference. > > And then to go one better - do we really need the IMP-transformations? > Yes, we do, because we feel that the scoring table overvalues games > and slams in realtion to overtricks. But could we not do the same by > altering the scoring table instead? > > I believe that for the sake of simplicity, a few small changes in the > scoring table should be accepted, making all further translations > (IMPs and VPs) unnecessary. You could come off the table, add all your > total points, and compare with the total points from the other table > and decide you've won the match by 370 points! That's really going back to the stone age (1930's). If you don't make a major change in the scoring table, this means that the big boards (slams and zip numbers from contract going several down doubled) will weigh far more than they do in todays IMP scale, where in fact overtricks and small differences are overvalued. IMO, todays IMP scale is rather OK when it comes to how the scores are differentiated. Using decimals is OK to me. The main point in converting to VP's is to put a limit on how much you can score by trounching one opponent. The VP scale works fine in this regard, but there's a small problem with the steps (decimals would work better even here, I agree). I believe we'll always want to have different types of scoring (MP/IMP's/other). Thus I don't think it's a great idea to change the scoring table to avoid conversion to MP/IMP/other. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 2 15:52:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:52:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070402154153.0216c860@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:36 2/04/2007 +0200, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > My main point of contention with the current system of counting is > > that it is so terribly complicated! Try and explain this to any > > non-bridge player and you'll get big eyes indeed. AG : try and explain baseball, cricket or ice skating scoring principles to the person in the street. Forget pelota altogether. No, this isn't the right argument. The only things a scoring method should strive at are fairness and competitive interest. The first objective says, for example, that the highest the difference in total points, the highest the IMP score on the deal should be. The second one is the basic reason for nonlinearity (as in : three 300 swings are more than a 900 swing). Any other feature of the scoring methods contains subjective elements - and that's why conservativeness is the usual attitude toward their adaptation. I'm with Herman on that one : if you somehow succeed in your attempt to have adjustments adopted, it'll take decades (English ones, not French ones) before any other adjustment could be just thought of, so try and cook up something really good at once. Best regards Alain > And the > > complications are there to solve problems that existed in the past, > > but no longer apply today. Why indeed do we want to have a 30-point > > VP-scale? We clearly don't want to just tally wins and losses, that's > > certain. But why limit a win to 25? In a good competition, everybody > > plays everybody, and with the same boards! So why not do away with a > > scale that is basically just a linear transformation from the > > IMP-difference. > > > > And then to go one better - do we really need the IMP-transformations? > > Yes, we do, because we feel that the scoring table overvalues games > > and slams in realtion to overtricks. But could we not do the same by > > altering the scoring table instead? > > > > I believe that for the sake of simplicity, a few small changes in the > > scoring table should be accepted, making all further translations > > (IMPs and VPs) unnecessary. You could come off the table, add all your > > total points, and compare with the total points from the other table > > and decide you've won the match by 370 points! > >That's really going back to the stone age (1930's). >If you don't make a major change in the scoring table, this means that >the big boards (slams and zip numbers from contract going several down >doubled) will weigh far more than they do in todays IMP scale, where >in fact overtricks and small differences are overvalued. > >IMO, todays IMP scale is rather OK when it comes to how the scores are >differentiated. Using decimals is OK to me. > >The main point in converting to VP's is to put a limit on how much you >can score by trounching one opponent. The VP scale works fine in this >regard, but there's a small problem with the steps (decimals would >work better even here, I agree). > >I believe we'll always want to have different types of scoring >(MP/IMP's/other). Thus I don't think it's a great idea to change the >scoring table to avoid conversion to MP/IMP/other. > >-- >Kind regards, >Harald Skj?ran > > > > > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 18:18:03 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:18:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0704020918q34e604b5ua400c0551d08b2f7@mail.gmail.com> > > +=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation > were to allow a player to consult his own convention card > when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for > a literal interpretation of L40E2.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Would the information gained from the card be authorized to that player? If not, it seems that checking of one's own convention card to give the answer would be deemed proof of UI---but UI of a nature and extent that would have to be self-reported and would otherwise be uniquely unknowable and unprovable. -Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 2 18:24:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:24:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46112E48.2070609@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 02/04/07, Herman De Wael wrote: >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> The problem Richard describes has many solutions, but one of the >>>> main drawbacks I see is this one: >>>> >>>> Why stop there? Why not also create a difference between 0 points >>>> and 10 points difference (currently both 0IMP). And then, why not >>>> create a difference between 2S+1 and 3S= (currently both 140)? >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Okay, let me see if I can follow Herman's objection. He seems to be >>> suggesting that it is a "main drawback" to improve a _bad_ scoring >>> method to a _better_ scoring method because a _best_ scoring method >>> is not being adopted instead. Ergo, Herman seems to be arguing that >>> zero improvement is preferable to partial improvement. >>> >>> Well, at least I cannot answer this De Wael argument with my constant >>> cry of "petitio principii". Perhaps "reductio ad absurdum"? >>> >>> :-) >>> >> Yes indeed. Getting changes like this adopted by committees who are >> basically conservative is a lot of work. No need to do half jobs then. >> The main point this is trying to "solve" is the rounding. There is >> then no need to go to a system that just puts the rounding in another >> place. First you need to see if rounding is really that bad, and if >> you think it is, do away with it altogether! >> >> My main point of contention with the current system of counting is >> that it is so terribly complicated! Try and explain this to any >> non-bridge player and you'll get big eyes indeed. And the >> complications are there to solve problems that existed in the past, >> but no longer apply today. Why indeed do we want to have a 30-point >> VP-scale? We clearly don't want to just tally wins and losses, that's >> certain. But why limit a win to 25? In a good competition, everybody >> plays everybody, and with the same boards! So why not do away with a >> scale that is basically just a linear transformation from the >> IMP-difference. >> >> And then to go one better - do we really need the IMP-transformations? >> Yes, we do, because we feel that the scoring table overvalues games >> and slams in realtion to overtricks. But could we not do the same by >> altering the scoring table instead? >> >> I believe that for the sake of simplicity, a few small changes in the >> scoring table should be accepted, making all further translations >> (IMPs and VPs) unnecessary. You could come off the table, add all your >> total points, and compare with the total points from the other table >> and decide you've won the match by 370 points! > > That's really going back to the stone age (1930's). No that's not what I mean. > If you don't make a major change in the scoring table, That' what I mean. IMPs were designed to change the weights of different factors in the scoring, rather than changing the scoring itself. This was done when duplicate was in its infancy and they did not want to change anything for the rubber players. Nowadays, duplicate is king - isn't it time we took control of the scoring table as well? > this means that > the big boards (slams and zip numbers from contract going several down > doubled) will weigh far more than they do in todays IMP scale, where > in fact overtricks and small differences are overvalued. > Not overvalued - given a more representative value. I believe the IMP values of the different contracts have shaped the way bidding theory has progressed. > IMO, todays IMP scale is rather OK when it comes to how the scores are > differentiated. Using decimals is OK to me. > > The main point in converting to VP's is to put a limit on how much you > can score by trounching one opponent. The VP scale works fine in this > regard, but there's a small problem with the steps (decimals would > work better even here, I agree). > Well, I for one don't see why one should not be able to reap the benefits from trouncing one opponent. Especially if everyone gets to play that opponent, and everyone gets to play the same boards. If you have two good boards in one match, chances are you score less VP from it than if those two boards were in different matches. > I believe we'll always want to have different types of scoring > (MP/IMP's/other). Thus I don't think it's a great idea to change the > scoring table to avoid conversion to MP/IMP/other. > My idea about changing the scoring table would include leaving the different contracts in the same order (more or less) so that pairs scoring would not be affected. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 2 18:34:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:34:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070402154153.0216c860@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070402154153.0216c860@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <461130A3.10406@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:36 2/04/2007 +0200, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >>> My main point of contention with the current system of counting is >>> that it is so terribly complicated! Try and explain this to any >>> non-bridge player and you'll get big eyes indeed. > > > AG : try and explain baseball, cricket or ice skating scoring principles to > the person in the street. Forget pelota altogether. No, this isn't the > right argument. The only things a scoring method should strive at are > fairness and competitive interest. > Last time I saw baseball, the end result was 9 runs against 5. Each run was clearly shown. Cricket has only 4 possible scores (real runs, 4,5,6 from boundaries or penalties) and the end total is just an addition (granted, to over 300). Ice skating used to be difficult, but they've simplified it and it's now just adding points. Only in bridge do we have three different kinds of points: scores, IMPs and VPs. Even someone who wants to watch something gets flabbergasted. Let alone a total stranger. Imagine a TV reportage where they try to show how Zia made a slam. Good TV. and the result? +1430, after which he won the match 19-11????? Now if he'd won the match by 1190, that's something to tell! > The first objective says, for example, that the highest the difference in > total points, the highest the IMP score on the deal should be. > The second one is the basic reason for nonlinearity (as in : three 300 > swings are more than a 900 swing). > Yeah, but now explain that in other terms. 3 swings of bidding a non-vulnerable game (+420 iso +170) is better than one swing of bidding a vulnerable slam (+1430 iso +680). =I've changed your numbers because this works out better - I don't know something easy that produces a 300 swing= With 250=6 and 750=13 we could also say: 2 swings of NV game are almost the same as one swing of V slam. Now if we make the NVgame bonus, say 300 points and the V slam bonus 650, then we have the same situation, without a need for IMPs conversion. See what I mean? > Any other feature of the scoring methods contains subjective elements - and > that's why conservativeness is the usual attitude toward their adaptation. > I'm with Herman on that one : if you somehow succeed in your attempt to > have adjustments adopted, it'll take decades (English ones, not French > ones) before any other adjustment could be just thought of, so try and cook > up something really good at once. > Indeed. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 2 18:43:45 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:43:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070402164312.01bc9330@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <4610A78B.4060006@comcast.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20070402164312.01bc9330@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <461132C1.3000705@NTLworld.com> In a round-robin (or Swiss teams event with duplicated boards), an alternative form of scoring is possible - a cross between match-points and point-a-board... [A] Calculate the match-point scores in the usual way. [B] For each team, add the North-South and East-West match points. This scoring method is a radical departure from normal teams/rubber bridge scoring but it does make each board count roughly the same and the fight for extra overtricks/undertricks again becomes relevant. An interesting and exciting spin-off is that, with an extra round or two at the beginning, you can combine teams with pairs and individual competitions, all scored on a similar basis. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 18:55:36 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:55:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats Message-ID: <2da24b8e0704020955l27487b3fg379c896cb1713288@mail.gmail.com> This post might be timely considering all the posts regarding scoring tables: Girben Dirksen, Alex Ogan and I are doing some work studying different formats for Swiss team type events. Our end goal is trying to determine how to make these events more "efficient". For the purpose of this discussion, we're assuming that efficient = accurate. Our only goal is to produce a system that is as accurate as possible in rating the various teams that participate. We're using a fairly simple methodology based on Monte Carlo simulation. We start by creating a set of virtual teams with known strength. (Team strength is assigned using a Gaussian distribution). We then have the teams compete against one another. At the end of the tournament, we're able to compare the sample statistic (the result of the tournament) with the population statistic (the known ranking of the teams). We can then vary the Conditions of Contest and see whether this improves or degrades the accuracy of the sample statistic. For the moment, we're using a very basic measure of "accuracy": (The average (objective) rank of the winning team). Long term we're planning to adopt a more sophisticated metric based on the statistical notion of the Coefficient of Determination (R^2). We've already produced one quite interesting result. We can significantly improve the accuracy of a tournament by "rear loading" the boards. Assume for the moment that a Swiss Teams event will consist of 72 boards distributed across 9 rounds. Format A holds round constant. Format B has Round 1 = 4 boards Round 2 = 5 boards Round 3 = 6 boards ... Round 9 = 12 boards Format C = Round 1 = 12 boards Round 2 = 11 boards Round 3 = 10 boards ... Round 9 = 4 boards >100000 Swiss team tournaments of 9 rounds, team 1 = strongest team, team 2 = next >strongest, etc. (from Gaussian distribution). Calculated AVERAGE TEAM NUMBER >of the winner. >8-board rounds: 2.86 >increasing round length (4 ... 12): 2.69 >decreasing round length (12 ... 4): 3.10 >Sounds like first-order proof that longer matches later on is a good idea. >Finally I tried 16 rounds (8 board less!) of 4 boards and got: 3.93 >I didn't use a VP table yet but instead a match result was IMPs/board * sqrt(boards) , >the formula on which the VP table is based. -- Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself," and the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 2 19:05:39 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:05:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <461137E3.9070707@NTLworld.com> {Nigel] I've made similar proposals in BLML: that if a pair adopt an untrammelled *standard system* convention card (or one with deletions but no additions) then they should not be penalised for misinformation; but it is even better to allow them to consult the card, as Richard suggests. [Ed Reppert] "A pair" is not the same thing as "players in a novice tournament". [Grattan Endicott]+=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation were to allow a player to consult his own convention card when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for a literal interpretation of L40E2.) [Nige2] My fault. Sorry. I didn't make myself clear: I was (again) proposing a *change* in the laws. By and large, it is learners who adopt the standard system and this suggestion benefits them in both novice and open tournaments. It encourages novices to start off on the right foot -- with properly completed convention cards. Of course, it may be of marginal benefit to experienced players who are prepared to adopt the simple standard system -- but many such players regard a simple system as too much of a handicap. Finally, you may start to penalize experienced players for forgetting their sophisticated systems -- thus reducing Bobby Wolff's dreaded "convention disruption." From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 2 20:40:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:40:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0704020955l27487b3fg379c896cb1713288@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0704020955l27487b3fg379c896cb1713288@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46114E06.3020805@skynet.be> Interesting first results Richard, how did you determine the results of the matches? I assume that the further the teams are apart, the less chances you give the weaker team of scoring a lot? richard willey wrote: > This post might be timely considering all the posts regarding scoring tables: > > Girben Dirksen, Alex Ogan and I are doing some work studying different > formats for Swiss team type events. Our end goal is trying to > determine how to make these events more "efficient". For the purpose > of this discussion, we're assuming that efficient = accurate. Our > only goal is to produce a system that is as accurate as possible in > rating the various teams that participate. > > We're using a fairly simple methodology based on Monte Carlo > simulation. We start by creating a set of virtual teams with known > strength. (Team strength is assigned using a Gaussian distribution). > We then have the teams compete against one another. At the end of the > tournament, we're able to compare the sample statistic (the result of > the tournament) with the population statistic (the known ranking of > the teams). We can then vary the Conditions of Contest and see > whether this improves or degrades the accuracy of the sample > statistic. > > For the moment, we're using a very basic measure of "accuracy": (The > average (objective) rank of the winning team). Long term we're > planning to adopt a more sophisticated metric based on the statistical > notion of the Coefficient of Determination (R^2). > > We've already produced one quite interesting result. We can > significantly improve the accuracy of a tournament by "rear loading" > the boards. Assume for the moment that a Swiss Teams event will > consist of 72 boards distributed across 9 rounds. > > Format A holds round constant. > > Format B has > > Round 1 = 4 boards > Round 2 = 5 boards > Round 3 = 6 boards > ... > Round 9 = 12 boards > > Format C = > > Round 1 = 12 boards > Round 2 = 11 boards > Round 3 = 10 boards > ... > Round 9 = 4 boards > >> 100000 Swiss team tournaments of 9 rounds, team 1 = strongest team, > team 2 = next >> strongest, etc. (from Gaussian distribution). Calculated AVERAGE TEAM NUMBER >> of the winner. > >> 8-board rounds: 2.86 >> increasing round length (4 ... 12): 2.69 >> decreasing round length (12 ... 4): 3.10 > >> Sounds like first-order proof that longer matches later on is a good idea. > >> Finally I tried 16 rounds (8 board less!) of 4 boards and got: 3.93 > >> I didn't use a VP table yet but instead a match result was IMPs/board > * sqrt(boards) , >> the formula on which the VP table is based. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 21:01:17 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 15:01:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <46114E06.3020805@skynet.be> References: <2da24b8e0704020955l27487b3fg379c896cb1713288@mail.gmail.com> <46114E06.3020805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0704021201o4429b086i5bb04b1fee783ea1@mail.gmail.com> >On 4/2/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Interesting first results Richard, > > how did you determine the results of the matches? I assume that the > further the teams are apart, the less chances you give the weaker team > of scoring a lot? Girben's the one who wrote the code (I didn't bother to look it over), however, here is a summary of the basic methodology. We are (essentially) using the same methods that baseball and the chess communities have adopted. We assume that the performance of a given team can be modelled as a normally distributed random variable with a known mean. (The mean corresponds to the skill level of the team). When team X and team Y compete against one another, randomly selected a "result" from their respective PDFs. You can then compare the two results to determine which of the two teams won the board. Repeat for N boards, and you know who won the round. Obviously, we're making a lot of simplifying assumptions. For example, one could make a claim that board results are auto-correlated with one another. Equally significant, the bridge scoring tables aren't smooth (game bonuses kink the curses). However, you need to start somewhere. Long term, once we manage to nail down the methodology we're going to attempt to make the model more realistic. (For example, we have big data sets that we can use to properly parameterize the model) -- Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself," and the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 3 00:42:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:42:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0704020955l27487b3fg379c896cb1713288@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >Girben Dirksen, Alex Ogan and I are doing some work studying >different formats for Swiss team type events. Our end goal is >trying to determine how to make these events more "efficient". > >For the purpose of this discussion, we're assuming that >efficient = accurate. Our only goal is to produce a system >that is as accurate as possible in rating the various teams >that participate. Richard Hills: A question more relevant to Swiss Teams where there is multiple qualification to _finals_ (as, for example, the Aussie National Open Teams, where 16 teams qualify from a Swiss to a knockout) is accurate determination of the _best_ teams, since accurate determination of mid-field or trailing teams is not necessary. For some decades now some chess tournaments have used the Accelerated Swiss method to, in theory, more accurately determine the _best_ chess players in a Swiss. I am not sure if this theory is correct, since when I created a WBF Victory Point translation of Accelerated Swiss, a computer analysis by Wayne Burrows apparently found it inferior to a normal Swiss. Of course, the assessment of "inferior" is dependent upon the parameters and assumptions that Wayne used in his program, so I would be interested in a further test of the Accelerated Swiss concept by the Willey / Dirksen / Ogan program. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 3 02:11:56 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:11:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <461137E3.9070707@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c775cd$bf514bb0$f3d8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Nige2] > My fault. Sorry. I didn't make myself clear: > I was (again) proposing a *change* in the > laws. > +=+ Even so. But it seems unlikely that the use of CCs would cease to be a matter of regulation rather than of law direct. ~ G ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 11:20:30 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:20:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <461132C1.3000705@NTLworld.com> References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <4610A78B.4060006@comcast.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20070402164312.01bc9330@mail.optusnet.com.au> <461132C1.3000705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 02/04/07, Nigel wrote: > In a round-robin (or Swiss teams event with duplicated boards), an > alternative form of scoring is possible - a cross between match-points > and point-a-board... > > [A] Calculate the match-point scores in the usual way. > [B] For each team, add the North-South and East-West match points. There already excist a form of scoring teams which combine board a match and IMPs or total score (this varies ), called Patton. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > This scoring method is a radical departure from normal teams/rubber > bridge scoring but it does make each board count roughly the same and > the fight for extra overtricks/undertricks again becomes relevant. > > An interesting and exciting spin-off is that, with an extra round or two > at the beginning, you can combine teams with pairs and individual > competitions, all scored on a similar basis. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From tkooij at tiscali.nl Tue Apr 3 11:58:21 2007 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:58:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I consider this to be an interesting idea. The outcome is not surprising but as often it needs a flexible/creative mind to come up with such an idea. And even more complicated, it needs flexible/inventive minds to implement such ideas. Thanks anyway. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: dinsdag 3 april 2007 0:42 To: rwilley at sloan.mit.edu Cc: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Willey: >Girben Dirksen, Alex Ogan and I are doing some work studying different >formats for Swiss team type events. Our end goal is trying to >determine how to make these events more "efficient". > >For the purpose of this discussion, we're assuming that efficient = >accurate. Our only goal is to produce a system that is as accurate as >possible in rating the various teams that participate. Richard Hills: A question more relevant to Swiss Teams where there is multiple qualification to _finals_ (as, for example, the Aussie National Open Teams, where 16 teams qualify from a Swiss to a knockout) is accurate determination of the _best_ teams, since accurate determination of mid-field or trailing teams is not necessary. For some decades now some chess tournaments have used the Accelerated Swiss method to, in theory, more accurately determine the _best_ chess players in a Swiss. I am not sure if this theory is correct, since when I created a WBF Victory Point translation of Accelerated Swiss, a computer analysis by Wayne Burrows apparently found it inferior to a normal Swiss. Of course, the assessment of "inferior" is dependent upon the parameters and assumptions that Wayne used in his program, so I would be interested in a further test of the Accelerated Swiss concept by the Willey / Dirksen / Ogan program. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 3 13:42:12 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:42:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5root6$1bgoec@in.mx.skynet.be> References: <5root6$1bgoec@in.mx.skynet.be> Message-ID: <46123D94.40008@skynet.be> Richard, I too find it an interesting idea. In the sake of flexible/inventive minds, allow me to make one suggestion: It may be difficult to explain the many different VP-scales needed for this formula. Could you investigate if simply allowing IMP-difference to determine the ranking would influence the outcome in a positive/negative way? We are currently looking at ameliorating the Final of the Flanders' Cup, which is currently a Swiss over 9 matches of 6 boards, with 64 teams! The better players are starting to complain that it is becoming a lottery. Maybe a chang such as this one could help! We don't really want to change the number of teams nor the lenghth of the final. ton kooijman wrote: > I consider this to be an interesting idea. The outcome is not surprising but > as often it needs a flexible/creative mind to come up with such an idea. And > even more complicated, it needs flexible/inventive minds to implement such > ideas. Thanks anyway. > > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 3 14:15:56 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:15:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461130A3.10406@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070402154153.0216c860@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070402154153.0216c860@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070403140744.02827be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:34 2/04/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > Cricket has only 4 possible scores (real runs, >4,5,6 from boundaries or penalties) and the end total is just an >addition (granted, to over 300). Try, just try, explaining some philistine : - that one side can only win by a margin of N runs, while the other can only win by a margin of X wickets ; - that you may score many more runs than the opposite side, yet draw the match ; - the D/L method ; - how extras are counted. And I don't even speak about records where you divide runs by innings, but not all of them. The first law of teaching, according to my methodology teacher, is : you'll always underestimate the difficulty of something you know well. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 3 14:21:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:21:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070403140744.02827be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070402154153.0216c860@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> <4610B972.7000608@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070402154153.0216c860@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070403140744.02827be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <461246E1.5060004@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 18:34 2/04/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Cricket has only 4 possible scores (real runs, >> 4,5,6 from boundaries or penalties) and the end total is just an >> addition (granted, to over 300). > > > The first law of teaching, according to my methodology teacher, is : > you'll always underestimate the difficulty of something you know well. > Which may well be why you don't believe Bridge scoring to be too complex. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 3 15:30:20 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:30:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com><007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <2b1e598b0704020918q34e604b5ua400c0551d08b2f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002901c775f4$4ebb3470$f8a887d9@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: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > +=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation > > were to allow a player to consult his own convention card > > when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for > > a literal interpretation of L40E2.) > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Would the information gained from the card be authorized to that player? > > -Jerry Fusselman > +=+ If an SO were to institute such a regulation I cannot imagine that the info would be anything but AI to all. But an SO who put such a possibility into being would have to say. I do not really see it happening, but at times I have to contemplate (and think through such eventualities). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 3 19:03:19 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:03:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><461137E3.9070707@NTLworld.com> <000001c775cd$bf514bb0$f3d8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004701c77611$fb063c80$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > ".... a simple game continually made difficult." > # David Fairclough. > =============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:05 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish > Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> [Nige2] >> My fault. Sorry. I didn't make myself clear: >> I was (again) proposing a *change* in the >> laws. >> > +=+ Even so. But it seems unlikely that the > use of CCs would cease to be a matter of > regulation rather than of law direct. Grattan, have you got lost in your use of multiple negatives in this sentence? > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 4 03:33:12 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:33:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <4610A78B.4060006@comcast.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20070402164312.01bc9330@mail.optusnet.com.au> <461132C1.3000705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46130058.7000204@NTLworld.com> [nige1] >> In a round-robin (or Swiss teams event with duplicated boards), an >> alternative form of scoring is possible - a cross between match-points >> and point-a-board... >> >> [A] Calculate the match-point scores in the usual way. >> [B] For each team, add the North-South and East-West match points. > [Harald Skj?ran] > There already excist a form of scoring teams which combine board a > match and IMPs or total score (this varies ), called Patton. > [nige2] We have similar hybrid scoring methods in the UK. {l] My suggestion isn't really a hybrid and has nothing to do with IMPs -- it is simple match-points - scored as in an ordinary match-pointed pairs competition. The score for a team is the sum of its North-South and East-West match-points. IMO this scoring method is better than board-a-match (or point-a-board) because it makes maximum use of available data to determine a winner -- all the scores at all tables contribute to your score. It also means that each hand is important. [2] A cruder method is available if you want to keep closer to current Teams play. Cross-imp the field and, for each team add the north-south and east-west cross-imps. Again this has the advantage of making maximum use of relevant data. Given a specified number of teams and a specified number of different boards for them all to play. My guess is that the form of competition that produces the "best" ordering is a Swiss Teams scored in one of the suggested ways. From geller at nifty.com Wed Apr 4 04:07:21 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:07:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <46130058.7000204@NTLworld.com> References: <46130058.7000204@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <200704040207.AA08082@geller204.nifty.com> A basic principle of science or indeed of measurement in general is not to strive for unnecessary precision. For example, if construction laborers are filling up 20kg bags of dirt it would be senseless to worry about measiring the weight with nonogram precision. Similarly, the inherent variability and randomness in bridge is sufficiently great that the present imp and VP scales are "good enough for government work." None of the improved fractional scales that have been suggested by the writers in this thread is unreasonable, but on the other hand I question whether they are necessary. In the first place, Swiss events have a huge luck factor, due to the randomness of the matches (greatly variable strength of opponents). Indeed, this is probably precisely why Swiss events are so popular with the paying customers. Given this randomness and uncertainty it seems out of proportion to worry about making miniscule adjustments in the imp or vp scales that would make them slightly more optimum (in a statistical sense) when the improvement is probably one significant digit or more below the inherent "noise level" anyway. -Bob >[nige1] >>> In a round-robin (or Swiss teams event with duplicated boards), an >>> alternative form of scoring is possible - a cross between match-points >>> and point-a-board... >>> >>> [A] Calculate the match-point scores in the usual way. >>> [B] For each team, add the North-South and East-West match points. >> [Harald Skj?an] >> There already excist a form of scoring teams which combine board a >> match and IMPs or total score (this varies ), called Patton. >> >[nige2] >We have similar hybrid scoring methods in the UK. > >{l] My suggestion isn't really a hybrid and has nothing to do with IMPs >-- it is simple match-points - scored as in an ordinary match-pointed >pairs competition. The score for a team is the sum of its North-South >and East-West match-points. IMO this scoring method is better than >board-a-match (or point-a-board) because it makes maximum use of >available data to determine a winner -- all the scores at all tables >contribute to your score. It also means that each hand is important. > > >[2] A cruder method is available if you want to keep closer to current >Teams play. Cross-imp the field and, for each team add the north-south >and east-west cross-imps. Again this has the advantage of making maximum >use of relevant data. > >Given a specified number of teams and a specified number of different >boards for them all to play. My guess is that the form of competition >that produces the "best" ordering is a Swiss Teams scored in one of the >suggested ways. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 3 18:56:12 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:56:12 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Thai_braking_=5BSEC=3DU?= =?iso-8859-1?q?NOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <461246E1.5060004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4612872C.000001.71451@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > The first law of teaching, according to my methodology teacher, is : > you'll always underestimate the difficulty of something you know well. > Which may well be why you don't believe Bridge scoring to be too complex. # Well, maybe, but I don't see a little complexity as a libaility, provided it's intended for fairness. What I spoke against was your claim that it was the only competition with subtle rules. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070403/427c1cab/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/20070403/427c1cab/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 19041 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070403/427c1cab/attachment-0001.gif From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 4 08:14:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:14:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704040207.AA08082@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: [snip] >In the first place, Swiss events have a huge luck factor, >due to the randomness of the matches (greatly variable >strength of opponents). Indeed, this is probably >precisely why Swiss events are so popular with the paying >customers. Richard Hills: Umm. My experience of variable strength opponents in Canberra-region country congress Swiss teams is that the luck factor is _not_ huge. My top-seeded team of Canberra raiders almost always justifies its seeding by winning. Of course, Canberra-region country congress Swiss teams have six or seven rounds of 8-board matches scored using the WBF "25" victory point scale. In ACBL-land seven rounds of 7-board matches using a primitive win/tie/loss victory point scale was once popular, and naturally that sort of victory point scale creates more random results. And, of course, the hugeness of the luck factor is directly proportionate to the ratio of number of rounds versus number of teams. Six 8-board rounds is adequate for 30-odd entrants. Seven 7-board rounds leads to huge luck for 300-odd entrants. Robert Geller: >Given this randomness and uncertainty it seems out of >proportion to worry about making minuscule adjustments >in the imp or vp scales that would make them slightly >more optimum (in a statistical sense) when the >improvement is probably one significant digit or more >below the inherent "noise level" anyway. Richard Hills: With that I agree. Even in a "balanced" multiple teams event, a double round-robin, there are minuscule changes between using a "one imp = 1 vp" (with upper and lower limits) or using the WBF "25" victory point scale. I once went to the trouble of such a comparative rescoring of the Aussie Interstate Teams qualifying to find zero difference in the finishing order of the eight teams involved in that double round-robin of 20-board matches. The big advantage of the Aussie Interstate imp=vp scale, or the Canberra fractional vp scale, is psychological. It is psychologically more satisfying to instantly know that you have failed to qualify by 0.75 vp than it is to wait on tenterhooks, then discover a loss by an arcane tiebreak rule. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 4 12:30:26 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:30:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><461137E3.9070707@NTLworld.com><000001c775cd$bf514bb0$f3d8403e@Mildred> <004701c77611$fb063c80$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@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: "John Probst" To: ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > From: "Nigel" > > To: "BLML" > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:05 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish > > Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > >> [Nige2] > >> My fault. Sorry. I didn't make myself clear: > >> I was (again) proposing a *change* in the > >> laws. > >> > > +=+ Even so. But it seems unlikely that the > > use of CCs would cease to be a matter of > > regulation rather than of law direct. > > Grattan, have you got lost in your use of multiple > negatives in this sentence? > +=+ I was taking care not to denigrate the powers of my colleagues, as by writing simply "It ain't gonna happen". ~ G ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Wed Apr 4 12:44:01 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:44:01 +0900 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <200704041044.AA08094@geller204.nifty.com> Or as we (ex) New Yorkers say, "Fuggedaboutit." Grattan Endicott ????????: > >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: "John Probst" >To: ; "BLML" >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:03 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> > From: "Nigel" >> > To: "BLML" >> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:05 PM >> > Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish >> > Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > >> > >> >> [Nige2] >> >> My fault. Sorry. I didn't make myself clear: >> >> I was (again) proposing a *change* in the >> >> laws. >> >> >> > +=+ Even so. But it seems unlikely that the >> > use of CCs would cease to be a matter of >> > regulation rather than of law direct. >> >> Grattan, have you got lost in your use of multiple >> negatives in this sentence? >> >+=+ I was taking care not to denigrate the powers >of my colleagues, as by writing simply "It ain't gonna >happen". ~ G ~ +=+ > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 5 06:43:22 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:43:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <461137E3.9070707@NTLworld.com> <000001c775cd$bf514bb0$f3d8403e@Mildred> <004701c77611$fb063c80$0701a8c0@john> <007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070404214216.01db0ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> >+=+ I was taking care not to denigrate the powers >of my colleagues, as by writing simply "It ain't gonna >happen". ~ G ~ +=+ I finally understand a Grattan sentence. Is this a record? Tony (former British colony) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 4 17:50:04 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:50:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><461137E3.9070707@NTLworld.com><000001c775cd$bf514bb0$f3d8403e@Mildred> <004701c77611$fb063c80$0701a8c0@john> <007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4613C92C.2090700@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Even so. But it seems unlikely that the use of CCs would cease to be a matter of regulation rather than of law direct. [John Probst] Grattan, have you got lost in your use of multiple negatives in this sentence? [Grattan2] +=+ I was taking care not to denigrate the powers of my colleagues, as by writing simply "It ain't gonna happen". ~ G ~ +=+ [nige1] A disappointment. Recently, in BLML, Grattan seemed to agree that the official law-book would comprise a *complete* set of bridge rules. Some of these would be "default" laws so that local jurisdictions would no longer be forced to plug the gaps in the law-book with local regulations and conditions of contest. It would not prevent local jurisdictions from rejecting the defaults and substituting their own regulations. Rules about disclosure seem ripe for inclusion in the law-book because it is so difficult for players to adjust to the regulations peculiar to each country in which they play. For example it should be easy to specify standard convention card formats and rules about their use that would suit most jurisdictions. A standard format card would also reduce language handicaps. The WBF card would be a good place to start (although we probably need slightly different cards for local and international competition -- and there should be completed card templates for widely played basic systems). There are minor problems with such a scheme but the WBFLC should be equal to the task of finding workable compromises. If they need any help they can always ask on-line sites such as BBO for advice. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 5 03:05:36 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:05:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition In-Reply-To: <200704021540.l32Few4w009769@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704021540.l32Few4w009769@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46144B60.3080807@cfa.harvard.edu> > Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation >>were to allow a player to consult his own convention card >>when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for >>a literal interpretation of L40E2.) I'd have said it would call for a change in L40E2, but perhaps I'm underestimating the ingenuity of the WBFLC or some SOs. From: Herman De Wael > If he does consult it, he would be deemed to > have forgotten his agreement. Even under current laws, I don't think this is correct, though the effect may be much the same. The player has violated L40E2, so we go to L12A1/12C2 and ask, in effect, what would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. I think, though, that Grattan's proposal was to make looking _legal_, and all the information seen would be AI. It is an interesting proposal, though quite a change from today's rules. > But, in addition, the player > would now have UI as to the meaning of partner's call, No, one's own system is always AI. If one comes by knowledge of it illegally, we deal with that infraction, not the knowledge itself. (There is one exception, which I've mentioned in response to Richard. He hasn't said why he thinks the current interpretation is so important.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Apr 5 03:13:05 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:13:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <200704031611.l33GB2KE021787@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704031611.l33GB2KE021787@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46144D21.7020505@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Could you investigate if simply allowing IMP-difference > to determine the ranking would influence the outcome in a > positive/negative way? I can't imagine it would make any significant change. The WBF VP scales are almost linear already. > We are currently looking at ameliorating the Final of the Flanders' > Cup, which is currently a Swiss over 9 matches of 6 boards, with 64 > teams! The better players are starting to complain that it is becoming > a lottery. I suspect the most effective single change one could make is to correct raw VPs for "strength of schedule." That is, teams should be credited if they have played against stronger opponents. Other than that, my guess is that small improvements are possible but not big ones. > From: Robert Geller > the inherent variability and randomness in bridge > is sufficiently great that the present imp and VP scales > are "good enough for government work." I tend to agree about the IMP scales. The WBF VP scale can undoubtedly be improved, though I doubt it will change outcomes by much in WBF play. (The near-linear scale is, however, wholly unsuitable for events that include a wide range of abilities.) Other changes in conditions of contest might have a significant effect. The reason for doing simulations is to test what matters and what doesn't. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 5 05:27:30 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:27:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460FE6C7.5020506@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In my opinion correct explanations becoming AI would be >>a cure worse than the disease in an expert tournament. Steve Willner: >I'm curious what you perceive the problems to be. Richard Hills: Try this case study. In the good old days, complex conventions were only used in uncontested auctions. Nowadays in many contested auctions complex conventions also appear. A case in point is two-suited overcalls such as the Michaels Cuebid. But in Australia there are at least three different regional variations on the Michaels Cuebid, and in Australia the system cards of those using one of those three regional variations usually merely lists "Michaels" in the relevant box. (But my pernickety habit is to write over-comprehensive details on my own personal system card, including an explicit definition of my version of the Michaels Cuebid.) If East does not enquire about the meaning of a "Michaels", East may enter the auction only to discover East has bid a suit promised by the "Michaels" bidder, and East goes for a penalty of -1100. If East does enquire about the meaning of a "Michaels", and Steve's AI rule for a correct explanation was in place, then the "Michaels" bidder gets an AI reminder that the partnership agreement is "Adelaide" Michaels rather than "Sydney" Michaels, so gains AI to take corrective action after their misbid of "Adelaide" Michaels. That is, Steve's proposed law change would mean that the East-West side opposing a North-South side using "Michaels" would be in a Catch-22 situation, either: (a) suffering through East's ignorance of the North-South methods, or (b) suffering through East giving an opponent an AI reminder of their North-South methods. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 5 05:39:28 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:39:28 +1200 Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives Message-ID: <2a1c3a560704042039t26edd395p5c30824c1d8c254@mail.gmail.com> >From the NOT News at the Canberra Summer Festival of Bridge. #1 NWT Rd 1, Bd 3; 12 tricks, NS ?1370 AQ97 7543 3 9873 KJ 2 AQJ2 K986 K9852 AQJT76 Q5 AK T86543 T 4 JT642 Dealer S, Vul EW S W N E P 1D P 2D P 2H P 3S P 4D P 4NT P 5H P 6D P P P There were no alerts. South had no possibility of describing the 6-5 as all 2-suited options were constructive. South asserted that she would have bid 4S over 2D had she been aware that the opponents were using "inverted minors". Director rule score stands and NS appealed. The AC agreed that this particular South may have bid 4S but determined that it was not an action that would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of experienced players in the field. ------------------------------------------ It seems to me that the AC is confusing MI with Logical Alternatives. The fact or opinion that other players would not bid 4S would seem to me to be irrelevant in determining whether this particular South was damaged by a failure to alert the inverted minor raise. To once the AC agree that South may have bid 4S then they must come to the conclusion that the failure to alert has caused damage. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 5 07:59:03 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:59:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46123D94.40008@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Richard, > >I too find it an interesting idea. [snip] >We are currently looking at ameliorating the Final of the Flanders' >Cup, which is currently a Swiss over 9 matches of 6 boards, with 64 >teams! The better players are starting to complain that it is becoming >a lottery. Maybe a change such as this one could help! We don't really >want to change the number of teams nor the length of the final. Richard Hills: Okay, I suggest keeping the length of the final constant, at 54 boards, but changing from a Swiss with 9 matches of 6 boards each, to an Accelerated Swiss with 6 matches of 9 boards. One part of Wayne Burrows' analysis that I am confident is true is that an Accelerated Swiss has a greater impact over a six round event than it has over a nine round event. (Wayne and I merely differ on whether an Accelerated Swiss has a beneficial impact, and what "beneficial" means.) Accelerated Swiss movement details are attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Accelerated Swiss Introduction Fifty years ago, most chess tournaments used the round-robin movement. As chess grew in popularity, time available for events made round-robin movements less feasible. Therefore, chess administrators progressively switched to a movement that approximates the round-robin movement, the Swiss movement. At the end of a Swiss, the results of the top few and bottom few contestants are relatively accurate. That is, had the same event been held as a giant round-robin, those top few and bottom few teams would have finished in closely similar places. However, the placings for the middle contestants at the end of a Swiss are highly random compared to what their placings would have been in a hypothetical giant round-robin. A dominant factor is the luck of the draw, and the timing of a contestant's victories. Each additional round of a Swiss expands the size of the top few and bottom few groups, and reduces the size of the random middle group. To gain an extra round of Swiss accuracy, chess administrators seeded their Swisses, ensuring that the best players in a chess tournament played against each other as soon as possible. However, as the numbers of contestants in chess tournaments increased, even seeded chess Swisses began to produce less meaningful results for the number of rounds available. Therefore, to add a further round of accuracy, chess administrators introduced the Accelerated Swiss movement. This article describes how the Accelerated Swiss movement has been adapted for a bridge teams event, using the WBF victory point scale. Executive Summary The Accelerated Swiss has two advantages: 1. Technical ? A seeded Swiss has an accuracy advantage over an unseeded Swiss equivalent to an extra round. An Accelerated Swiss gains a further round of accuracy, reducing the chances of a mediocre team ?swissing through the field?. 2. Psychological ? A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some weaker teams due to the first-round ?bloodbath?, where their teams get annihilated by Klinger, Marston etc. There is no bloodbath in the first round of an Accelerated Swiss, as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within their own group. Procedure Part A ? Overview and Round One draw 1. Seeding ? Seed the entire field. 2. Temporary carry-forward ? Give the top 50% of the seeds a temporary carry-forward of 10 vps. This carry-forward is used in determining the draw for both Round One and Round Two. After finalising the draw for Round Two, remove all of the temporary carry-forwards. The draw for Round Three and subsequent rounds will be a normal Swiss draw based on earned vps. 3. Round One draw ? The top quarter of the field is drawn against the second quarter of the field; the third quarter of the field is drawn against the fourth quarter of the field. Example 1: A draw where the field (100 teams) is divisible by 4: 1 vs 26 2 vs 27 ....?? 24 vs 49 25 vs 50 51 vs 76 52 vs 77 ???. 74 vs 99 75 vs 100 Example 2: Modified draw where the field (98 teams) is not divisible by 4: 1 vs 25 2 vs 26 ???. 23 vs 47 24 vs 48 49 vs 50 51 vs 75 52 vs 76 ???.. 73 vs 97 74 vs 98 Part B ? Round Two draw 1. Divide the field into three groups: ? Group 1 is initially defined as those teams with 35 vps to 26 vps (top seeded winners) ? Group 2 is initially defined as those teams with 25 vps to 15 vps (top seeded losers + bottom seeded winners) ? Group 3 is initially defined as those teams with 14 vps to 0 vps (mostly bottom seeded losers + a few top seeded annihilated teams) 2. Modify Group 1: ? If there are an even number of teams in Group 1, no modification is necessary ? If there are an odd number of teams in Group 1, add the bottom-seeded team with the biggest 25 vp result to Group 1 3. Modify Group 2: ? Group 2 should have exactly 50% top seeds and exactly 50% bottom seeds ? Transfer surplus teams from the lower end of Group 2 to Group 3 4. Round Two draw for modified Group 1: ? Group 1 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion 5. Round Two draw for modified Group 2: ? Group 2 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, but ? constraint: each pairing must be a top seed versus a bottom seed 6. Round Two draw for modified Group 3: ? Group 3 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, but ? constraint: top seeded teams must not be paired against each other 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 Apr 4 16:51:00 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:51:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com><007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><461137E3.9070707@NTLworld.com><000001c775cd$bf514bb0$f3d8403e@Mildred><004701c77611$fb063c80$0701a8c0@john><007b01c776a4$76e85440$1d9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.0.6.2.20070404214216.01db0ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000601c7774c$9f3c2f90$b3a387d9@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: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >+=+ I was taking care not to denigrate the powers > >of my colleagues, as by writing simply "It ain't gonna > >happen". ~ G ~ +=+ > > I finally understand a Grattan sentence. Is this a record? > > Tony (former British colony) > +=+ 'Paradigm' comes to mind. +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 5 08:57:45 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:57:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <46144D21.7020505@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704031611.l33GB2KE021787@cfa.harvard.edu> <46144D21.7020505@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46149DE9.1010702@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Could you investigate if simply allowing IMP-difference >> to determine the ranking would influence the outcome in a >> positive/negative way? > > I can't imagine it would make any significant change. The WBF VP scales > are almost linear already. > No, it would make a great difference. In the original suggestion, early matches would be of 4 boards, but scored on a 25-VP scale. Later matches would be of 6 boards, but also scored on a 25-VP scale. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 5 09:09:26 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:09:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4614A0A6.6010704@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Accelerated Swiss movement details are attached. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6223 9052 > > Accelerated Swiss > I would like to make this a little easier to handle. We already divide the field in 4 groups (call them A-B-C-D) and put them into sections of 4 teams based on geography (4 different parts of the country). We then play the first two rounds A-D and A-C. In the accelerated version this becomes: > > Part A ??? Overview and Round One draw > > 1. Seeding ??? Seed the entire field. > done. > 2. Temporary carry-forward ??? Give the top 50% of the seeds a temporary > carry-forward of 10 vps. This carry-forward is used in determining the > draw for both Round One and Round Two. After finalising the draw for Round > Two, remove all of the temporary carry-forwards. The draw for Round Three > and subsequent rounds will be a normal Swiss draw based on earned vps. > Forget it. The players would shout "why do they get 10 VP?". Not needed, I believe, if: > 3. Round One draw ??? The top quarter of the field is drawn against the > second quarter of the field; the third quarter of the field is drawn > against the fourth quarter of the field. > That's A-B and C-D in stead of what we do now. Good idea. > > Part B ??? Round Two draw > > 1. Divide the field into three groups: > > ??? Group 1 is initially defined as those teams with 35 vps to 26 vps > (top seeded winners) that's the winner of A-B > ??? Group 2 is initially defined as those teams with 25 vps to 15 vps > (top seeded losers + bottom seeded winners) That's the loser of A-B and the winner of C-D > ??? Group 3 is initially defined as those teams with 14 vps to 0 vps > (mostly bottom seeded losers + a few top seeded annihilated teams) > that's the loser of C-D > > 4. Round Two draw for modified Group 1: > > ??? Group 1 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion > So that's one winner against another one. Could we simply pair them off from the beginning? > 5. Round Two draw for modified Group 2: > > ??? Group 2 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, but > ??? constraint: each pairing must be a top seed versus a bottom seed > same there. > 6. Round Two draw for modified Group 3: > > ??? Group 3 is paired within itself in normal Swiss fashion, but > ??? constraint: top seeded teams must not be paired against each other > and there. So we could make matches A1-A2 B1-C2 C1-B2 D1-D2 immediately, with the constraint that if a B wins over an A, he takes their place? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 6 02:12:41 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:12:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46123D94.40008@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070405170131.01d87aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Richard: >2. Psychological ? A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some weaker teams due >to the first-round ???bloodbath???, where their teams get annihilated by >Klinger, Marston etc. There is no bloodbath in the first round of an >Accelerated Swiss, as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within >their own group. Many years ago, I was playing in the Canberra bloodbath and after two lucky rounds, we met, and were annihilated by Indonesia 1. This was one of the great thrills of my life, as we won 1 board, and several others we went down only 1 IMP (an overtrick here or there). Surely this is the only game in the world where you can actually get to play against the top players in the game. So bugger the theory say I. Only a couple of years ago, two top teams met on table n+1 in round 2, after disaster struck in round 1. If you know beforehand, were the teams are supposed to finish, would it not be quicker to publish the final order before we start, and get on with the celebrations, Tony (Sydney)... From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 5 10:41:39 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:41:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition References: <200704021540.l32Few4w009769@cfa.harvard.edu> <46144B60.3080807@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004e01c7775f$55dfd780$249a87d9@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 ----- Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation > >>were to allow a player to consult his own convention card > >>when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for > >>a literal interpretation of L40E2.) > > And the following comment was returned: > > I'd have said it would call for a change in L40E2, but perhaps I'm > underestimating the ingenuity of the WBFLC or some SOs. > +=+ If you will excuse my state of mind, so much immersed in the minutiae of the laws, I contemplated the words of the current Law 40E2 - in particular ".... at his own turn to call or play...". Reading this literally it does not exclude for an SO the possibility of a 40E1 regulation authorizing the player to look, in given circumstances, at someone else's turn. (Without such a regulation it is illegal because nowhere authorized.) The footnote would need to be interpreted so that the action did not represent an aid to his memory but rather an aid to opponent's information. That would be a question, but who would step in to oppose the SO's wishes if the regulation put it in those terms? Oh the devil with such devious ingenuity! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Apr 5 11:09:42 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 05 Apr 2007 11:09:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats Message-ID: <20070405090942.BABBA461493@poczta.interia.pl> > Richard: > > >2. Psychological ? A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some weaker teams > due > >to the first-round ???bloodbath???, where their teams get annihilated by > >Klinger, Marston etc. There is no bloodbath in the first round of an > >Accelerated Swiss, as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within > >their own group. > > Many years ago, I was playing in the Canberra bloodbath and after two > lucky > rounds, we met, and were annihilated by Indonesia 1. This was one of the > > great thrills > of my life, as we won 1 board, and several others we went down only 1 IMP > > (an overtrick > here or there). Surely this is the only game in the world where you can > actually > get to play against the top players in the game. So bugger the theory say > I. You are talking apples and oranges. I firmly believe that rules should be very different depending on the purpose of the event. If the main purpose of the event is to give people "great thrills of their lives" than the rules, CoC, laws and TD behavior should be entirely different than in an event where the main purpose is to select the best team(s). These two purposes are not mutually exclusive in every case but sometimes _they are_. And this basic fact cannot be ignored. This is the same kind of blindness with which FIFA refuses to allow instant replay in football because "teams in the Third Division of Uzbekistan won't be able to afford it". I say - so what? The Champions League game between Manchester United and Roma and an Uzbekistan Third Division game are basically two different sports - they have actually almost nothing in common: _everything_ is different there (pitch, number of viewers, level of play, money involved - you name it) so insisting on it being played according to exactly the same rules is nonsense. Same for bridge. If you run a friendly tournament then by all means - screw it. Keep it simple, use one scale, one method of scoring, don't let the discipline become too strict, allow players maximum leeway etc. When you run a national championship tournament or trials then it is (and should) be a different story. "Giving players thrills" should be definitely considered secondary. As for rankings and including "strength of schedule" - here is a very good website that discusses the issue. You'll need to know statistics and probabilities at the university level to understand the concept, though. A very good discussion about different kinds of rankings. It is mainly based on the American college football - a similar situation to Swiss Teams in a sense that you have a lot of teams and you cannot have the full round robin in order to determine that standings. http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/ -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Najlepiej wytresowany pies swiata >>> Zobacz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1a34 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 5 11:26:19 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:26:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives References: <2a1c3a560704042039t26edd395p5c30824c1d8c254@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901c77764$92c3d110$daa887d9@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: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:39 AM Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives >From the NOT News at the Canberra Summer Festival of Bridge. #1 NWT Rd 1, Bd 3; 12 tricks, NS ?1370 AQ97 7543 3 9873 KJ 2 AQJ2 K986 K9852 AQJT76 Q5 AK T86543 T 4 JT642 Dealer S, Vul EW S W N E P 1D P 2D P 2H P 3S P 4D P 4NT P 5H P 6D P P P There were no alerts. South had no possibility of describing the 6-5 as all 2-suited options were constructive. South asserted that she would have bid 4S over 2D had she been aware that the opponents were using "inverted minors". Director rule score stands and NS appealed. The AC agreed that this particular South may have bid 4S but determined that it was not an action that would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of experienced players in the field. ------------------------------------------ It seems to me that the AC is confusing MI with Logical Alternatives. The fact or opinion that other players would not bid 4S would seem to me to be irrelevant in determining whether this particular South was damaged by a failure to alert the inverted minor raise. To once the AC agree that South may have bid 4S then they must come to the conclusion that the failure to alert has caused damage. Wayne +=+ I would say the AC has indicated that it does not believe South and has quoted wider probabilities of action by peer players as the basis for ts judgement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From tzimnoch at comcast.net Thu Apr 5 14:06:25 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:06:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4614E641.4090703@comcast.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > That is, Steve's proposed law change would mean that the > East-West side opposing a North-South side using "Michaels" > would be in a Catch-22 situation, either: > > (a) suffering through East's ignorance of the North-South > methods, or > > (b) suffering through East giving an opponent an AI reminder > of their North-South methods. I don't see the urgency is addressing this issue. Approximately what percentage of pairs do you expect need a reminder of their own system and would benefit from it? By the time East asks, North has already bid and can not benefit from a reminder of his own system. He has either already remembered it or already misbid. South either answers correctly and life goes on or has forgotten and EW will be protected from the MI. -Todd From geller at nifty.com Thu Apr 5 13:15:53 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:15:53 +0900 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4614E641.4090703@comcast.net> References: <4614E641.4090703@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200704051115.AA08125@geller204.nifty.com> The sponsoring organization should forbid answering a question just by the name of a convention (e.g. "michaels") if there is any ambiguity about its meaning. They should be required to answer "5 cards in the other major and 5 or more in an unspecified minor" or the like (along with the agreement on strength, if any. -Bob Todd M. Zimnoch ????????: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> That is, Steve's proposed law change would mean that the >> East-West side opposing a North-South side using "Michaels" >> would be in a Catch-22 situation, either: >> >> (a) suffering through East's ignorance of the North-South >> methods, or >> >> (b) suffering through East giving an opponent an AI reminder >> of their North-South methods. > > I don't see the urgency is addressing this issue. >Approximately what percentage of pairs do you expect need a >reminder of their own system and would benefit from it? By >the time East asks, North has already bid and can not >benefit from a reminder of his own system. He has either >already remembered it or already misbid. South either >answers correctly and life goes on or has forgotten and EW >will be protected from the MI. > >-Todd > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 5 14:19:09 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:19:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704042039t26edd395p5c30824c1d8c254@mail.gmail.com > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070405140857.021683f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:39 5/04/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >From the NOT News at the Canberra Summer Festival of Bridge. > >#1 NWT Rd 1, Bd 3; 12 tricks, NS ?1370 > AQ97 > 7543 > 3 > 9873 >KJ 2 >AQJ2 K986 >K9852 AQJT76 >Q5 AK > T86543 > T > 4 > JT642 >Dealer S, Vul EW >S W N E >P 1D P 2D >P 2H P 3S >P 4D P 4NT >P 5H P 6D >P P P > >There were no alerts. South had no possibility of describing the 6-5 >as all 2-suited options were constructive. South asserted that she >would have bid 4S over 2D had she been aware that the opponents were >using "inverted minors". >Director rule score stands and NS appealed. >The AC agreed that this particular South may have bid 4S but >determined that it was not an action that would be given serious >consideration by a significant proportion of experienced players in >the field. >- AG : AFAIC this is not the main concern. If N/S use a very aggressive preempting style (which can be ascertained from their CC), you have to accept their claim, as the non-alert damaged *them*. I don't know, however, whether a spade preempt would have pulled E/W out of their cold slam. For example, West could bid a "good" 4NT over 4S (or whatever is positive in his system) and East would surely have bid slam. This dependis on what exactly 2D promises ; if it's G/F, a constructive bid from West is automatic. I'd expect E/W to come at 6D about 75% of the time ; allowing for pro-NOS-weighting as it's practised, and assuming N/S are indeed wild preemptors, I'd adjust to 60% of 6D= and 40% of 5D+1. I'll ask my regular partner (a stark raving preemptor) whether he considers 4S. Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 5 14:55:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives In-Reply-To: <000901c77764$92c3d110$daa887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I would say the AC has indicated that it does not believe > South and has quoted wider probabilities of action by peer > players as the basis for ts judgement. If the AC did not believe South's assertion with regard to the 4S bid they could have ruled that they did not believe the assertion (and justified their ruling based on consultation with peers as necessary). They didn't do that - they agreed that South may have bid 4S (ie they agree there was some percentage chance that 4S would have been bid). As such they should be considering damage under L12c2/L12c3 (someone remind me what is enabled down under). A L12c2 ruling of "no damage - because we believe the chances of a) 4S being bid, b) North sacrificing in 6S, c) EW being unable to right-side 6N are too small to consider" would be reasonable IMO. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 5 14:55:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition In-Reply-To: <004e01c7775f$55dfd780$249a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ If you will excuse my state of mind, so much immersed > in the minutiae of the laws, I contemplated the words of the > current Law 40E2 - in particular ".... at his own turn to call > or play...". But that is still only a matter of an opposing CC - not a player's own. > Reading this literally it does not exclude for an SO > the possibility of a 40E1 regulation authorizing the player to > look, in given circumstances, at someone else's turn. (Without > such a regulation it is illegal because nowhere authorized.) Actually it's merely "extraneous" if nowhere authorised - and only illegal if it creates UI which is subsequently used. In the typical example of 1N-(2C alert)-2S opener may say something like "hang on that might be alertable" and, after consulting the CC and determining that the 2C was Astro rather than Landy, say "ok not alertable". > The footnote would need to be interpreted so that the action > did not represent an aid to his memory but rather an aid to > opponent's information. That would be a question, but who > would step in to oppose the SO's wishes if the regulation > put it in those terms? While the action might be performed in order to aid opponents any information so gained would remain unauthorised to the player looking (just as would partner's explanation). Few players would choose to look rather than simply telling opps to look. If the SO attempted to write a regulation saying that looking was AI then any halfway-competent TD should be able to work out that such a regulation was in direct conflict with the laws and put the SO firmly in its place. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 5 16:33:09 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:33:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: MI and Logical Alternatives Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070405162227.0217be20@pop.ulb.ac.be> >At 15:39 5/04/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> >>#1 NWT Rd 1, Bd 3; 12 tricks, NS ?1370 >> AQ97 >> 7543 >> 3 >> 9873 >>KJ 2 >>AQJ2 K986 >>K9852 AQJT76 >>Q5 AK >> T86543 >> T >> 4 >> JT642 >>Dealer S, Vul EW >>S W N E >>P 1D P 2D >>P 2H P 3S >>P 4D P 4NT >>P 5H P 6D >>P P P >> >>There were no alerts. South had no possibility of describing the 6-5 >>as all 2-suited options were constructive. South asserted that she >>would have bid 4S over 2D had she been aware that the opponents were >>using "inverted minors". >>Director rule score stands and NS appealed. >>The AC agreed that this particular South may have bid 4S but >>determined that it was not an action that would be given serious >>consideration by a significant proportion of experienced players in >>the field. >>- > >AG : I'll ask my regular partner (a stark raving preemptor) whether he >considers 4S. AG : here is his answer : GP : I would surely consider pass and 3S. 2S and two-suited bids would be constructive in my mind, hence excluded. Given suit quality, you'll have to find somebody more raving than me to bid 4S. Now, perhaps you could toy with semantics, and argue that my mentioning that option means I'm considering it somehow ... AG : I'd rather say "pragmatics". But indeed, 4S looks like a a possible bid. Note that, after 3S too, 6S could be the final contract. Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 5 16:27:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:27:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002001c7778e$94b32be0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Herman De Wael: > >>Richard, >> >>I too find it an interesting idea. > > [snip] > >>We are currently looking at ameliorating the Final of the Flanders' >>Cup, which is currently a Swiss over 9 matches of 6 boards, with 64 >>teams! The better players are starting to complain that it is becoming >>a lottery. Maybe a change such as this one could help! We don't really >>want to change the number of teams nor the length of the final. The idea of playing shorter matches earlier and longer ones later is interesting; It says:- later rounds are more significant and teams must have more time to establish their true worth Say you play 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 board matches for your 7 rounds. You might just as well use different VP scales and play 8's throughout because you are saying that later rounds are more significant. Thus if the 8 board match scores 20-0 for a 30 imp win (per UK); you just create VP scales say 0-14 rd 1; 0-16 rd 2; 0-18 rd 3 etc etc with a max being round about 28-32 imps depending on the number of VPs. This makes the later rounds more significant, as indeed does playing matches of different lengths. John From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 5 16:31:41 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:31:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704051115.AA08125@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4614E641.4090703@comcast.net> <200704051115.AA08125@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > The sponsoring organization should forbid answering a question just > by the > name of a convention (e.g. "michaels") if there is any ambiguity about > its meaning. The ACBL does that, for all conventions, not just ones about which there may be ambiguity. Few follow the rule. The CC doesn't help, since it promotes answering by naming. From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 5 16:34:21 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:34:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070405140857.021683f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003b01c7778f$7fec9bf0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Wayne Burrows" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives At 15:39 5/04/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >From the NOT News at the Canberra Summer Festival of Bridge. > >#1 NWT Rd 1, Bd 3; 12 tricks, NS ?1370 > AQ97 > 7543 > 3 > 9873 >KJ 2 >AQJ2 K986 >K9852 AQJT76 >Q5 AK > T86543 > T > 4 > JT642 >Dealer S, Vul EW >S W N E >P 1D P 2D >P 2H P 3S >P 4D P 4NT >P 5H P 6D >P P P > >There were no alerts. South had no possibility of describing the 6-5 >as all 2-suited options were constructive. South asserted that she >would have bid 4S over 2D had she been aware that the opponents were >using "inverted minors". Only 4S? john snip >I'll ask my regular partner (a stark raving preemptor) whether he considers >4S. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 16:37:30 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002001c7778e$94b32be0$0701a8c0@john> References: <002001c7778e$94b32be0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0704050737p5d2ea60evff8bd168936421ec@mail.gmail.com> On 4/5/07, John Probst wrote: > The idea of playing shorter matches earlier and longer ones later is > interesting; It says:- later rounds are more significant and teams must have > more time to establish their true worth > > Say you play 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 board matches for your 7 rounds. You might just > as well use different VP scales and play 8's throughout because you are > saying that later rounds are more significant. Thus if the 8 board match > scores 20-0 for a 30 imp win (per UK); you just create VP scales say 0-14 rd > 1; 0-16 rd 2; 0-18 rd 3 etc etc with a max being round about 28-32 imps > depending on the number of VPs. This makes the later rounds more > significant, as indeed does playing matches of different lengths. > > John Hi John I don't think that holding board length constant and adjusting the scoring system accomplishes the same thing. When I originally considered the idea of adjusting the length of the rounds, my primary concern was to improve the accuracy of the sample process. During the early rounds of a Swiss or Danish Teams event its highly likely that teams with widely disparate skill levels will be playing together. Ideally, as the event progresses, the skill level between contesting teams will converge towards one another. I made an assumption that the length of a match should be inversely proportional to the skill difference between the two teams. (The close the two teams are in terms of skill level, the more boards you need to play to accurately evaluate their relative skill level). The initial simulations that we're running are (primarily) intended to test this hypothesis. -- Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself," and the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Apr 5 17:47:32 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:47:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <20070405090942.BABBA461493@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070405090942.BABBA461493@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <46151A14.4070901@meteo.fr> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : >> Richard: >> >>> 2. Psychological ? A seeded Swiss is unpopular among some weaker teams >> due >>> to the first-round bloodbath , where their teams get annihilated by >>> Klinger, Marston etc. There is no bloodbath in the first round of an >>> Accelerated Swiss, as the top seeds and bottom seeds are paired within >>> their own group. >> Many years ago, I was playing in the Canberra bloodbath and after two >> lucky >> rounds, we met, and were annihilated by Indonesia 1. This was one of the >> >> great thrills >> of my life, as we won 1 board, and several others we went down only 1 IMP >> >> (an overtrick >> here or there). Surely this is the only game in the world where you can >> actually >> get to play against the top players in the game. So bugger the theory say >> I. > > You are talking apples and oranges. I firmly believe that rules should > be very different depending on the purpose of the event. If the main purpose > of the event is to give people "great thrills of their lives" than > the rules, CoC, laws and TD behavior should be entirely different than > in an event where the main purpose is to select the best team(s). > These two purposes are not mutually exclusive in every case but > sometimes _they are_. And this basic fact cannot be ignored. This is the > same kind of blindness with which FIFA refuses to allow instant replay in > football because "teams in the Third Division of Uzbekistan won't be > able to afford it". I say - so what? The Champions League game between > Manchester United and Roma and an Uzbekistan Third Division game are > basically two different sports - they have actually almost nothing in > common: _everything_ is different there (pitch, number of viewers, > level of play, money involved - you name it) so insisting on it being > played according to exactly the same rules is nonsense. > Same for bridge. If you run a friendly tournament then by all means - > screw it. Keep it simple, use one scale, one method of scoring, don't > let the discipline become too strict, allow players maximum leeway etc. > When you run a national championship tournament or trials then it is (and > should) be a different story. "Giving players thrills" should be definitely > considered secondary. > As for rankings and including "strength of schedule" - here is > a very good website that discusses the issue. You'll need to know > statistics and probabilities at the university level to understand > the concept, though. A very good discussion about different > kinds of rankings. It is mainly based on the American college football - > a similar situation to Swiss Teams in a sense that you have a lot of > teams and you cannot have the full round robin in order to determine > that standings. > > http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/ > accuracy of swiss teams is always the object of lively debates as is the case in france where they are broadly used in national championships: 2-day competition, 14-30 teams, 80-90 deals, 5-8 rounds, 1 or 2 predefined rounds based on seedings. the particularity is the use of a bonus system to prevent swissing and to make up for the disparity of opposed teams: complementary VP are added to each team at the end of each round (except 1st and 2nd) according to their present ranking (0 to the last team, the most for the leader). the exact amount of bonus is an arbitrary parameter, the tuning of which adds to the debate. one way to analyze the accuracy of a particular swiss teams result is to compare it to an "objective" modelisation of the performance of the competing teams. this modelisation is an extrapolation of the swiss to what would have been the results in a complete round robin between all teams, using the methodology of missing-data reconstitution: results of actually played matches are retained; for non-played match, artificial results are computed, statistically the more compatible with other results of the 2 teams involved. (technical details available upon request) jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 6 02:00:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:00:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4614E641.4090703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd Zimnoch: > I don't see the urgency is addressing this issue. >Approximately what percentage of pairs do you expect need a >reminder of their own system and would benefit from it? Richard Hills: Approximately 42% of pairs using the Ghestem convention need a reminder of their own system, and approximately 23% would benefit from it. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 6 02:37:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:37:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4614A0A6.6010704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Forget it. The players would shout "why do they get 10 VP?". Not >needed, I believe, if: [snip] >So we could make matches A1-A2 B1-C2 C1-B2 D1-D2 immediately, >with the constraint that if a B wins over an A, he takes their >place? Richard Hills: Yes, the temporary 10 VP carry-forward is merely an aid to the director for the special Round Two pairings - it need not be published for the players to shout about. Of course, some of the players - those in groups B and C - will shout about being paired against a Round Two opponent whose VPs differ by ten from their own team's VPs. Quick history of chess Accelerated Swisses -> Due to chess having a very compressed "victory point" scale, 1 point for a win, 1/2 point for a draw, 0 point for a loss, in some big chess Swisses more than one player gained a perfect score, five wins out of five or six wins out of six. So the idea behind a chess Accelerated Swiss was to make sure that the top players met each other as quickly as possible, since once two top players were paired against each other it was logically impossible for them both to score 100% in the event. If one makes the simplifying assumption that the Elo chess rating scheme was 100% accurate and that a higher rated chess player beats a lower rated chess player 100% of the time, then a five round simple Swiss for 64 chess players does not guarantee that a player with a perfect score would be the sole winner. But after two rounds of Accelerated Swiss, if the simplifying assumptions hold, only the top eight seeds have a perfect score of two wins out of two (instead of the normal expectation of 16 players with two wins in a non-Accelerated Swiss), so the chances of a person finishing with 5 wins out of five being the sole winner is somewhat improved. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Fri Apr 6 02:39:01 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:39:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition In-Reply-To: <200704051429.l35ETvmD029543@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704051429.l35ETvmD029543@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <461596A5.1080908@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > That is, Steve's proposed law change [that correct answers to opponents' questions should be AI] Change of interpretation, I think, not Law. > would mean that the East-West side ... > would be in a Catch-22 situation, either: > (a) suffering through East's ignorance of the North-South > methods, or > (b) suffering through East giving an opponent an AI reminder > of their North-South methods. And now it's my turn to mention _petitio principii_. Why exactly is this a bad thing? Or more particularly, why is it worse than the alternative? From: "Grattan Endicott" > current Law 40E2 - in particular ".... at his own turn to call > or play...". Reading this literally it does not exclude for an SO > the possibility of a 40E1 regulation authorizing the player to > look, in given circumstances, at someone else's turn. Oh, indeed so! I'm embarrassed that I didn't see it. I'm not entirely sure the idea would make the game better, but it would indeed be legal as far as I can tell. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 6 02:43:08 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:43:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704051508.l35F8mOK007289@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704051508.l35F8mOK007289@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4615979C.4030705@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John Probst" > Say you play 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 board matches for your 7 rounds. You might just > as well use different VP scales and play 8's throughout because you are > saying that later rounds are more significant. Not so. I'm pretty sure that would be worse than equal-length matches. As Richard wrote, the point is not to weight some boards more than others (though non-linear VPs do that) but to have a stronger comparison between teams that are nearly equal in ability. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 6 02:46:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:46:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c7775f$55dfd780$249a87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The footnote would need to be interpreted so that the action >did not represent an aid to his memory but rather an aid to >opponent's information. That would be a question, but who >would step in to oppose the SO's wishes if the regulation >put it in those terms? > Oh the devil with such devious ingenuity! > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: If the ACBL Board of Directors wished to use the Law 40E2 footnote to permit bunnies to refer to their own convention card, there is much simpler devilish devious ingenuity. The ACBL BoD could simply define all systems used by the opponents of the bunnies as "unusual methods" and define the bunnies' convention cards as "written defences ... to be referred to at the table". :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Fri Apr 6 02:54:06 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:54:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <200704051806.l35I6ljV011111@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704051806.l35I6ljV011111@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46159A2E.5080705@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > 2-day competition, 14-30 teams, 80-90 deals, 5-8 rounds, 1 or 2 > predefined rounds based on seedings. the particularity is the use of a > bonus system to prevent swissing and to make up for the disparity of > opposed teams: complementary VP are added to each team at the end of > each round (except 1st and 2nd) according to their present ranking (0 to > the last team, the most for the leader). the exact amount of bonus is an > arbitrary parameter, the tuning of which adds to the debate. This is perhaps a little better than doing nothing, but it seems far worse than matching according to record (possibly with a bit of weight given to seeding as in accelerated Swiss), then adding in the "strength of schedule" correction at the end, when you know how all the teams have done. The exact amount to add in isn't clear, but simulations should tell us what it should be. > one way to analyze the accuracy of a particular swiss teams result is > to compare it to an "objective" modelisation of the performance of the > competing teams. this modelisation is an extrapolation of the swiss to > what would have been the results in a complete round robin between all > teams, using the methodology of missing-data reconstitution: results > of actually played matches are retained; for non-played match, > artificial results are computed, statistically the more compatible with > other results of the 2 teams involved. (technical details available upon > request) If I understand what you mean, I long ago suggested something similar. I'd do it directly by solving appropriate "normal equations," given the actual results. The biggest problem with this approach is that it is entirely opaque to the players, but it is theoretically the best method because it takes full account of all results. (Actually there are several possible methods, not a single "best" one, in this family.) I've suggested the same approach to player ratings, where it might receive more support because nobody expects ratings to be easily computable by players themselves. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 6 03:09:24 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:09:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives In-Reply-To: <200704051517.l35FHOTG008987@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704051517.l35FHOTG008987@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46159DC4.3080209@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Wayne Burrows" > It seems to me that the AC is confusing MI with Logical Alternatives. > The fact or opinion that other players would not bid 4S would seem to > me to be irrelevant in determining whether this particular South was > damaged by a failure to alert the inverted minor raise. Indeed. In dealing with a MI infraction, the TD's or AC's job is to determine what would have happened _at this table_ if the infraction had not occurred. That is difficult and subjective and no doubt will often require a probabalistic estimate, but L12C2 tells us how to deal with that. If L12C3 is enabled, each possible result can be given whatever weight seems appropriate. One complication in the actual case is that 3S seems obvious to me regardless of what 2D meant. Were EW playing a strong club system, making 1D limited? That would justify South's actual pass. Short of that, I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical about South's contention that he would have bid over an alerted 2D. But my opinion doesn't count; the AC needs to question the player and come to a conclusion. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 6 09:49:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:49:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4615FB7A.5060603@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Forget it. The players would shout "why do they get 10 VP?". Not >> needed, I believe, if: > > [snip] > >> So we could make matches A1-A2 B1-C2 C1-B2 D1-D2 immediately, >> with the constraint that if a B wins over an A, he takes their >> place? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the temporary 10 VP carry-forward is merely an aid to the > director for the special Round Two pairings - it need not be > published for the players to shout about. > > Of course, some of the players - those in groups B and C - will > shout about being paired against a Round Two opponent whose VPs > differ by ten from their own team's VPs. > > Quick history of chess Accelerated Swisses -> > > Due to chess having a very compressed "victory point" scale, 1 > point for a win, 1/2 point for a draw, 0 point for a loss, in > some big chess Swisses more than one player gained a perfect > score, five wins out of five or six wins out of six. > > So the idea behind a chess Accelerated Swiss was to make sure > that the top players met each other as quickly as possible, > since once two top players were paired against each other it > was logically impossible for them both to score 100% in the > event. > > If one makes the simplifying assumption that the Elo chess > rating scheme was 100% accurate and that a higher rated chess > player beats a lower rated chess player 100% of the time, then > a five round simple Swiss for 64 chess players does not > guarantee that a player with a perfect score would be the sole > winner. > > But after two rounds of Accelerated Swiss, if the simplifying > assumptions hold, only the top eight seeds have a perfect score > of two wins out of two (instead of the normal expectation of 16 > players with two wins in a non-Accelerated Swiss), so the > chances of a person finishing with 5 wins out of five being the > sole winner is somewhat improved. > > Thanks for this explanation. It is now clear however, that the same does not hold true for bridge. In a chess swiss, persistant winners will eventually meet, unless the number of players is larger than 2^n, which is indeed often the case. In a bridge swiss, persistent winners need never meet, because they can be overhauled by a one-time loser. So the same principle does not hold. I have once read that studies had shown that the first round seeding in a (bridge) swiss has no specific influence on the outcome, so this accelerated idea would only have some influence because of the way the second round is paired up. I don't think I'll bother, then. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Apr 6 09:51:37 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:51:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <46159A2E.5080705@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704051806.l35I6ljV011111@cfa.harvard.edu> <46159A2E.5080705@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4615FC09.6040502@meteo.fr> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >> 2-day competition, 14-30 teams, 80-90 deals, 5-8 rounds, 1 or 2 >> predefined rounds based on seedings. the particularity is the use of a >> bonus system to prevent swissing and to make up for the disparity of >> opposed teams: complementary VP are added to each team at the end of >> each round (except 1st and 2nd) according to their present ranking (0 to >> the last team, the most for the leader). the exact amount of bonus is an >> arbitrary parameter, the tuning of which adds to the debate. > > This is perhaps a little better than doing nothing, but it seems far > worse than matching according to record (possibly with a bit of weight > given to seeding as in accelerated Swiss), then adding in the "strength > of schedule" correction at the end, when you know how all the teams have > done. i am not certain to understand what you mean by "record". with, for instance, 16 teams seeded 1 to 16 according to masterpoints, it works following: 1st round: 1vs2, 3-4, 5-6, ... 15-16 2nd round: 1-15, 2-16, 3-13, 4-14... next rounds: according to rankings, 1-2, 3-4... excluding rematches bonus added from the end of 3rd round: 0 to 16th ranking, k to 15th, 2k to 14th,... 15k to 1st. > The exact amount to add in isn't clear, but simulations should > tell us what it should be. simulations and analyses are needed to evaluate the optimal value for k but conclusions are not obvious. it is sensitive to the number of teams, number of rounds, homogeneousness of field. practical values currently used for parameter k are in the range 0.1 to 0.3. > >> one way to analyze the accuracy of a particular swiss teams result is >> to compare it to an "objective" modelisation of the performance of the >> competing teams. this modelisation is an extrapolation of the swiss to >> what would have been the results in a complete round robin between all >> teams, using the methodology of missing-data reconstitution: results >> of actually played matches are retained; for non-played match, >> artificial results are computed, statistically the more compatible with >> other results of the 2 teams involved. (technical details available upon >> request) > > If I understand what you mean, I long ago suggested something similar. > I'd do it directly by solving appropriate "normal equations," given the > actual results. The biggest problem with this approach is that it is > entirely opaque to the players, but it is theoretically the best method > because it takes full account of all results. the intent is not to use the method for the final result but only as a mean to evaluate other (non opaque) methods by comparison. notwithstanding, whatever method used is judged insane and random by all players, especially when they don't win. > (Actually there are > several possible methods, not a single "best" one, in this family.) the method is optimal in the sense of "lesser squares". it's a very elementary result in statistics theory. jpr > I've suggested the same approach to player ratings, where it might > receive more support because nobody expects ratings to be easily > computable by players themselves. > -- _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Apr 6 11:15:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: MI and Logical Alternatives In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070405162227.0217be20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > AG : I'd rather say "pragmatics". But indeed, 4S looks like a a > possible bid. Note that, after 3S too, 6S could be the final > contract. I don't think it's at all likely though. Over 3S West would surely try 3N making 6N obvious over a 6S sacrifice. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 6 11:25:36 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:25:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives In-Reply-To: <46159DC4.3080209@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704051517.l35FHOTG008987@cfa.harvard.edu> <200704051517.l35FHOTG008987@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070406111823.02831e60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:09 5/04/2007 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >One complication in the actual case is that 3S seems obvious to me >regardless of what 2D meant. Were EW playing a strong club system, >making 1D limited? That would justify South's actual pass. Short of >that, I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical about South's contention that he >would have bid over an alerted 2D. I have an explicit agreement that overcalls and preempts demand the lead from Qx (or Jx if they include the queen), unless opponents are in a strong sequence. The tip comes from the late Roger Silberwasser, arguably Belgium's best player of all times. Given this principle, 3S would be excluded over a limited 2D. A bit of analysis. Partner didn't mum over 1D. He surely has hearts. He's got a fairly strong hand. So he also holds some diamonds, as he didn't overcall or double. The hand is a misfit for us. And even if I'm wrong, at least you've to allow South to reason so. Best regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 6 12:06:31 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:06:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives References: <200704051517.l35FHOTG008987@cfa.harvard.edu><200704051517.l35FHOTG008987@cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20070406111823.02831e60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <009a01c77835$9b060010$709487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Steve Willner" ; Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives > > And even if I'm wrong, at least you've to > allow South to reason so. > +=+ A remark reflecting a true approach to 'logical alternative', and deserving of acknowledgement. We should never be blind to the fact that 'my way' is not the only way. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 6 12:58:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: Ré&. : Re: [blml] Fwd: Re: MI and Logical Alternatives In-Reply-To: <46162055.000001.67075@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain asked: > 3) Are we allowed to make a longitutinal hairsplitting weighted socre? I don't know. We would be if L12c3 were enabled. > 6D 30% > 6N 20 % > 6SX 20 % > 5D 20 % > 7S X 10 % Although I wouldn't consider 5D a possibility on any auction so I'd propose maybe 45/25/20/0/10. Under 12c2 I think I'd get OS:7Sx NOS:6D. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 6 15:32:15 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:32:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9=26=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fwd=3A_Re=3A__MI_and_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Logical_Alternatives?= References: Message-ID: <001701c77850$166b0e20$7ca887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Re: R?&. : Re: [blml] Fwd: Re: MI and Logical Alternatives > Alain asked: > >> 3) Are we allowed to make a longitutinal hairsplitting weighted socre? > > I don't know. We would be if L12c3 were enabled. > >> 6D 30% >> 6N 20 % >> 6SX 20 % >> 5D 20 % >> 7S X 10 % > > Although I wouldn't consider 5D a possibility on any auction so I'd > propose maybe 45/25/20/0/10. Under 12c2 I think I'd get OS:7Sx NOS:6D. > > Tim > +=+ Two points: 1. The adjustment is a matter of bridge judgement and therefore beyond the limits of principle that are the competency of the WBF Laws Committee. 2. Guidance for Directors and ACs may be given by regulatory bodies. The EBU in its White Book confines its examples to a maximum of four different results (variously in Section 12). It is commonly thought that beyond four the calculations become over refined, esoteric, and should rarely be indulged - but I have seen no specific limitation of them in advice to TDs. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 6 12:26:30 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:26:30 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fwd=3A_Re=3A__MI_and_Lo?= =?iso-8859-1?q?gical_Alternatives?= References: Message-ID: <46162055.000001.67075@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads Date : 04/06/07 11:51:48 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Fwd: Re: MI and Logical Alternatives Alain wrote: > > AG : I'd rather say "pragmatics". But indeed, 4S looks like a a > possible bid. Note that, after 3S too, 6S could be the final > contract. Tim : I don't think it's at all likely though. Over 3S West would surely try 3N making 6N obvious over a 6S sacrifice. AG : seems like any weighted score should consider many cases. For example, the bidding might go : 1D p 2D 3S 3NT 5S 6D X p 6S 6NT p p 7S where X = no defensive trick. 1) Doesn't the mere fact that we discuss what could happen after a 3S ou 4S bid indicate without doubt that those bids are indeed a possibility ? 2) If (at pairs) EW didn't find 6NT here, why should they find it after competition ? 3) Are we allowed to make a longitutinal hairsplitting weighted socre ? 6D 30% 6N 20 % 6SX 20 % 5D 20 % 7S X 10 % Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070406/2d3aeefc/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/20070406/2d3aeefc/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 16816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070406/2d3aeefc/attachment-0001.gif From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 6 19:46:40 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:46:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fwd=3A_Re=3A__MI_and_Lo?= =?iso-8859-1?q?gical_Alternatives?= In-Reply-To: <46162055.000001.67075@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46162055.000001.67075@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46168780.2030102@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] But indeed, 4S looks like a a possible bid. Note that, after 3S too, 6S could be the final contract. [nige1] I agree and the committee seem to have ruled on the wrong basis, examining instead whether 4S is a *probable* bid. [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : seems like any weighted score should consider many cases. For example, the bidding might go : 1D p 2D 3S 3NT 5S 6D X p 6S 6NT p p 7S where X = no defensive trick. 1) Doesn't the mere fact that we discuss what could happen after a 3S ou 4S bid indicate without doubt that those bids are indeed a possibility ? 2) If (at pairs) EW didn't find 6NT here, why should they find it after competition ? 3) Are we allowed to make a longitutinal hairsplitting weighted socre ? 6D 30% 6N 20 % 6SX 20 % 5D 20 % 7S X 10 % [nige2] Yes. provided the competiton is fairly close, L12C3 (if enabled) would allow the committee to adjust weights to produce almost any outcome that they prefer; and the losers would probably just have to grit their teeth and bear it. L12C3 is a secretary bird's wet dream. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Apr 7 03:28:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:28:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4615FB7A.5060603@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >I have once read that studies had shown that the first round >seeding in a (bridge) swiss has no specific influence on the >outcome, so this accelerated idea would only have some >influence because of the way the second round is paired up. >I don't think I'll bother, then. Richard Hills: In seeded teams events run under the knockout principle, such as the ACBL Spingold or Vanderbilt, if there is a perfect entry of 64, then the draw for the first round is: 1 vs 64 2 vs 63 3 vs 62 4 vs 61 ....... 29 vs 36 30 vs 35 31 vs 34 32 vs 33 In Wayne Burrows' simulation, he found that such a first round only seeded draw (as opposed to an Accelerated Swiss seed draw for two rounds) did have a persistent effect on the outcome if there was only a small number of rounds in this Seeded-But-Not- Accelerated Swiss. This is because a top seeded team is given a boost towards their "rightful" place at the top of the field by being given a very weak first-round opponent, a bottom seeded team is given a shove towards their "rightful" place at the bottom of the field by being given a very strong first-round opponent, and a middle seeded team is given a force towards their "rightful" place in the middle of the field by being given a near peer as their first-round opponent. In Australia it is traditional that most Swisses are seeded, but a less effective formula is used: 1 vs 33 2 vs 34 3 vs 35 4 vs 36 ....... 29 vs 61 30 vs 62 31 vs 63 32 vs 64 The premier teams event in Australia, the NOT, has a Swiss qualifying of 14 rounds (20-board matches). Due to the huge length of the qualifying, a first round draw based on seeding within the field is unnecessary. (But nowadays, with two fields split between two venues, seeding to ensure the top teams are divided evenly between venues is required.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 7 03:58:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:58:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461596A5.1080908@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (previous post): >>That is, Steve's proposed law change Steve Willner: >[that correct answers to opponents' questions should be AI] > >Change of interpretation, I think, not Law. Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." Richard Hills (current post): A correct answer to an opponent's question is not a call nor is it a play. Quod erat demonstrandum. Richard Hills (previous post): >>would mean that the East-West side ... >>would be in a Catch-22 situation, either: >>(a) suffering through East's ignorance of the North-South >> methods, or >>(b) suffering through East giving an opponent an AI >> reminder of their North-South methods. Steve Willner: >And now it's my turn to mention _petitio principii_. Why >exactly is this a bad thing? Or more particularly, why is >it worse than the alternative? Richard Hills (current post): I am a poacher turned gamekeeper as regards weird and wacky conventions, having played a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) Forcing Pass system in my youth. The problem with HUM conventions, or the less-extreme Brown Sticker conventions, is one of Law 75A disclosure. No matter what their intrinsic merits, they gain imps and matchpoints by novelty value against opponents who have not met them before. For example, in 1950s England the then Highly Unusual Method of the Weak Two gained undeserved successes against opponents who had previously encountered Acol Twos only. So Steve's law change idea would give a second benefit to sides who play wacky conventions. In addition to surprising the opponents with novelty, the wacky sides would gain some insurance against them forgetting the complexities of their own wacky agreements by permitting pard to AI remind them. And, of course, no AI reminders need occur if the wacky conventioneers had Law 75A fully disclosed every one of their partnership agreements on their system card. Indeed, the WBF experimented with a rule some years ago requiring all partnership agreements to be listed on a specified number of pages. Unfortunately this was impossible (even with the tiniest of font sizes), due to the huge number of possible auctions and consequent huge number of explicit or implicit partnership agreements. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Sat Apr 7 10:23:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:23:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461754F5.80502@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills (previous post): > >>> That is, Steve's proposed law change > > Steve Willner: > >> [that correct answers to opponents' questions should be AI] >> >> Change of interpretation, I think, not Law. > > Law 73A1: > > "Communication between partners during the auction and play > shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays > themselves." > > Richard Hills (current post): > > A correct answer to an opponent's question is not a call nor > is it a play. Quod erat demonstrandum. > Sometimes I think you guys have never played bridge in your lives and are just reading the law in an Ivory tower. Yesterday evening, I played 30 boards, in 20 of which we bid something. In 19 of those, my partner correctly explained (or at least alerted or not alerted) my calls. At an average of 2 bids per board, that's 40 pieces of UI I received. If after every such piece of information I should have had to bend over backwards and not do the expected next thing, I would have ended up with 15% or so (50% if my opponents would have been doing the same - but that would not have been bridge). Yes, a correct explanation is UI. And NO, we never rule it that way. So to all intents and purposes, a correct explanation IS AI at the moment. And it should stay that way. BTW: on the 20th deal I bid 1Di-3Cl intending to show my majors. Partner did not alert and bid 4Cl over 3Di. I do believe I have enough AI (we had not reiterated our agreements before the session and it's not a very usual partner) to take that out. As it was, my RHO, looking at 5 clubs himself, decided to not take the gamble and bid 5Di. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 7 23:11:14 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:11:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition Message-ID: <461808F2.9090806@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Law 73A1: > "Communication between partners during the auction and play > shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays > themselves." > > Richard Hills (current post): > A correct answer to an opponent's question is not a call nor > is it a play. Quod erat demonstrandum. The Latin phrase is premature. Is a correct answer communication? Or more specifically, would an SO or WBFLC interpretation that it is _not_ communication within the meaning of L73A1 be outside the bounds of other interpretations we've been given? > So Steve's law change idea [correct alerts and answers to questions would be AI] > would give a second benefit to > sides who play wacky conventions. In addition to surprising > the opponents with novelty, the wacky sides would gain some > insurance against them forgetting the complexities of their > own wacky agreements by permitting pard to AI remind them. Again I ask, why is this a bad thing? Or rather, why is it worse than the present situation? If you dislike "wacky conventions," why isn't the proper approach to prohibit them? Whether conventions are wacky or not, some players are going to misbid. Others are going to psych. The question is what should happen when partner gives a correct explanation of the agreement. Right now, the player is in an invidious UI position, whether the question was normal or gratuitous. Further, the player has no chance to recover, as he often would in isolation. Finally, if a score adjustment is needed, the TD will have to invent some fantasy bidding system. These are real problems. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 8 03:30:03 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:30:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461754F5.80502@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." Herman De Wael: >Sometimes I think you guys have never played bridge in >your lives and are just reading the law in an Ivory tower. > >Yesterday evening, I played 30 boards, in 20 of which we >bid something. In 19 of those, my partner correctly >explained (or at least alerted or not alerted) my calls. >At an average of 2 bids per board, that's 40 pieces of UI >I received. If after every such piece of information I >should have had to bend over backwards and not do the >expected next thing, I would have ended up with 15% or so >(50% if my opponents would have been doing the same - but >that would not have been bridge). > >Yes, a correct explanation is UI. And NO, we never rule it >that way. > >So to all intents and purposes, a correct explanation IS >AI at the moment. And it should stay that way. [snip] >From Wikipedia, Straw man (logical fallacy): [snip] >>To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" >>is to create a position that is easy to refute, then >>attribute that position to the opponent. [snip] >>One can set up a straw man in the following ways: >> >>1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's >>position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's >>actual position has been refuted. [snip] Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 8 03:43:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:43:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461808F2.9090806@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>insurance against them forgetting the complexities of their >>own wacky agreements by permitting pard to AI remind them. Steve Willner: >Again I ask, why is this a bad thing? Or rather, why is it >worse than the present situation? Richard Hills: I prefer the present situation of "user pays" for paying the cost of insurance against the complexities of their own wacky agreements. I can see no reason for shifting the cost of insurance premiums to the bystander opponents. It seems to me that a fundamental part of the nature of expert bridge is a good memory; why should part of the cost of an expert's failures of memory be outsourced to the other side? Steve Willner: [snip] >Finally, if a score adjustment is needed, the TD will have >to invent some fantasy bidding system. These are real >problems. Richard Hills: Merely because an equitable ruling may be difficult for a TD to judge is not a sufficient reason to change the Lawbook away from "user pays" equity. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 8 04:01:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:01:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461808F2.9090806@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >If you dislike "wacky conventions," why isn't >the proper approach to prohibit them? Richard Hills: a) I do not dislike wacky conventions; even in my mostly vanilla system Dorothy Acol partnership we use Brown Sticker RCO Twos. b) The proper approach to wacky conventions, in my opinion, is not to prohibit them. That leads to an infinite loop. A wacky convention is banned because it is unusual and unexpected. But while the ban remains there is no chance that the wacky convention can become usual and expected, so therefore eligible for unbanning. Catch-22. c) Rather, in my opinion, the proper approach to wacky conventions is to provide full advance disclosure (perhaps, if required, with advance advice of recommended defences). This policy, in place for expert events on Tuesday and Thursday nights at the Canberra Bridge Club, has resulted in the concept of the Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids percolating downwards, so now many "Little Old Lady" partnerships use them. d) This does not preclude restrictions on some conventions for some events. In response to demand from "Very Little Old Lady" partnerships who play in semi-social daytime walk-in pairs, the Canberra Bridge Club prevents Brown Sticker conventions from being used in those events. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 8 08:54:59 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 07:54:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002b01c779aa$f43c4420$1c9f87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I prefer the present situation of "user pays" for paying the > cost of insurance against the complexities of their own wacky > agreements. I can see no reason for shifting the cost of > insurance premiums to the bystander opponents. It seems to > me that a fundamental part of the nature of expert bridge is > a good memory; why should part of the cost of an expert's > failures of memory be outsourced to the other side? > +=+ In following this topic I have the sensation of standing on shifting sand. That is to say I find it difficult to grasp what is being represented severally as "the present situation". For my part it seems to me that (a) a partnership is required to disclose information in accordance with Laws 40B and 75C. The requirement is absolute and failure to do so, for whatever reason (including forgetfulness or incomplete statement of agreements), is a failure to comply with the laws; (b) a player may ask a question (Law 20F) as part of the disclosure procedure - in order to elicit information; (c) a player creates a situation subject to Law 16A1 & 2 if he asks a question in order to "make available to his partner extraneous information thsat may suggest a call or play". (The WBFLC has decreed that it is improper to ask a question for this purpose.) (d) questioning to the point of harassment is a breach of Law 74A. (e) the Director is required to make judgements as to players' conformity with these requirements. He must also assess whether any breach of law has caused or led to damage for opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Apr 8 10:08:31 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:08:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000601c779e7$9ebf4550$739b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > c) Rather, in my opinion, the proper approach to > wacky conventions is to provide full advance > disclosure (perhaps, if required, with advance > advice of recommended defences). This policy, in > place for expert events on Tuesday and Thursday > nights at the Canberra Bridge Club, has resulted > in the concept of the Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids > percolating downwards, so now many "Little Old > Lady" partnerships use them. > +=+ Ah! Vague memories of the appearance of the Multi-2D ........ how long ago? The more things change.... ~ G ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Apr 9 13:05:56 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:05:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c779e7$9ebf4550$739b87d9@Hellen> References: <000601c779e7$9ebf4550$739b87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <461A1E14.30401@meadows.pair.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > "And if I loved you Wednesday > What is that to you? > I do not love you Thursday, > So much is true." > - Edna St. V. Millay > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wacky conventions > (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> c) Rather, in my opinion, the proper approach to >> wacky conventions is to provide full advance >> disclosure (perhaps, if required, with advance >> advice of recommended defences). This policy, in >> place for expert events on Tuesday and Thursday >> nights at the Canberra Bridge Club, has resulted >> in the concept of the Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids >> percolating downwards, so now many "Little Old >> Lady" partnerships use them. >> > +=+ Ah! Vague memories of the appearance of the > Multi-2D ........ how long ago? Also slightly less vague memories of the EBU's unsuccessful attempt to subsequently ban it. >The more things > change.... .. the more some NCBOs will try to prevent the changes? Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 16:13:53 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:13:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] why no convention card? In-Reply-To: <460E89F1.4000903@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200703301450.l2UEoFJj003415@cfa.harvard.edu> <460E89F1.4000903@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070409100657.02af72f0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:18 PM 3/31/07, Steve wrote: > > 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. I stand corrected -- I should have written "didn't know" rather than "didn't care". Of course, as Steve points out, one may choose *not* to hedge one's uncertainty, but rather to make a risky "all or nothing" bet on what partner holds. The opponents are entitled to know of your dilemma, but not which strategy you have chosen to try to deal with it. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 16:48:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition In-Reply-To: <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <460F28AE.3050101@NTLworld.com> <007301c77508$6e4a4de0$39bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070409103749.02adf030@pop.starpower.net> At 05:21 AM 4/2/07, Grattan wrote: >+=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 regulation >were to allow a player to consult his own convention card >when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for >a literal interpretation of L40E2.) Why make "player" the middleman between "opponent" and player's CC? Why not simply require opponent to examine player's CC before asking any questions? (IMO, one should do this anyhow, for one's own protection.) Either eliminates the problem of mismatches between CC and verbal explanation (the opponent can always ask for a more detailed explanation of a notation on the CC), and the latter would require a far less radical change to current practice. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 17:15:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:15:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <461132C1.3000705@NTLworld.com> References: <460FE9CA.9020409@cfa.harvard.edu> <000801c77520$f32d8b40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <4610A78B.4060006@comcast.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20070402164312.01bc9330@mail.optusnet.com.au> <461132C1.3000705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20070409111029.02af70b0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:43 PM 4/2/07, Nigel wrote: >In a round-robin (or Swiss teams event with duplicated boards), an >alternative form of scoring is possible - a cross between match-points >and point-a-board... > >[A] Calculate the match-point scores in the usual way. >[B] For each team, add the North-South and East-West match points. > >This scoring method is a radical departure from normal teams/rubber >bridge scoring but it does make each board count roughly the same and >the fight for extra overtricks/undertricks again becomes relevant. > >An interesting and exciting spin-off is that, with an extra round or two >at the beginning, you can combine teams with pairs and individual >competitions, all scored on a similar basis. Our local ("unit") game occasionally runs a simultaneous pair-team game. We use a regular two-section crossover board-a-match movement, score it both at BAM and at matchpoints, and award two sets of prizes. 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 Apr 10 00:13:26 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:13:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <460CBD9A.6040203@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>A player is allowed to say "no agreement" when there is no >>agreement, neither explicit nor implicit. [hypothetical example snipped] Herman De Wael: >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. Never happen??? Jeff Meckstroth and Marc Smith, Win the Bermuda Bowl With Me, pages 28-29: Meckstroth held: A63 AJ6 AJ7542 A Axelson Meckstroth Hallberg Rodwell 3S 3NT Pass 4H(1) Pass ? (1) Natural and constructive "Eric and I are known for having discussed thousands of bidding sequences but, perhaps surprisingly, this is not one of them. Are you confident that you and your regular partner would agree on the meaning of Four Notrump? I elect to bid Four Notrump, intending it as Roman Key-card Blackwood agreeing hearts. Unfortunately, Eric thinks that Four Notrump is natural and passes." ..... "One reason for including this hand here is to illustrate that everyone has system misunderstandings, even those playing at the highest level." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 10 05:26:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:26:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461A1E14.30401@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Ah! Vague memories of the appearance of the >>Multi-2D ........ how long ago? Brian Meadows: >Also slightly less vague memories of the EBU's >unsuccessful attempt to subsequently ban it. Grattan Endicott: >>The more things change.... Brian Meadows: >.. the more some NCBOs will try to prevent the >changes? Richard Hills: But, like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in, can NCBOs forever prevent worthy conventions being adopted? In the 1920s some tried to prevent the change to the takeout double, claiming it was unsporting and unethical. In the 1930s there were bullish Buller objections to the Culbertson approach-forcing style. In the 1950s many American experts claimed that the Roth-Stone system was unfair, pejoratively describing the negative double as a "Sputnik" double. In the 1960s the ACBL powers-that-be refused to register the convention variously known as "Truscott" or "Jordan". According to Tommy Sanders' account in a Bridge World article, this convention never did get formally registered by the ACBL powers-that-be. Due to its effectiveness and consequent popularity, the Truscott/Jordan convention was incorrectly believed to be legal by players and directors, and eventually even the ACBL powers-that-be also forgot that they had never managed formal registration. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 10 10:17:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:17:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461B481E.6080009@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> A player is allowed to say "no agreement" when there is no >>> agreement, neither explicit nor implicit. > > [hypothetical example snipped] > > Herman De Wael: > >> 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. > > Never happen??? > > Jeff Meckstroth and Marc Smith, Win the Bermuda Bowl With Me, > pages 28-29: > > Meckstroth held: > > A63 > AJ6 > AJ7542 > A > > Axelson Meckstroth Hallberg Rodwell > 3S 3NT Pass 4H(1) > Pass ? > > (1) Natural and constructive > > "Eric and I are known for having discussed thousands of > bidding sequences but, perhaps surprisingly, this is not one > of them. Are you confident that you and your regular partner > would agree on the meaning of Four Notrump? I elect to bid > Four Notrump, intending it as Roman Key-card Blackwood > agreeing hearts. Unfortunately, Eric thinks that Four Notrump > is natural and passes." > > ..... > > "One reason for including this hand here is to illustrate that > everyone has system misunderstandings, even those playing at > the highest level." > Yes, so what? What are you trying to prove? That people can have different understandings? I know that. But now let's suppose the story is just slightly different: rather than having different ideas about the bidding, Meckstroth and Rodwell both think the bid means the same thing. How is the Director going to decide whether there is some common background that leads them to that common idea, or if it is really a 50/50 piece of luck. Considering the history that these two have of playing together, I would suspect there is something there that lead them to the correct guess. So what are they supposed to do? Of course they should truthfully explain that even in 800 pages of system notes, this sequence is not mentioned. But they should then also elaborate and explain that -either: 4NT is always BW when not mentioned, -or: 4NT after 3NT was natural the previous time they bid it. Whichever they choose to guess at the time. Because otherwise, if they happen to guess correctly, the TD may well impute on them an agreement he deems them to have implicitely. You have two choices: either you say nothing or you say something. If you have guessed wrongly - there will be no damage from the explanation that is more than the damage from the misunderstanding. But if you happen to guess correctly, you might have to face a TD ruling on misinformation and your good score taken away. That is why I advise players to explain something, even when they are uncertain. Besides this, how many boards have Meckwell played together? And how many misunderstandings have reached the world press? Do you really believe one Meckwell misunderstanding can prove any point you would be trying to make? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 10 10:43:38 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:43:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <006c01c77b4c$70b32cb0$13bc87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Brian Meadows: > >>Also slightly less vague memories of the EBU's >>unsuccessful attempt to subsequently ban it. > +=+ My memory is that the EBU would have liked to ban or restrict the convention but did not ever discuss which. They decided the use had gone too far to try any such move. That, at any rate, is how the matter was reported to me. I became a member of the L&E committee sometime in the 1970s - and a little later when I became its chairman the question was no longer an issue. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Apr 10 14:04:19 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:04:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006c01c77b4c$70b32cb0$13bc87d9@Hellen> References: <006c01c77b4c$70b32cb0$13bc87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <461B7D43.20005@meadows.pair.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> Brian Meadows: >> >>> Also slightly less vague memories of the EBU's >>> unsuccessful attempt to subsequently ban it. > +=+ My memory is that the EBU would have liked to > ban or restrict the convention but did not ever discuss > which. They decided the use had gone too far to try > any such move. That, at any rate, is how the matter > was reported to me. I became a member of the L&E > committee sometime in the 1970s - and a little later > when I became its chairman the question was no > longer an issue. Not being a member of the EBU hierarchy, I was basing my comments on what I recall being published via the EBU quarterly (as I think it still was at that point). In one issue, certain conventions and systems were mentioned as having their licences "up for review", and EBU members were urged to make their views known if they felt strongly that some of the licences should be retained. I am fairly certain that this was the same review that effectively killed off the Roman Club system in England and Wales, and I think Vienna Club bit the dust too (not so sure about that, I didn't play Vienna). Anyway, whatever else may or may not have been part of the review, my recollection is that the following issue of the quarterly stated that a large number of representations had been received concerning the Multi 2D, and that consequently it would retain its General Licence, but subject to its being played exactly according to the scheme specified, with no "treatments" allowed. I'm assuming that where you say "ban or restrict", you're talking about moving it from a general licence to a restricted, or even experimental (the last being effectively a ban, of course), because although the Multi did keep its General Licence, there were certainly additional restrictions imposed on the bid. I'm reasonably sure of my ground on this one, but my collection of EBU quarterlies and magazines was one of the casualties of my emigration across the pond, so I can't check back. I'm sure there will be a few other British players on BLML who will have recollections of what happened, maybe someone will even have the quarterlies. Brian. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 10 14:43:34 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:43:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461B7D43.20005@meadows.pair.com> References: <006c01c77b4c$70b32cb0$13bc87d9@Hellen> <461B7D43.20005@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:04 AM, brian wrote: > I'm reasonably sure of my ground on this one, but my collection of EBU > quarterlies and magazines was one of the casualties of my emigration > across the pond, so I can't check back. I'm sure there will be a few > other British players on BLML who will have recollections of what > happened, maybe someone will even have the quarterlies. Whatever the facts of this particular case, clearly the power to ban conventions is a two-edged sword whose use, while it may grease a few sticky wheels, has the potential to stifle creativity and the advancement of our game. One might argue, I suppose, that clubs can do whatever they like, and so clubs are the "test bed" for new or unusual conventions, but IME clubs (at least around here) are even more likely to grease the squeaky wheel than are NBOs, so the "test bed" theory doesn't hold water. I don't know how to solve the dilemma, but IMO the status quo ain't good enough. From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 10 16:59:28 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:59:28 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Wacky_conventions_=28wa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_Nobody=2E=2E=2E=29____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <461B7D43.20005@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <461BA64F.000001.87943@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : brian Date : 10/04/2007 14:46:32 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I am fairly certain that this was the same review that effectively killed off the Roman Club system in England and Wales AG : IMOBO the main problem with systems isn't complexity but fuzziness (non-deterministic rules). Apparently Roman Club allows four openings (1 of any suit) on a hand like Kxx - Qxx - AKJ10x - Jx, treating the hand as canap?-like or as 1-suited or as balanced. I guess this fuzziness is the main reason for disallowing Roman club and similar systems. Playing Polish Club with Canap? (which is in essence very similar, and at least as effective, but guarantees 4-card 1D/H/S openings and gives a deterministic rule about openings) would be tolerated more often, I guess. I'm on the liberal side, and then some, but I'm always a bit trifled when they cant tell me when they'll open 1H and when they'll open 1D on, say, 1336. Note that this has nothing to do with players not wanting to disclose their conventions ; in that case the players, not the system, should be thrown out Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070410/61e1d9c8/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/20070410/61e1d9c8/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070410/61e1d9c8/attachment-0001.gif From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Apr 10 19:37:38 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:37:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Wacky_conventions_=28wa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?s_Nobody=2E=2E=2E=29____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <461BA64F.000001.87943@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <461B7D43.20005@meadows.pair.com> <461BA64F.000001.87943@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <461BCB62.40209@meadows.pair.com> NB. Anyone with no interest in the Roman Club system can safely ignore the rest of this post... Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > -------Message original------- > > De : brian > Date : 10/04/2007 14:46:32 > A : blml at rtflb.org > Sujet : Re: [blml] Wacky conventions (was Nobody...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I am fairly certain that this was the same > review that effectively killed off the Roman Club system in England and > Wales > > AG : IMOBO the main problem with systems isn't complexity but fuzziness > (non-deterministic rules). > Apparently Roman Club allows four openings (1 of any suit) on a hand like > Kxx - Qxx - AKJ10x - Jx, treating the hand as canap?-like or as 1-suited or > as balanced. > I believe you're wrong. p5 of (the English translation of) 'The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding', Belladonna and Avarelli :- "In rare cases 5-3-3-2 distribution may be considered balanced". I believe these rare cases were when the five card suit was an abysmally weak one, i.e. you exercised your judgment to treat it as a four card suit, as you can do in almost any system. That rules out the 1C opener on your example hand. Moving on, let's consider the idea of a three card major opening with the idea of a Canape 2D to follow. p45 of the same reference gives two occasions on which you might wish to open in your *lowest ranking* 3-card suit (my emphasis). The first is when you have a 1-suited hand in clubs, since 1C would indicate a balanced hand without a 5 card suit, the second is when you have a better than minimum 1-suited hand and want to give the stronger impression conveyed by bidding as if holding a 2 suited hand. So, considering the example hand you gave, I would say that 1D is the correct opener, 1H is a mild overbid, and 1S is anti-systemic. We've therefore reduced your four openers down to two, 1D intending to rebid 2D or possibly 1H intending to rebid 2D. As above, I'd go with 1D then 2D all the time, make that Jx of clubs into Ax and I'd open 1H. > I guess this fuzziness is the main reason for disallowing Roman club and > similar systems. I'm afraid the fuzziness appears to me to be in your knowledge of the system, rather than the system itself - that is, unless the Belgian translation of the system was *way* different to the English translation. > Playing Polish Club with Canap? (which is in essence very similar, and at > least as effective, but guarantees 4-card 1D/H/S openings and gives a > deterministic rule about openings) would be tolerated more often, I guess. > I think you're doing Roman Club an injustice. > I'm on the liberal side, and then some, but I'm always a bit trifled when > they cant tell me when they'll open 1H and when they'll open 1D on, say, > 1336. > The answer is simple. You would *always* open 1D unless the discrepancy between the suits was enormous, e.g. with x - AKQ - 732 - AJ10xxx I would open 1H. If your opponents can't tell you this, then I suggest that they need to go away and learn the system that they profess to play. > Note that this has nothing to do with players not wanting to disclose their > conventions ; in that case the players, not the system, should be thrown out > Understood. But I do hope that any decisions about Roman were taken by someone who actually knew how to play the system, or at the very least, had read and understood the book which set out how it should be played. I don't mean to jump up and down on you too hard, Alain, but the (effective) banning of Roman Club in the UK by outlawing the three card major opener still grates on me (as if you couldn't tell). There was a lot of crap talked about Roman by people who didn't really know the system. Brian. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 11 03:14:30 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:14:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <200704061548.l36FmbnU002532@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704061548.l36FmbnU002532@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <461C3676.1000701@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >>>2-day competition, 14-30 teams, 80-90 deals, 5-8 rounds, 1 or 2 >>>predefined rounds based on seedings. the particularity is the use of a >>>bonus system to prevent swissing and to make up for the disparity of >>>opposed teams: It still isn't clear to me whether you are adding the bonus only for matching teams or are adding it to final VPs that determine rankings. > i am not certain to understand what you mean by "record". "Record" means the results of prior matches. > 16 teams seeded 1 to 16 according to masterpoints > 1st round: > 1vs2, 3-4, 5-6, ... 15-16 > 2nd round: > 1-15, 2-16, 3-13, 4-14... This seems very odd. Why match teams that are so far apart? Also, unless there's time pressure to have the matches done before the round is over, I'd think you would want the second-round matches to depend on the results of the first round. > next rounds: according to rankings, 1-2, 3-4... excluding rematches > bonus added from the end of 3rd round: 0 to 16th ranking, k to 15th, 2k > to 14th,... 15k to 1st. Is k a number of VPs, or is it based on scores somehow? > the method is optimal in the sense of "lesser squares". it's a very > elementary result in statistics theory. Least squares is only one of many possible criteria for a "figure of merit," and there are many ways to define "figure of merit." I personally think least squares is probably most appropriate for bridge contests, but reasonable people can have different opinions. Least squares is usually the easiest to calculate. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 11 03:33:27 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:33:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition In-Reply-To: <200704091419.l39EJIF9025101@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704091419.l39EJIF9025101@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <461C3AE7.9050209@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > I prefer the present situation of "user pays" for paying the > cost of insurance against the complexities of their own wacky > agreements. That's a reasonable point of view, but as you now say, it really is a matter of personal preference, not right and wrong. Let's summarize: a player (say South) has either misbid or psyched. I see at least three possibilities: 1. There are no questions asked or relevant alerts or failures to alert. In this case, _if_ South manages to remember the system, he may do whatever he wants to try to recover. It will often be the case that no recovery is possible, and of course there's some chance South will not remember until it's too late. 2. If North answers a question, reminding South of the agreement, and this is UI (the present interpretation), South is out of luck. Any successful recovery is likely to be ruled against. This is true whether the question is normal or gratuitous. It's to EW's advantage to ask as many questions as possible to put NS into a UI situation. 3. If North answers a question as in 2, but a correct answer is considered AI (Jeff Rubens' and my suggestion), South is reminded of the agreement and can try to recover. As in 1, recovery might be impossible, but success won't be ruled against. Of course even in 3, recovery by facial expressions or other "black magic" will be ruled against, and _wrong_ explanations will still be UI. My preference for 3 is based on the likelihood that South will remember and the undesirability of gratuitous questions. (In most cases, EW can wait until the auction is over before asking anything.) A lesser factor is that 3 avoids a class of subjective rulings (fantasy bidding systems). All in all, I think 3 makes the game more interesting. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Apr 11 09:33:22 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:33:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Swiss Teams formats In-Reply-To: <461C3676.1000701@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704061548.l36FmbnU002532@cfa.harvard.edu> <461C3676.1000701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <461C8F42.7020304@meteo.fr> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >>>> 2-day competition, 14-30 teams, 80-90 deals, 5-8 rounds, 1 or 2 >>>> predefined rounds based on seedings. the particularity is the use of a >>>> bonus system to prevent swissing and to make up for the disparity of >>>> opposed teams: > > It still isn't clear to me whether you are adding the bonus only for > matching teams or are adding it to final VPs that determine rankings. some amount of bonus is added to all teams at each round starting with the 3rd round. > >> i am not certain to understand what you mean by "record". > > "Record" means the results of prior matches. > >> 16 teams seeded 1 to 16 according to masterpoints >> 1st round: >> 1vs2, 3-4, 5-6, ... 15-16 >> 2nd round: >> 1-15, 2-16, 3-13, 4-14... > > This seems very odd. Why match teams that are so far apart? Also, > unless there's time pressure to have the matches done before the round > is over, I'd think you would want the second-round matches to depend on > the results of the first round. the goal is equity. with only 1 predetermined round, players complain that teams playing against weak opposition get an unfair advantage. following this 2-round scheme, each team has to play against 2 teams whose the sum of seeding is 17. some years ago, another "equity" scheme was used: 1-9, 2-10, ... 8-16 1-8, 2-7,...9-16, 10-15... > >> next rounds: according to rankings, 1-2, 3-4... excluding rematches >> bonus added from the end of 3rd round: 0 to 16th ranking, k to 15th, 2k >> to 14th,... 15k to 1st. > > Is k a number of VPs, or is it based on scores somehow? k is a constant number. for example k=0.27 for 16-team swiss (6 rounds). the score of a team is the sum of its VPs and of its bonuses. > >> the method is optimal in the sense of "lesser squares". it's a very >> elementary result in statistics theory. > > Least squares is only one of many possible criteria for a "figure of > merit," and there are many ways to define "figure of merit." I > personally think least squares is probably most appropriate for bridge > contests, but reasonable people can have different opinions. Least > squares is usually the easiest to calculate. exactly jpr > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 12 06:04:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:04:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461B481E.6080009@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >But they should then also elaborate and explain that -either: 4NT >is always BW when not mentioned, -or: 4NT after 3NT was natural >the previous time they bid it. Whichever they choose to guess at >the time. >..... >I advise players to explain something, even when they are >uncertain. Matthias Berghaus, epigram on the De Wael School: >>Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the >>Laws? I cannot find it. I only find "agreements". >>..... >>75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to >>your opponents. Talleyrand (1754-1838), epigram on the Bourbons, slightly changed: "Herman n'ont rien appris, ni rien oubli?." :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 12 09:08:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:08:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461DDAFF.4000702@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> But they should then also elaborate and explain that -either: 4NT >> is always BW when not mentioned, -or: 4NT after 3NT was natural >> the previous time they bid it. Whichever they choose to guess at >> the time. >> ..... >> I advise players to explain something, even when they are >> uncertain. > > Matthias Berghaus, epigram on the De Wael School: > >>> Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the >>> Laws? I cannot find it. I only find "agreements". >>> ..... >>> 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to >>> your opponents. > > Talleyrand (1754-1838), epigram on the Bourbons, slightly changed: > > "Herman n'ont rien appris, ni rien oubli?." > Richard n'a rien appris non plus! He still hasn't grasped what I am saying. I am not saying that the laws require Meckwell to express their guess. I am saying that if Meckwell refuse to express their guess, and their guess ends up being correct, they will, in all likelihood be ruled against. Because no director is going to believe that there was absolutely no background for their two guesses to coincide. So if they want 50% chance of a good board, they need to express their guess. Otherwise, they have 0% chance of a good board. They can take my advice or leave it, I don't care. > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch, DIAC > 02 6223 9052 > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 12 09:26:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:26:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This weekend's Trials to select the ACT Open Team for the Aussie Interstate Open Teams will be 12 pairs playing 11 rounds of 14- board matches in a round robin, with the top three pairs forming the team. The scoring will be Butler against a datum (yes, I know that cross-imps is a slightly superior method), with the datum an average of the middle four scores, with the two extreme scores excluded (yes, I know that some have strong objections to excluding scores when striking a datum). The question I am posing to blml is which VP scale of the two proposed by BFACT Tournament Secretary Griff Ware is superior (see attached)? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 * * * Griff Ware (BFACT Tournament Secretary): [snip] Option (i) Essentially forget VP scales and score by net IMPs with upper and lower caps -- what we've done for the past two years -- with the following slight improvement: A pair's VP score will be equal to the net IMPs scored in a round, excepting that positive scores are capped above by X, and each negative imp below -X is worth -0.7VPs until a pair's VP score reaches a lower limit of -Y. X and Y vary depending on the number of boards played in a match. For a 14-board butler-scored pairs event appropriate values are X = 38 and Y = -56.2 To prevent ugly looking negative scores we could add a placebo 60VPs per match, so that scores are equal to 60 + net imps [x0.7 for each imp below -38] up to a maximum of 98VPs and a minimum of 3.8VPs; this is roughly a 0 to 100 range which is aesthetically attractive. Option (ii) Use the standard 12-board VP scale (12-board scale despite 14- board match length because in butler-scored pairs events wins are statistically smaller than in teams matches, so a shorter scale should be used). [snip] Part (C): Analysis of the two options I reiterate the point that the *average* difference between these two scoring options is very minimal. The numbers look totally different, but the underlying relativity of pairs' scores is not significantly different when moving between option (i) and (ii), particularly due to the 0.7 factoring of scores between -X and -Y in option (i). When compared to the standard VP scale, option (i) does NOT fundamentally change the nature of the scores or the general outcome of events -- it just fixes some fuzzy boundaries, which may or may not be critical in a given instance. What changes is that option (i) is a finer and more accurate scale, and hence removes elements of luck caused by the coarseness of the standard VP scale. In short, option (i) is statistically fairer than option (ii). I will give an example of this effect to illustrate: Suppose a 4-round event scored on the standard WBF 12-board VP scale takes place. Pair 1 wins its matches by +6, +10, +6 and +6. All smallish wins of comparable size, for a net IMP score of +28 and a VP score of 16+18+16+16 = 66VPs. Pair 2 wins its matches by +7, +7, +7 and +6. All smallish wins of comparable size, for a net IMP score of +27 and a VP score of 17+17+17+16 = 67VPs. That is, 28 IMPs for pair 1 scored 66 VPs, while 27 IMPs for pair 2 scored 67 VPs. Does this seem fair to you? Pair 1 scored more IMPs than Pair 2 (NB without maxing out any of its opponents), averaging 7IMPs a match, yet Pair 2 with its less-than-7IMP per match average scored more VPs. Why? Pair 2 was lucky enough that three of its IMP scores just cusped into the 17-13 VP range while only one of its scores was just outside, at the maximum of the 16-14 range. Meanwhile, Pair 1 had only one of its IMP scores 'just cusp' into the 18-12 range while three of its scores were at the very maximum of the 16-14 range. The question should be asked: was this due to a lack of skill on the part of Pair 1 or an exhibition of a greater degree of skill by Pair 2? Certainly not. In IMPed duplicate bridge you can never be sure how well you are doing with a precision better than about 5IMPs, and hence it is certainly not possible to, for instance, tell on the final board of a match that a specific extra overtrick will give you the IMP needed to cross into a new VP bracket. You simply can not have that level of control. It?s not even the same as being lucky that a 13% grand slam you bid happens to make: in that case you chose to take the chance by bidding the grand; here the dice are being thrown in the air for you. When using a standard VP scale, where your score falls within your eventual VP bracket is almost entirely due to chance and beyond your influence. All you can do is try to maximise your IMPs on each given board and hope that you will benefit from good cusps. In the above example, the IMPs indicate that Pair 1 and Pair 2 had very similar results, but provide an effective, adequate and fair tie-break between the two: Pair 1 did ever so slightly better than Pair 2. By filtering the results with a VP-scale whose theoretical value is questionable, the opposite result is randomly produced: Pair 2 gets one more VP than Pair 1. This sort of occurrence is not uncommon. Several years ago Mark and I did a theoretical analysis of the 8-board VP scale and found that in a standard 6-round congress event, if you assume two teams are on the same IMP total at the end of it, have not had any maximum wins or losses and (for the sake of statistical independence) did not play each other, then the chance of them being on the same VP total is only 14%. Now in congress and other minor events this isn't really a problem and it's OK by me for luck to play its part. But when it comes to a state-level/selection event I personally don't want to take the chance that we have a narrow VP margin for a critical place and it turns out that the margin is less than the random difference thrown up by beneficial/detrimental cusping of scores on the VP scale used. Hence why a fractional VP scale (somewhat complex but more familiar to people) or just simply using net IMPs with appropriate (dampened) caps is my strongly preferred option for major BFACT tournaments. Why does the standard VP scale exist? I guess I should give a couple of words about its merits. Firstly, as alluded to above, it provides a benchmark scale that can be used to compare results between matches of differing lengths. But such a luxury is still available with fractional VP scales, and is of benefit only because people are not used to using net IMPs. Secondly, small fluctuations in VP bracket size over the span of the scale provide some dampening effects that were presumably deemed beneficial by the creators of the scales (eg the 16-14 bracket is always broader than the 15-15 and 17-13 brackets either side of it; why this is the case is beyond me). These effects are very minor and of no immediately obvious value, however, and again fractional VP scales can mimic these properties. More important and valuable are the dampening effects at the extreme end of the scales: these have a significant statistical impact, which is why I suggest applying this aspect to straight net-IMPs, as in option (i). But as far as I can tell the main reason that the VP scales were introduced is due to the now out-dated need to deal in smaller, regulation size scores. Before computers, having a standard VP scale that ranged from 0 to 25 (or -5 to 20 or whatever) led to faster mental arithmetic by the scorers and a faster turnaround for results. This reason no longer applies, however, because with an appropriately programmed computer any vaguely appropriate algorithm for scoring that we like can be implemented. My opinion is that the standard WBF scales are reaching the end of their usefulness and should be replaced with a more precise, fairer, more modern alternative. It is my hope that BFACT can lead the way by scoring its events with such alternatives, eg option (i). Propaganda over. Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 12 11:04:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461DDAFF.4000702@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Because no director is going to believe that there was > absolutely no background for their two guesses to coincide. If they tell me they knew the situation was ambiguous and wasn't a sequence previously encountered and wasn't in their copious system notes I will be predisposed to believe that they had no *partnership* understanding regarding their guess but were both relying on their (pretty considerable) GBK and ended up on the same wavelength. The rarer the sequence the longer a partnership can play together without it generating an expectation of disclosable partnership experience. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 12 12:03:35 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:03:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003801c77ce9$ededfe50$a19487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Herman wrote: >> Because no director is going to believe that there was >> absolutely no background for their two guesses to coincide. > > If they tell me they knew the situation was ambiguous and wasn't a > sequence previously encountered and wasn't in their copious system notes > I will be predisposed to believe that they had no *partnership* > understanding regarding their guess but were both relying on their > (pretty considerable) GBK and ended up on the same wavelength. > > The rarer the sequence the longer a partnership can play together > without it generating an expectation of disclosable partnership > experience. > > Tim > +=+ The evidence has to be assessed. In appeals committees evidence from the actions of the players is normally considered stronger than the statements of the players unsupported by corroboration from CC or system notes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 12 12:14:33 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:14:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004901c77ceb$7866a4a0$a19487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > relying on their (pretty considerable) GBK and > ended up on the same wavelength. > +=+ To be 'general' (Law 75C) knowledge and experience must be widespread among players generally. It is not confined to the partnership; partnership experience gives rise to special information which must be disclosed. ~ G ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Apr 12 14:18:07 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:18:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461DDAFF.4000702@skynet.be> References: <461DDAFF.4000702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <461E237F.9030908@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> But they should then also elaborate and explain that -either: 4NT >>> is always BW when not mentioned, -or: 4NT after 3NT was natural >>> the previous time they bid it. Whichever they choose to guess at >>> the time. >>> ..... >>> I advise players to explain something, even when they are >>> uncertain. >> Matthias Berghaus, epigram on the De Wael School: >> >>>> Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the >>>> Laws? I cannot find it. I only find "agreements". >>>> ..... >>>> 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to >>>> your opponents. >> Talleyrand (1754-1838), epigram on the Bourbons, slightly changed: >> >> "Herman n'ont rien appris, ni rien oubli?." >> > > Richard n'a rien appris non plus! > > He still hasn't grasped what I am saying. > I am not saying that the laws require Meckwell to express their guess. > I am saying that if Meckwell refuse to express their guess, and their > guess ends up being correct, they will, in all likelihood be ruled > against. Because no director is going to believe that there was > absolutely no background for their two guesses to coincide. > > So if they want 50% chance of a good board, they need to express their > guess. Otherwise, they have 0% chance of a good board. They can take > my advice or leave it, I don't care. if you had to take the defense of a man accused of a crime he had not committed, would you give him the advice to look for somebody who would lie in order to provide him with an alibi? jpr > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 12 14:43:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:43:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461E296C.2030205@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> Because no director is going to believe that there was >> absolutely no background for their two guesses to coincide. > > If they tell me they knew the situation was ambiguous and wasn't a > sequence previously encountered and wasn't in their copious system notes > I will be predisposed to believe that they had no *partnership* > understanding regarding their guess but were both relying on their > (pretty considerable) GBK and ended up on the same wavelength. > How can anything that Meckstroth and Rodwell both know ever be classified as GBK? "General" means that everyone knows it. > The rarer the sequence the longer a partnership can play together > without it generating an expectation of disclosable partnership > experience. > The longer a partnership plays together the less likely it becomes for any experience to be lacking in any sequence. Surely this needs no further explanation. Meckstroth bids something on hand X. Rodwell bids as if he realizes his partner has hand X. They say they have no "partnership experience". And you believe thme? I don't, and I am quite certain that Rodwell will have explained something like "I think he should have something like X". It si immpossible for them to say "I have absolutely no idea what he has", and then proceed to bid as if they know he has X. Anyway, this is just my advice to players of the class of Meckwell, you can do whatever you like. I will rule upon the evidence presented to me, but if you guess correctly but have not said anything of the sort to your opponents, then I will quite possibly rule against you. So you just go ahead with presenting less than optimum explanations to your opponents; I sure hope other players are more forthcoming and won't go hiding behind "the laws don't oblige me to tell you my guesses". And I believe that is the last that needs to be said on this subject. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 12 15:03:04 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:03:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <461DDAFF.4000702@skynet.be> <461E237F.9030908@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <001d01c77d02$fd09c130$9c9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] < if you had to take the defense of a man accused of a crime he had not committed, would you give him the advice to look for somebody who would lie in order to provide him with an alibi? jpr > +=+ Ah, Jean-Pierre, such a good question. But to evaluate the answer surely you need to know whether it is supplied by a criminal! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 12 15:09:42 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:09:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - addendum. Message-ID: <002a01c77d03$ec4de410$9c9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "And if I loved you Wednesday What is that to you? I do not love you Thursday, So much is true." - Edna St. V. Millay vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > "And if I loved you Wednesday > What is that to you? > I do not love you Thursday, > So much is true." > - Edna St. V. Millay > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:18 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > < > if you had to take the defense of a man accused of a crime he had not > committed, would you give him the advice to look for somebody who would > lie in order to provide him with an alibi? > > jpr >> > +=+ Ah, Jean-Pierre, such a good question. But to evaluate > the answer surely, you need to know whether it is supplied by > a criminal! > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Or do actions speak louder than words? +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 12 15:11:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:11:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461E237F.9030908@meteo.fr> References: <461DDAFF.4000702@skynet.be> <461E237F.9030908@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <461E300E.30701@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> But they should then also elaborate and explain that -either: 4NT >>>> is always BW when not mentioned, -or: 4NT after 3NT was natural >>>> the previous time they bid it. Whichever they choose to guess at >>>> the time. >>>> ..... >>>> I advise players to explain something, even when they are >>>> uncertain. >>> Matthias Berghaus, epigram on the De Wael School: >>> >>>>> Herman, could you please tell me where "guess" is found in the >>>>> Laws? I cannot find it. I only find "agreements". >>>>> ..... >>>>> 75A. Your agreements are not "fully and freely available" to >>>>> your opponents. >>> Talleyrand (1754-1838), epigram on the Bourbons, slightly changed: >>> >>> "Herman n'ont rien appris, ni rien oubli?." >>> >> Richard n'a rien appris non plus! >> >> He still hasn't grasped what I am saying. >> I am not saying that the laws require Meckwell to express their guess. >> I am saying that if Meckwell refuse to express their guess, and their >> guess ends up being correct, they will, in all likelihood be ruled >> against. Because no director is going to believe that there was >> absolutely no background for their two guesses to coincide. >> >> So if they want 50% chance of a good board, they need to express their >> guess. Otherwise, they have 0% chance of a good board. They can take >> my advice or leave it, I don't care. > > if you had to take the defense of a man accused of a crime he had not > committed, would you give him the advice to look for somebody who would > lie in order to provide him with an alibi? > What has that got to do with it? The best I can translate the Meckwell case into alibi's would be like this: A man is sitting in a restaurant and he knows (don't ask me why) that either in that restaurant or in another one a murder will be committed. Should he : - ask for a signed receipt, so that -if the murder happens to be in the other restaurant- he has an alibi (50% chance of success); or - not ask for a receipt, so that - wherever the murder happens to be- he has no alibi (0% chance of success). I suggest that Meckwell get a receipt, ie tell their guess. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 12 15:19:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:19:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461E31C4.1090507@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > This weekend's Trials to select the ACT Open Team for the Aussie > Interstate Open Teams will be 12 pairs playing 11 rounds of 14- > board matches in a round robin, with the top three pairs forming > the team. The scoring will be Butler against a datum (yes, I > know that cross-imps is a slightly superior method), with the > datum an average of the middle four scores, with the two extreme > scores excluded (yes, I know that some have strong objections to > excluding scores when striking a datum). > > The question I am posing to blml is which VP scale of the two > proposed by BFACT Tournament Secretary Griff Ware is superior > (see attached)? > I browsed through this, but it seems to me this text tries to solve two problems at once: a- should VP scales be decimalised or rounded? b- should the scales be linear or not? It seems to me you don't need to do a lot of math to solve either question. With regards to a-, you don't need examples to prove that sometimes, a higher number of IMPs will lead to a lower number of VP. That's just a consequence of rounding. If you want to do away with it, by all means do. I don't think the players object much to either. With regards to b-, it is my opinion that if all teams play all boards, it should not be right for a good board to have a different influence when it is played in a match that is otherwise lost or in a match that is already blitzed. My vote would be for straight IMPs, not even capped in matches. This is a serious tournament, right? So if you win by 25-0, you've earned that. In fact, I believe you've earned 30! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 12 16:05:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461E296C.2030205@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > > > How can anything that Meckstroth and Rodwell both know ever be > classified as GBK? "General" means that everyone knows it. No it bl**dy well doesn't. You, me, Meckstroth, and indeed every other bridge player has "knowledge". Some of that knowledge is our "general" knowledge, some is the basis of discussion/experience within the particular partnership (including mutual experience of a particular environment) in which we are playing at any given moment. Everything we know which is NOT a subject of that partnership is "general". I'm pretty sure Meckstroth and Rodwell both know Roman Blackwood (despite never having played it together) but that doesn't mean that, if playing Roman Blackwood against them and having forgotten the responses you expect a full answer to the question "what does 5D show in Roman Blackwood?". > Meckstroth bids something on hand X. > Rodwell bids as if he realizes his partner has hand X. > They say they have no "partnership experience". And you believe thme? If the sequence is an unusual one, quite probably. No partnership can discuss every possible sequence. > I don't, and I am quite certain that Rodwell will have explained > something like "I think he should have something like X". Probably "either it's natural or RKCB for Hearts, we haven't discussed which and it hasn't come up before". > It si > immpossible for them to say "I have absolutely no idea what he has", > and then proceed to bid as if they know he has X. True, but it is perfectly possible to say "either X or Y" and then proceed on the assumption that bidding *as if* X will be less tragic than bidding *as if* Y when guessing wrong. > So you just go ahead with presenting less than optimum explanations You don't ask them to present "less than optimum" explanations - you tell them to lie about having a firm agreement in cases where the correct explanation includes a degree of ambiguity. You advise that they do so on the basis that the TD is so inept he cannot work out when the players have disclosed fully and when they haven't. > to your opponents; I sure hope other players are more forthcoming and > won't go hiding behind "the laws don't oblige me to tell you my > guesses". There is nothing to hide. One discloses what one can - agreements, meta-agreements, relevant experience, inferences from the earlier auction and everything else. But when, after all that, ambiguity remains one also discloses the ambiguity. In any given sequence my opponents have an absolute right to know when my partnership is not on firm ground - that knowledge *may* affect their choice of call and neither you nor I may hide *that* from opponents. Tim. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 12 16:05:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004901c77ceb$7866a4a0$a19487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > relying on their (pretty considerable) GBK and > > ended up on the same wavelength. > > > +=+ To be 'general' (Law 75C) knowledge and > experience must be widespread among players > generally. It is not confined to the partnership; > partnership experience gives rise to special > information which must be disclosed. Actually to be "general" the knowledge need not be widespread merely outwith specific partnership experience. While Meckstroth and Rodwell have considerable experience (and discussion) of playing together (all of which is indeed disclosable) each also has (as far as I am aware) considerable individual experience of playing bridge with others. It is possible for a player to have Zero GBK - providing that player has only ever played with (and been taught by) a single partner while his partner has *lots* of GBK having played with a range of partners over many years. Geoff knows exactly the same amount about bridge when he sits down opposite Eric as he would were he to sit opposite me (whom he doesn't know from Adam). However, the amount of that knowledge that he is expected to disclose when partnering me is a tiny percentage of that which he should disclose when partnering Eric). Actually were he to sit down opposite Adam (the one from NY whose game he probably knows fairly well) the required disclosure would be somewhere between the two. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 12 16:05:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003801c77ce9$ededfe50$a19487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ The evidence has to be assessed. In appeals committees > evidence from the actions of the players is normally considered > stronger than the statements of the players unsupported by > corroboration from CC or system notes. In competent ACs evidence is considered on its merits. If Meckwell say they haven't discussed (or encountered) a particular (and highly unusual) sequence and that it isn't in the system notes (which are widely known for their thoroughness) their statement (in conjunction with the absence of any reference in the notes) can be given considerable weight by the AC. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 12 17:39:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:39:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461E52B4.3040608@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> How can anything that Meckstroth and Rodwell both know ever be >> classified as GBK? "General" means that everyone knows it. > > No it bl**dy well doesn't. You, me, Meckstroth, and indeed every other > bridge player has "knowledge". Some of that knowledge is our "general" > knowledge, some is the basis of discussion/experience within the > particular partnership (including mutual experience of a particular > environment) in which we are playing at any given moment. > Everything we know which is NOT a subject of that partnership is > "general". I'm pretty sure Meckstroth and Rodwell both know Roman > Blackwood (despite never having played it together) but that doesn't > mean that, if playing Roman Blackwood against them and having forgotten > the responses you expect a full answer to the question "what does 5D > show in Roman Blackwood?". > Being the one of us with the least knowledge of english, I shall defer to your superiority, but to me, "general" knowledge is something that everybody knows. General knowledge is not something Meckstroth knows that is more general than what his agreement with Rodwell includes, it is something that I (as his hypothetical opponent at a particular table am also supposed to know). As to what the example about the Roman Blackwood is supposed to mean, I believe you are trying to have me agree that they need not answer questions about my system. No they don't. Which just leaves my first argument: how can anything that both Meckstroth and Rodwell know, and their opponents can only guess at, be considered GBK? >> Meckstroth bids something on hand X. >> Rodwell bids as if he realizes his partner has hand X. >> They say they have no "partnership experience". And you believe thme? > > If the sequence is an unusual one, quite probably. No partnership can > discuss every possible sequence. > Yet M-W have 800 pages of system notes. Some of which may apply (even if not literally there). They know their 800 pages, all the rest of us are not even allowed to have a look at it (for copyright reasons, they pretend). When they are apparently in agreement, how is the director going to decide whether this is just pure luck or a logical implication from the footnote on page 327, which they both happen to be thinking of at the same time? > >> I don't, and I am quite certain that Rodwell will have explained >> something like "I think he should have something like X". > > Probably "either it's natural or RKCB for Hearts, we haven't discussed > which and it hasn't come up before". > Well, as director I will not accept that as complete when at the end of the deal they happen to have both thought it was the same thing. >> It si >> immpossible for them to say "I have absolutely no idea what he has", >> and then proceed to bid as if they know he has X. > > True, but it is perfectly possible to say "either X or Y" and then > proceed on the assumption that bidding *as if* X will be less tragic than > bidding *as if* Y when guessing wrong. > >> So you just go ahead with presenting less than optimum explanations > > You don't ask them to present "less than optimum" explanations - you > tell them to lie about having a firm agreement in cases where the > correct explanation includes a degree of ambiguity. You advise that > they do so on the basis that the TD is so inept he cannot work out when > the players have disclosed fully and when they haven't. > But this is not a question about lying. We have other threads for that. If you want to do away with "lying" (as you call it) you are allowed to say something like "more likely it's X". But if you don't add the X, and just leave "X or Y", I am ruling that as being incomplete. I am advocating telling more than you are, and you are calling me a liar? >> to your opponents; I sure hope other players are more forthcoming and >> won't go hiding behind "the laws don't oblige me to tell you my >> guesses". > > There is nothing to hide. One discloses what one can - agreements, > meta-agreements, relevant experience, inferences from the earlier > auction and everything else. But when, after all that, ambiguity > remains one also discloses the ambiguity. > Go right ahead and say that you don't know. But if you happen to agree with partner, I will rule as if you knew all along. Or rather - I may rule like that. I am never saying that the laws instruct you to say "X", only that if you are guessing that it is "X", it is better for you to say "X" than to say "X or Y". Because the TD might well rule that it was X after all. > In any given sequence my opponents have an absolute right to know when > my partnership is not on firm ground - that knowledge *may* affect their > choice of call and neither you nor I may hide *that* from opponents. > And that is exactly what I've been argueing against all along. No, the opponents have no right whatsoever to know that you are not on firm ground. None whatsoever - surely not an absolute right. They are entitled to know your agreements, nothing more. If my bid is based on hedging two systems at once, then I am required to tell them that. But if I base my calls only on one system, then I have to tell them that one system, and nothing more. I do not have to divulge if I'm 100%, 99%,60% or 51% certain of what I am doing. If it turns out I was wrong all along, then I have given misinformation, but I have also made a wrong bid (more often than not). I'm taking that. But if you are in the same position, and you tell them "I'm 60% confident that it's X, it might be Y"; and it turns out that your partner intended Y all along, then the ruling you'll get will be just the same as mine. The TD will ignore the fact that you expressed doubt and rule as if you said X only. > Tim. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 12 17:42:36 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:42:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461E536C.1030203@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The evidence has to be assessed. In appeals committees >> evidence from the actions of the players is normally considered >> stronger than the statements of the players unsupported by >> corroboration from CC or system notes. > > In competent ACs evidence is considered on its merits. If Meckwell say > they haven't discussed (or encountered) a particular (and highly > unusual) sequence and that it isn't in the system notes (which are > widely known for their thoroughness) their statement (in conjunction > with the absence of any reference in the notes) can be given > considerable weight by the AC. It might, yes, but then again, it might be counterbalanced by the fact that they appeared to have the same idea anyway. Why should they take the risk of being ruled against if all they have to do (in case they do get it right) is express their best guess? What is so wrong with telling more than what you appear to consider enough? And what is so wrong with me advising players to tell more? Aren't we trying to make the game agreeable to our opponents? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 12 21:52:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461E536C.1030203@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > And what is so wrong with me advising players to tell more? Aren't we > trying to make the game agreeable to our opponents? But you aren't advising them to "tell more" you are advising them to conceal the fact that the meaning of a call is ambiguous according to their agreements. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 12 21:52:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461E52B4.3040608@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Being the one of us with the least knowledge of english, I shall > defer to your superiority, but to me, "general" knowledge is > something that everybody knows. The term in law is not "general knowledge" but "*HIS* general knowledge". It is there to distinguish the knowledge the player has from his *general* experience of the game from that which is specific to the agreements/understandings/experience of the partnership. > General knowledge is not something > Meckstroth knows that is more general than what his agreement with > Rodwell includes, it is something that I (as his hypothetical > opponent at a particular table am also supposed to know). Suppose Meckstroth is partnering me against you and Rodwell. (An unfamiliar partnership for us both I assume). Don't you think that both M+R know an awful lot that you and I don't? That knowledge is not disclosable because in this novel situation it is, in this situation, THEIR "general knowledge". > As to what the example about the Roman Blackwood is supposed to mean, > I believe you are trying to have me agree that they need not answer > questions about my system. No they don't. Well, it was a question to which they would both know the answer (and expect eachother to know) but I don't expect them to answer the question because the knowledge (while hardly widely known amongst bridge players at large) is wholly independent of their partnership (ie general not specific). > Which just leaves my first argument: how can anything that both > Meckstroth and Rodwell know, and their opponents can only guess at, > be considered GBK? > > >> Meckstroth bids something on hand X. > >> Rodwell bids as if he realizes his partner has hand X. > >> They say they have no "partnership experience". And you believe > > thme? > > If the sequence is an unusual one, quite probably. No partnership > > can discuss every possible sequence. > > > > Yet M-W have 800 pages of system notes. Some of which may apply (even > if not literally there). They know their 800 pages, all the rest of > us are not even allowed to have a look at it (for copyright reasons, > they pretend). When they are apparently in agreement, how is the > director going to decide whether this is just pure luck or a logical > implication from the footnote on page 327, which they both happen to > be thinking of at the same time? Directors assess the facts and make a judgement. Where necessary they ask M+R about the footnote. > But this is not a question about lying. We have other threads for > that. If you want to do away with "lying" (as you call it) you are > allowed to say something like "more likely it's X". But if you don't > add the X, and just leave "X or Y", I am ruling that as being > incomplete. If X is more likely than Y then one should say so. If Y is more likely than X then say that. If X and Y are equally likely then say that. Most us don't play in MeckWell type partnerships. If I sit down for an on-line game with a pick-up partner and the auction goes 1S-4H I know it's either natural or a splinter but I don't know which and I don't know which is more likely. > Go right ahead and say that you don't know. But if you happen to > agree with partner, I will rule as if you knew all along. You can rule what you damn well please. I'll appeal and get the case heard by someone competent who actually considers the evidence - and bear in mind that if I am guessing between two equal chances I am expected to guess correctly half the time. > Or rather - I may rule like that. I am never saying that the laws > instruct you to say "X", only that if you are guessing that it is > "X", it is better for you to say "X" than to say "X or Y". Because > the TD might well rule that it was X after all. And I don't give a monkeys how the TD is "likely to rule". I'll tell my opponents the truth and > > In any given sequence my opponents have an absolute right to know > > when my partnership is not on firm ground - that knowledge *may* > > affect their choice of call and neither you nor I may hide *that* > > from opponents. > > > > And that is exactly what I've been argueing against all along. No, > the opponents have no right whatsoever to know that you are not on > firm ground. None whatsoever - surely not an absolute right. They are > entitled to know your agreements, nothing more. Nothing more than our agreements (apart from implicit understandings and relevant partnership experience). If we haven't discussed a sequence it is obviously relevant whether or not we have previously encountered that sequence (or one sufficiently similar to provide inferences). The "agreements etc" of any pair are ambiguous in *some* situations. The less the pair has played together the more common those situations will be. If I'm playing with Stuart the explanation "We haven't discussed it but I know Simon (Stuart's regular partner) likes to play it as..." is complete and truthful. Saying "we have agreed to play it as..." is neither. Tim From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 12 18:20:52 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:20:52 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Thai_braking____=5BSEC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <461E31C4.1090507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <461E5C63.000004.44631@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 12/04/2007 17:14:12 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] My vote would be for straight IMPs, not even capped in matches. This is a serious tournament, right? So if you win by 25-0, you've earned that. In fact, I believe you've earned 30! AG : I believe the rationale behind the limitation to 25 (and formerly the use of negative numbers) is to avoid the impact on a team's score of the opposite side collapsing, which is not an indication that you played marvelously. And I'd like to keep this system. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070412/2f5534f4/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/20070412/2f5534f4/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 19041 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070412/2f5534f4/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 13 09:36:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:36:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461F3312.7000901@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >> And what is so wrong with me advising players to tell more? Aren't we >> trying to make the game agreeable to our opponents? > > But you aren't advising them to "tell more" you are advising them to > conceal the fact that the meaning of a call is ambiguous according to > their agreements. > But what does "ambiguous" mean? If I don't know whether we're playing diamonds 4 or longest minor, we don't have an agreement about that, and the bid is "ambiguous". But that just means that the bid shows 3/4 diamonds, and we have an agreement about that, and that's what I tell them. But if my partner bids 2Cl after 1D-1H-1NT (no intervention) then that is either natural or conventional. He has intended it as one of the two, and he hopes I interpret it the same way. Because we often play that convention, with others, and we merely forgot to talk about it before this particular tournament. There is nothing ambiguous about his intention - and nothing ambiguous about my reply. Am I allowed to say "we have agreed nothing" and then proceed to bid 2Sp with a maximum hand with 3 hearts? I don't think so - as the TD will rule that on the basis of all evidence available to him, he will rule that we were playing Roudinesco all along. Now you may add "we did not agree this today, but in the past we've often played ... here" but you are not allowed to simply say "we did not agree anything today" without revealing what you played in the past. As to my simply saying "Roudinesco", we've talked about that - I don't have to explain how I arrive at the conclusion I did. But there is nothing ambiguous about the "agreement". > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 13 09:40:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:40:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461F3401.6080205@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >> Being the one of us with the least knowledge of english, I shall >> defer to your superiority, but to me, "general" knowledge is >> something that everybody knows. > > The term in law is not "general knowledge" but "*HIS* general > knowledge". It is there to distinguish the knowledge the player has > from his *general* experience of the game from that which is specific to > the agreements/understandings/experience of the partnership. > >> General knowledge is not something >> Meckstroth knows that is more general than what his agreement with >> Rodwell includes, it is something that I (as his hypothetical >> opponent at a particular table am also supposed to know). > > Suppose Meckstroth is partnering me against you and Rodwell. (An > unfamiliar partnership for us both I assume). Don't you think that both > M+R know an awful lot that you and I don't? That knowledge is not > disclosable because in this novel situation it is, in this situation, > THEIR "general knowledge". > >> As to what the example about the Roman Blackwood is supposed to mean, >> I believe you are trying to have me agree that they need not answer >> questions about my system. No they don't. > > Well, it was a question to which they would both know the answer (and > expect eachother to know) but I don't expect them to answer the question > because the knowledge (while hardly widely known amongst bridge players > at large) is wholly independent of their partnership (ie general not > specific). > >> Which just leaves my first argument: how can anything that both >> Meckstroth and Rodwell know, and their opponents can only guess at, >> be considered GBK? >> >>>> Meckstroth bids something on hand X. >>>> Rodwell bids as if he realizes his partner has hand X. >>>> They say they have no "partnership experience". And you believe >>> thme? >>> If the sequence is an unusual one, quite probably. No partnership >>> can discuss every possible sequence. >>> >> Yet M-W have 800 pages of system notes. Some of which may apply (even >> if not literally there). They know their 800 pages, all the rest of >> us are not even allowed to have a look at it (for copyright reasons, >> they pretend). When they are apparently in agreement, how is the >> director going to decide whether this is just pure luck or a logical >> implication from the footnote on page 327, which they both happen to >> be thinking of at the same time? > > Directors assess the facts and make a judgement. Where necessary they > ask M+R about the footnote. > >> But this is not a question about lying. We have other threads for >> that. If you want to do away with "lying" (as you call it) you are >> allowed to say something like "more likely it's X". But if you don't >> add the X, and just leave "X or Y", I am ruling that as being >> incomplete. > > If X is more likely than Y then one should say so. If Y is more likely > than X then say that. If X and Y are equally likely then say that. > Most us don't play in MeckWell type partnerships. If I sit down for an > on-line game with a pick-up partner and the auction goes 1S-4H I know > it's either natural or a splinter but I don't know which and I don't > know which is more likely. > You do it again Tim. I start saying that in 99% of the cases, a player has a 60% inkling of what is going on. And you give an example in which you say it's 50/50. Yes, if it's 50/50 then you are allowed to say so. But if the guess is 60/40 then I want you to tell me which is the 60. Agreed? >> Go right ahead and say that you don't know. But if you happen to >> agree with partner, I will rule as if you knew all along. > > You can rule what you damn well please. I'll appeal and get the case > heard by someone competent who actually considers the evidence - and > bear in mind that if I am guessing between two equal chances I am > expected to guess correctly half the time. > And the AC will also consider the evidence that you had the same idea as partner and refused to tell them. And the evidence will include the fact that it is not a pick-up partner but someone you've played with 7 times in the past 4 years. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 10:21:51 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:21:51 +1200 Subject: [blml] 3NT or 4S Message-ID: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Screens in use. Uncontested auction. West North East South 1S Pass 2D Pass 3NT Pass 4S All Pass This was how the auction was intended but things did not quite happen this way. As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the 4S card fell off the tray. South who was responsible for moving the tray replaced the 4S card on the tray. However somehow the 4S card still did not make it to the other side of the screen. Neither North nor East noticed that West had not passed (nor bid 4S or any other bid). North passed thinking he was passing out 3NT. The tray was passed through to the other side of the screen where now neither South nor West noticed that East had not passed or bid. South passed thinking she was passing out 4S. I suspect that the 4S card had been caught in the screen and was somehow picked up by the tray as it returned. South now brilliantly underled her diamond ace against 4S and partner won the singleton queen. The play continues until about trick 8 or 9 when declarer claimed pitching his spades on his established winners. This was a novel idea for South who believed that spades were trumps. In reality the auction had gone: West North East South 1S Pass 2D Pass 3NT Pass --- Pass on one side of the screen and West North East South 1S Pass 2D Pass 3NT Pass 4S Pass --- Pass on the other side of the screen. How would you rule? 3NT had made an overtrick with one defender defending that contract and the other defending 4S. 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 13 11:22:23 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:22:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] 3NT or 4S In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070413111545.02190b90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:21 13/04/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Screens in use. > >Uncontested auction. > >West North East South > 1S Pass >2D Pass 3NT Pass >4S All Pass > >This was how the auction was intended but things did not quite happen this >way. > >As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the >4S card fell off the tray. South who was responsible for moving the >tray replaced the 4S card on the tray. However somehow the 4S card >still did not make it to the other side of the screen. I'm not sure this is the right answer to the problem, but shouldn't the players place the whole pack of bids (here, 12 of them) on the tray ? See the instructions for use of the BBs. This would have avoided the problem, or at least made it more visible. In litteral terms, the auction han't ended, as 4S was duly bid and East didn't call over this. So I'd say the play is void. What to make wth the deal should be ruled along L12C1 or L88. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 13 11:20:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:20:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] 3NT or 4S In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <461F4B7A.7020504@skynet.be> There are only two possibilities: Either you rule that the contract is 4S, because that was actually bid. This means that east did not pass on that bid, but he accepted the lead so cannot complain. The play has gone as it has and barring ruffs that were not noticed (not actually the case) nothing must be corrected. Or you rule that both parties are in error, and cancel the board. I don't think there is enough wrong so as not to do the first. Wayne Burrows wrote: > Screens in use. > > Uncontested auction. > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > 4S All Pass > > This was how the auction was intended but things did not quite happen this way. > > As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the > 4S card fell off the tray. South who was responsible for moving the > tray replaced the 4S card on the tray. However somehow the 4S card > still did not make it to the other side of the screen. > > Neither North nor East noticed that West had not passed (nor bid 4S or > any other bid). North passed thinking he was passing out 3NT. > > The tray was passed through to the other side of the screen where now > neither South nor West noticed that East had not passed or bid. South > passed thinking she was passing out 4S. > > I suspect that the 4S card had been caught in the screen and was > somehow picked up by the tray as it returned. > > South now brilliantly underled her diamond ace against 4S and partner > won the singleton queen. The play continues until about trick 8 or 9 > when declarer claimed pitching his spades on his established winners. > This was a novel idea for South who believed that spades were trumps. > > In reality the auction had gone: > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > --- Pass > > on one side of the screen and > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > 4S Pass --- Pass > > on the other side of the screen. > > How would you rule? > > 3NT had made an overtrick with one defender defending that contract > and the other defending 4S. > > 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the > diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 13 14:10:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461F3312.7000901@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > But if my partner bids 2Cl after 1D-1H-1NT (no intervention) then > that is either natural or conventional. He has intended it as one of > the two, and he hopes I interpret it the same way. Because we often > play that convention, with others, and we merely forgot to talk about > it before this particular tournament. There is nothing ambiguous > about his intention - and nothing ambiguous about my reply. Sure, if you have played it before you say "Sorry, it's not on the CC but we have always played it as Roudinescou". But supposing you have agreed "club standard" in undiscussed situations. Unfortunately the "club" is evenly divided between those who play natural and those who play Roudi (you know partner plays both methods with various people and he knows you do the same). Now there is ambiguity and the only correct and complete answer captures those points. If you simply say "Roudi" then you resolve the ambiguity for partner and opps won't even realise you have given significant UI. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 13 14:10:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461F3401.6080205@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > You do it again Tim. I start saying that in 99% of the cases, a > player has a 60% inkling of what is going on. It is nothing like 99% of cases. > And you give an example > in which you say it's 50/50. Yes, if it's 50/50 then you are allowed > to say so. But if the guess is 60/40 then I want you to tell me which > is the 60. Agreed? And I want you to tell me which is the 40 - also agreed? Of course I will only tell you the 60/40 (or whatever) based on the likelihood of our agreements - not based on the contents of my hand. > > >> Go right ahead and say that you don't know. But if you happen to > >> agree with partner, I will rule as if you knew all along. > > > > You can rule what you damn well please. I'll appeal and get the > > case heard by someone competent who actually considers the evidence > > - and bear in mind that if I am guessing between two equal chances > > I am expected to guess correctly half the time. > > > > And the AC will also consider the evidence that you had the same idea > as partner and refused to tell them. I haven't refused to tell them anything. I have told them what the possibilities are and, if known, the relative likelihood of what partner will expect the bid to mean and the reasons he might have for thinking one way or another. > And the evidence will include > the fact that it is not a pick-up partner but someone you've played > with 7 times in the past 4 years. It might. But I've played about 10,000 hands on-line in 4 years, often in 4-5 board stints (and without knowing whether I have partnered that player before). The weight given to having played 30 hands together previously (particularly since those records can be checked for related sequences) would not be particularly high IMO. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 13 15:15:31 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:15:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >> But if my partner bids 2Cl after 1D-1H-1NT (no intervention) then >> that is either natural or conventional. He has intended it as one of >> the two, and he hopes I interpret it the same way. Because we often >> play that convention, with others, and we merely forgot to talk about >> it before this particular tournament. There is nothing ambiguous >> about his intention - and nothing ambiguous about my reply. > > Sure, if you have played it before you say "Sorry, it's not on the CC > but we have always played it as Roudinescou". > Of course, but that would be too easy a problem. > But supposing you have agreed "club standard" in undiscussed > situations. Unfortunately the "club" is evenly divided between those > who play natural and those who play Roudi (you know partner plays both > methods with various people and he knows you do the same). Now there is > ambiguity and the only correct and complete answer captures those points. > But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". > If you simply say "Roudi" then you resolve the ambiguity for partner and > opps won't even realise you have given significant UI. > Yes, but that is a different problem altogether. If the man who bids Roudi has a hand that conforms to both meanings, then the response "Roudi" will be UI to him - or rather, the meaning of the next bid will be UI. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 15:29:34 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:29:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> References: <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0704130629t541db424x4ebd7893277879b@mail.gmail.com> On 4/13/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case > is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder > has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that > sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is > no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the > same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and > there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are > you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". Wrong It is entirely possible for players to have hands that conform to two different interpretations of a bid. Consider the following example: Assume for the moment that you are playing in an environment where half the players play transfer responses over partner's 1NT opening and the other half does not. You've never played with partner and didn't have an opportunity to discuss this sequence. Partner open's 1NT and RHO passes. You hold. S xx H xxxxx D xxxxx C x I'd bid 2D. I don't care if if partner passes or bids 2H. Either way, I'm in good shape. (I'm willing to risk a Diamond raise). Obviously, this is an artifical example, however, the core point holds true. There are a lot of cases out there where you hold a hand that fits the definition for two different bids. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, its entirely possible that a player holds a hand that mets the definition of both drury and a natural 2C advance over partner's third seat 1S opening. -- We seem to have discovered a new stage in the traditional K?bler-Ross process: 1. Denial: "The media doesn't show the good news in Iraq." 2. Anger: "The treasonous far-left-liberals and their media lapdogs are making us lose in Iraq." 3. Bargaining: "If we send x-thousand more troops to Iraq, victory will be ours." 4. Depression: "Did you catch 300 yet? [munch-munch-burp] God, it made me hate liberals even more. [channels flipping] They wouldn't last a day in ancient Sparta." 5. Advanced Literary Theory: "The hegemonic binary of 'success' and 'failure' traumatizes the (re)interpretive possibilities of an ethos of jouissance regarding the War in Iraq." From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 13 16:09:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:09:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> At 09:15 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: >But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case >is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder >has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that >sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is >no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the >same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and >there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are >you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". The same way you are going to not believe them: by understanding that even if they are both flipping coins to decide which way to treat 4H, they will wind up "on the same wavelength" 50% of the time -- which means that always believing them and never believing them are equally fallacious. In Herman's world, they would have no way to recover from the ambiguity inherent in a genuine lack of agreement -- disaster if they guess differently (50% of the time), unfavorable adjustment from Herman if they guess similarly (the other 50% of the time). In effect, having no agreement becomes a de facto infraction in itself. In Tim's world, TDs and ACs look at evidence and listen to what the players have to say, decide whether they in fact had "no agreement" as they claimed, and rule accordingly; that's their job. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 13 16:28:31 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:28:31 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Whale____=5BSEC=3DUN?= =?iso-8859-1?q?OFFICIAL=5D?= References: <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". I'd like to add that there are cases where the action is obvious even absent the agreement. In that case, Herman's automatic adjustment for "guessing right" seems wrong. It's teams, and the bidding (unopposed) goes : 1S - 2C - 2S - 3S. Now RHO asks about 3S (strange time to do it, but it was in the BW case too) He wants to know whether 3S is forcing. You answer : "I don't know". Just assume it's true : you didn't discuss it. Of course, you, me and the Emperor of Tonkin will bid 4S on a minimum, just in case. If we guessed right, should we be penalized ? Surely not. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070413/39d2cf55/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/20070413/39d2cf55/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 19041 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070413/39d2cf55/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 13 16:45:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:45:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Whale____=5BSEC=3DUN?= =?iso-8859-1?q?OFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <461F97A7.6000508@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Herman De Wael > The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is > no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the > same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and > there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are > you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". > > > I'd like to add that there are cases where the action is obvious even > absent the agreement. In that case, Herman's automatic adjustment for > "guessing right" seems wrong. > > It's teams, and the bidding (unopposed) goes : 1S - 2C - 2S - 3S. > Now RHO asks about 3S (strange time to do it, but it was in the BW case > too). > He wants to know whether 3S is forcing. > You answer : "I don't know". > > Just assume it's true : you didn't discuss it. > Of course, you, me and the Emperor of Tonkin will bid 4S on a minimum, > just in case. > > If we guessed right, should we be penalized ? Surely not. > Why not? OK, let's assume the worst case: partner did indeed have game-going values, and thus clearly intended 3S to be forcing. When asked, he tells us : "isn't that obvious?". You, OTOH, have only a minimum, and yet you raised it to game. When asked, you say "even the Emperor of Tonkin would raise this". So apparently, you two are in agreement. Yet you refused to inform your opponents that you could have the bare minimum for your hand. And you defend that incomplete information with the (even true) statement that you did not discuss it. Now both you and I know that it is not enough to divulge the things you discussed, but also the things you agreed upon without ever speaking about it (like the NT range or Stayman). So why should the TD not rule against you? Maybe the best answer you could have given is "we have not discussed it, but even the Emperor of Tonkin plays this as forcing". BTW, I don't like the question either, or the fact that the player then calls the TD in order to get 4S returned to 3S+1. But the principle is IMO that you should tell your opponents all you know, and that is more than "I don't know". > Best regards > > Alain -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 13 16:59:29 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:59:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:15 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: > >> But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case >> is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder >> has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that >> sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is >> no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the >> same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and >> there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are >> you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". > > The same way you are going to not believe them: by understanding that > even if they are both flipping coins to decide which way to treat 4H, > they will wind up "on the same wavelength" 50% of the time -- which > means that always believing them and never believing them are equally > fallacious. In Herman's world, they would have no way to recover from > the ambiguity inherent in a genuine lack of agreement -- disaster if > they guess differently (50% of the time), unfavorable adjustment from > Herman if they guess similarly (the other 50% of the time). In effect, > having no agreement becomes a de facto infraction in itself. In Tim's > world, TDs and ACs look at evidence and listen to what the players have > to say, decide whether they in fact had "no agreement" as they claimed, > and rule accordingly; that's their job. > Eric, do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? No, that is a case that I don't believe will come up. Rather, the bidder has some idea about this going to be understood. I want to know what that idea was, and my AC will investigate fully, and judge on the evidence. That's their job, as you say. My point is that you do not need to be badly off 100% of the time. Even if your percentages are correct (and I very much doubt the 50/50 part of it) then the pair will have 50% chance of getting it wrong, and 50% chance of getting it right - and not have a ruling at all. Provided the answerer tells his opponents about his guess. It's all good and well you guys giving counter-examples. Some of those examples are correct, others are less likely to happen in real life. But those are only counter-examples. You have not touched upon the majority of cases. In which the TD WILL rule against a pair that hides behind "no agreement". I am trying to get people to tell more about their agreements - even to the point of explaining guesses. I want them to "bend over backwards" in being helpful to their opponents, because that is how I believe bridge should be played. Even if you manage to convince the TD that you really have no agreement, is it really worth the hassle of a TD call and ruling? And are you really happy about getting a good score because you guessed correctly but left your opponents to guess also - and they guessed wrongly so you get an overtrick? Why not simply tell a bit more? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 13 18:56:42 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:56:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Whale?= In-Reply-To: <461F97A7.6000508@skynet.be> References: <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413121721.02b1d190@pop.starpower.net> At 10:45 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is > > no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the > > same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and > > there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are > > you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". > > > > > > I'd like to add that there are cases where the action is obvious even > > absent the agreement. In that case, Herman's automatic adjustment for > > "guessing right" seems wrong. > > > > It's teams, and the bidding (unopposed) goes : 1S - 2C - 2S - 3S. > > Now RHO asks about 3S (strange time to do it, but it was in the BW > case > > too). > > He wants to know whether 3S is forcing. > > You answer : "I don't know". > > > > Just assume it's true : you didn't discuss it. > > Of course, you, me and the Emperor of Tonkin will bid 4S on a minimum, > > just in case. > > > > If we guessed right, should we be penalized ? Surely not. > >Why not? > >OK, let's assume the worst case: partner did indeed have game-going >values, and thus clearly intended 3S to be forcing. When asked, he >tells us : "isn't that obvious?". >You, OTOH, have only a minimum, and yet you raised it to game. When >asked, you say "even the Emperor of Tonkin would raise this". > >So apparently, you two are in agreement. > >Yet you refused to inform your opponents that you could have the bare >minimum for your hand. >And you defend that incomplete information with the (even true) >statement that you did not discuss it. > >Now both you and I know that it is not enough to divulge the things >you discussed, but also the things you agreed upon without ever >speaking about it (like the NT range or Stayman). > >So why should the TD not rule against you? > >Maybe the best answer you could have given is "we have not discussed >it, but even the Emperor of Tonkin plays this as forcing". That misses Alain's point entirely; neither Herman, nor I, nor Alain, knows whether or not the Emperor of Tonkin plays this as forcing, and it doesn't matter. The point is that I, or Alain, or the Emperor of Tonkin, and, I suspect, possibly even Herman, faced with not knowing whether it forcing or not, will choose the obvious hedge, which is to raise. And they will do so even if they hold a minimum and believe that it's only 25% likely to be forcing, risking having to hope for some luck a slightly understrength contract, if that turns out to be the case, rather than concede the board outright if they pass 3S cold for game. This is why the "De Wael school" is not so much wrong as simply nonsense. It assumes that faced with a call that might mean either A or B, one has only two choices: assume A, which results in taking action X, or assume B, which results in taking action Y. If that were valid, there would be a case for describing the call as A when one plans to do X or as B when one plans to do Y -- the DWs prescription. But any competent player will assume neither A nor B, but will take the action that maximizes his expected result, Z. That may coincide with either X or Y, but even if so need not reflect any positive expectation of meaning A or B. So here we are. Partner bid 3S. I'm pretty sure that he intends it to be non-forcing, but I'm not certain, so I am going to raise to game with my minimum just in case. The DWs gives me the choice of either describing 3S as forcing, deliberately misleading my opponents about the likely contents of partner's hand (I really don't expect him to have enough for a forcing 3S), or as non-forcing, deliberately misleading my opponents about the contents of my own hand (I know I don't have enough for my 4S bid over a non-forcing 3S). It specifically does not allow me to truthfully reveal my uncertainty, even though, if 3S really was intended as non-forcing, as I expect, it is only by doing so that I can offer an explanation that's consistent with the actual auction! Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 13 23:27:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one > basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he > believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? But it's not a 50/50 toss of the coin. Assuming the bid is undiscussed and equally likely to be either by inference I expect partner to have a good chance of working out which by looking at his hand. There are is also the possibility that if I splinter my LHO will double and save partner a guess. Of course an LHO with 7+ hearts might decide not to double when informed that the bid is undiscussed. > No, that is a case that I don't believe will come up. It does. Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) but that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs. > Rather, the bidder has some idea about this going to be understood. I > want to know what that idea was, and my AC will investigate fully, > and judge on the evidence. That's their job, as you say. What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it right despite the complete lack of agreement? > It's all good and well you guys giving counter-examples. Some of > those examples are correct, others are less likely to happen in real > life. But those are only counter-examples. You have not touched upon > the majority of cases. In which the TD WILL rule against a pair that > hides behind "no agreement". But Herman, the point is that the players should hide *nothing*. They shouldn't either the possibilities or the ambiguities. > > I am trying to get people to tell more about their agreements - even > to the point of explaining guesses. I want them to "bend over > backwards" in being helpful to their opponents, because that is how I > believe bridge should be played. Herman - I have no problem with people explaining their guesses. It is when they start pretending to have an agreement and don't explain the options that I have an issue. > Even if you manage to convince the TD that you really have no > agreement, is it really worth the hassle of a TD call and ruling? I have never actually had a TD call in these circumstances. Maybe it's because the truth often sounds convincing but when I start saying "Not actually discussed but it's probably either A or B because...etc.." I might get the occasional nudge for being boringly detailed but never a complaint that I haven't put them fully in the picture. > And > are you really happy about getting a good score because you guessed > correctly but left your opponents to guess also - and they guessed > wrongly so you get an overtrick? Yes. Often I don't bother guessing what partner holds and just bid the cards in front of me. Sometimes I guess because my holding makes it more likely B than A or vice versa. Opps may guess wrong because their hands don't provide any clues - that's life. > Why not simply tell a bit more? Because the only "more" I could tell would be related to my hand. Tim From geller at nifty.com Sat Apr 14 00:09:03 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 07:09:03 +0900 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> We've been having a bit of discussion about the following hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds J7 754 Q762 KQ95 North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major or a strong balanced hand. South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of an artificial conventional bid"? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 14 00:29:23 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:29:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000601c77e1b$3040fa50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > We've been having a bit of discussion about the following > hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds > J7 754 Q762 KQ95 > North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major > or a strong balanced hand. > > South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of > weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one > would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, > but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of > an artificial conventional bid"? > > -Bob In my opinion absolutely not! South is taking control of the auction, asks North for a precision of his hand but does not (by agreement) indicate anything about his own hand other than just that he is taking control of the auction. Regards Sven From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Apr 14 03:33:26 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:33:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] 3NT or 4S References: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005601c77e34$e66cfd10$6400a8c0@rota> "Wayne Burrows" writes: > Screens in use. > > Uncontested auction. > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > 4S All Pass > > This was how the auction was intended but things did not quite happen this > way. > > As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the > 4S card fell off the tray. South who was responsible for moving the > tray replaced the 4S card on the tray. However somehow the 4S card > still did not make it to the other side of the screen. > > Neither North nor East noticed that West had not passed (nor bid 4S or > any other bid). North passed thinking he was passing out 3NT. > > The tray was passed through to the other side of the screen where now > neither South nor West noticed that East had not passed or bid. South > passed thinking she was passing out 4S. > > I suspect that the 4S card had been caught in the screen and was > somehow picked up by the tray as it returned. > > South now brilliantly underled her diamond ace against 4S and partner > won the singleton queen. The play continues until about trick 8 or 9 > when declarer claimed pitching his spades on his established winners. > This was a novel idea for South who believed that spades were trumps. The contract should have been 4S, since that call was made. North and East are both at fault for being misinformed as to the contract because they accepted a bidding tray with a bid missing. Unfortunately, since East played in 3NT, what happened was not bridge, so all I can to is to restore equity from the point at which bridge stopped being played, treating both sides as offending if necessary. The only other option is to treat the contract as being 4S all the way, awarding tricks according to the actual play (if someone discarded a spade, it becomes a ruff followed by an accepted lead out of turn), and let East's claim break down at the point at which someone ruffs and East must thus realize the correct contract. I would prefer to restore equity. > 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the > diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S. South was properly informed, so she is entitled to the likely result after the lead she actually chose to make. I rule 4S down 1. I could rule 4S making for N-S and 4S down 1 for E-W if I am not sure whether 4S would go down. From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 14 06:44:08 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:44:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] 3NT or 4S In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c77e4f$8b675670$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Screens in use. > > Uncontested auction. > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > 4S All Pass > > This was how the auction was intended but things did not quite happen this > way. > > As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the > 4S card fell off the tray. South who was responsible for moving the > tray replaced the 4S card on the tray. However somehow the 4S card > still did not make it to the other side of the screen. > > Neither North nor East noticed that West had not passed (nor bid 4S or > any other bid). North passed thinking he was passing out 3NT. > > The tray was passed through to the other side of the screen where now > neither South nor West noticed that East had not passed or bid. South > passed thinking she was passing out 4S. > > I suspect that the 4S card had been caught in the screen and was > somehow picked up by the tray as it returned. > > South now brilliantly underled her diamond ace against 4S and partner > won the singleton queen. The play continues until about trick 8 or 9 > when declarer claimed pitching his spades on his established winners. > This was a novel idea for South who believed that spades were trumps. > > In reality the auction had gone: > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > --- Pass > > on one side of the screen and > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > 4S Pass --- Pass > > on the other side of the screen. > > How would you rule? > > 3NT had made an overtrick with one defender defending that contract > and the other defending 4S. > > 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the > diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S. The entire story is unbelievable, and I do not understand how it could have happened with the screens I am used to. So before making any ruling I would investigate further if there could be any deficiency in the equipment used, possibly resulting in a ruling where both sides are considered not at fault. It is clear to me that ruling a contract of 3NT is out of question (except that for a ruling with neither side at fault it could form the base for a split score ruling). Most likely I would end up with a ruling for equity based on the contract of 4S. Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Sat Apr 14 09:31:58 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 03:31:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <000601c77e1b$3040fa50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <000601c77e1b$3040fa50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:29:23 +0200, you wrote: >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> We've been having a bit of discussion about the following >> hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds >> J7 754 Q762 KQ95 >> North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major >> or a strong balanced hand. >> >> South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of >> weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one >> would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, >> but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of >> an artificial conventional bid"? >> >> -Bob > >In my opinion absolutely not! > >South is taking control of the auction, asks North for a precision of his >hand but does not (by agreement) indicate anything about his own hand other >than just that he is taking control of the auction. > I don't understand this. Before any decision can be made as to whether the 2NT bid was a psych or not, don't we have to know what agreements N-S had about the sequence 2D-2NT? Bob seems to imply that 2NT should be a significantly stronger hand (and I must admit, the way I know the multi, 2NT is at least invitational opposite a weak 2 in either suit) while Sven seems to suggest that 2NT is purely a question of opener with no implications whatsoever as to the strength of responder's hand. This sounds to me like two different systems... Brian. From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Apr 14 09:55:27 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:55:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <009401c77e6b$c8d7ba10$9d493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:09 AM Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? > We've been having a bit of discussion about the following > hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds > J7 754 Q762 KQ95 > North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major > or a strong balanced hand. > > South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of > weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one > would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, > but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of > an artificial conventional bid"? > > -Bob > In the Netherlands it is called a baby-psyche. Ben From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 14 10:07:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:07:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Whale?= In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413121721.02b1d190@pop.starpower.net> References: <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413121721.02b1d190@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <46208BCC.6090906@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:45 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is >>> no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the >>> same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and >>> there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are >>> you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". >>> >>> >>> I'd like to add that there are cases where the action is obvious even >>> absent the agreement. In that case, Herman's automatic adjustment for >>> "guessing right" seems wrong. >>> >>> It's teams, and the bidding (unopposed) goes : 1S - 2C - 2S - 3S. >>> Now RHO asks about 3S (strange time to do it, but it was in the BW >> case >>> too). >>> He wants to know whether 3S is forcing. >>> You answer : "I don't know". >>> >>> Just assume it's true : you didn't discuss it. >>> Of course, you, me and the Emperor of Tonkin will bid 4S on a minimum, >>> just in case. >>> >>> If we guessed right, should we be penalized ? Surely not. >> Why not? >> >> OK, let's assume the worst case: partner did indeed have game-going >> values, and thus clearly intended 3S to be forcing. When asked, he >> tells us : "isn't that obvious?". >> You, OTOH, have only a minimum, and yet you raised it to game. When >> asked, you say "even the Emperor of Tonkin would raise this". >> >> So apparently, you two are in agreement. >> >> Yet you refused to inform your opponents that you could have the bare >> minimum for your hand. >> And you defend that incomplete information with the (even true) >> statement that you did not discuss it. >> >> Now both you and I know that it is not enough to divulge the things >> you discussed, but also the things you agreed upon without ever >> speaking about it (like the NT range or Stayman). >> >> So why should the TD not rule against you? >> >> Maybe the best answer you could have given is "we have not discussed >> it, but even the Emperor of Tonkin plays this as forcing". > > That misses Alain's point entirely; neither Herman, nor I, nor Alain, > knows whether or not the Emperor of Tonkin plays this as forcing, and > it doesn't matter. The point is that I, or Alain, or the Emperor of > Tonkin, and, I suspect, possibly even Herman, faced with not knowing > whether it forcing or not, will choose the obvious hedge, which is to > raise. And they will do so even if they hold a minimum and believe > that it's only 25% likely to be forcing, risking having to hope for > some luck a slightly understrength contract, if that turns out to be > the case, rather than concede the board outright if they pass 3S cold > for game. > > This is why the "De Wael school" is not so much wrong as simply > nonsense. It assumes that faced with a call that might mean either A > or B, one has only two choices: assume A, which results in taking > action X, or assume B, which results in taking action Y. If that were > valid, there would be a case for describing the call as A when one > plans to do X or as B when one plans to do Y -- the DWs > prescription. But any competent player will assume neither A nor B, > but will take the action that maximizes his expected result, Z. That > may coincide with either X or Y, but even if so need not reflect any > positive expectation of meaning A or B. > > So here we are. Partner bid 3S. I'm pretty sure that he intends it to > be non-forcing, but I'm not certain, so I am going to raise to game > with my minimum just in case. The DWs gives me the choice of either > describing 3S as forcing, deliberately misleading my opponents about > the likely contents of partner's hand (I really don't expect him to > have enough for a forcing 3S), or as non-forcing, deliberately > misleading my opponents about the contents of my own hand (I know I > don't have enough for my 4S bid over a non-forcing 3S). It > specifically does not allow me to truthfully reveal my uncertainty, > even though, if 3S really was intended as non-forcing, as I expect, it > is only by doing so that I can offer an explanation that's consistent > with the actual auction! > But don't you see that this is ludicrous? If partner wants to reach a good contract, he does not bid something which can be misunderstood. If he knows that you don't know what 3S means, and that you'll always raise it to 4 no matter what your hand is, why then does he not bid 4S himself? And if what you are saying is in fact true, then the real "agreement" is not that 3S is either forcing or not, but that it is in fact, forcing (since you'll be raising anyway). There is no guess to be made, only one explanation to be given. The explanation is not "I don't know", but "We have not discussed the strngth of this bid, it is unlimited". Since there can be no intention (partner knows that you would not be able to figure out the intention), there is no need to guess at the intention, under DwS directives. The counter-examples you continue to give are those in which there is no conflict between our views. Maybe we should find better examples. > > Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 14 10:36:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:36:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46209282.4050200@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >> do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one >> basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he >> believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? > > But it's not a 50/50 toss of the coin. Assuming the bid is undiscussed > and equally likely to be either by inference I expect partner to have a > good chance of working out which by looking at his hand. There are is > also the possibility that if I splinter my LHO will double and save > partner a guess. Of course an LHO with 7+ hearts might decide not to > double when informed that the bid is undiscussed. > >> No, that is a case that I don't believe will come up. > > It does. Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the > ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) but > that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs. > Aha, but in that case it is not "undiscussed", it is merely "not talked of". I realize that this seems like a strange statement, but what I mean is that the meaning one player ascribes to it is fixed, even if not known to his partner. We are then again out of the scope of our discussion. In a case like this "either splinter or natural" is simply a misstatement. It is splinter (even if partner is genuinely unaware of the bidders misconceptions of globality). >> Rather, the bidder has some idea about this going to be understood. I >> want to know what that idea was, and my AC will investigate fully, >> and judge on the evidence. That's their job, as you say. > > What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it right > despite the complete lack of agreement? > Because there are no such things as odds - only clues. And those clues need to be disclosed. Yes, you are correct that if there are no clues, your explanation "undiscussed" is authorized and complete. But I want to stress that I find those circumstances extremely rare. Even among the examples you have tried to come up with, there are very few in which "undiscussed" will be accepted by the director at the end. >> It's all good and well you guys giving counter-examples. Some of >> those examples are correct, others are less likely to happen in real >> life. But those are only counter-examples. You have not touched upon >> the majority of cases. In which the TD WILL rule against a pair that >> hides behind "no agreement". > > But Herman, the point is that the players should hide *nothing*. They > shouldn't either the possibilities or the ambiguities. > >> I am trying to get people to tell more about their agreements - even >> to the point of explaining guesses. I want them to "bend over >> backwards" in being helpful to their opponents, because that is how I >> believe bridge should be played. > > Herman - I have no problem with people explaining their guesses. It is > when they start pretending to have an agreement and don't explain the > options that I have an issue. > > >> Even if you manage to convince the TD that you really have no >> agreement, is it really worth the hassle of a TD call and ruling? > > I have never actually had a TD call in these circumstances. Maybe it's > because the truth often sounds convincing but when I start saying "Not > actually discussed but it's probably either A or B because...etc.." I > might get the occasional nudge for being boringly detailed but never a > complaint that I haven't put them fully in the picture. > >> And >> are you really happy about getting a good score because you guessed >> correctly but left your opponents to guess also - and they guessed >> wrongly so you get an overtrick? > > Yes. Often I don't bother guessing what partner holds and just bid the > cards in front of me. Sometimes I guess because my holding makes it > more likely B than A or vice versa. Opps may guess wrong because their > hands don't provide any clues - that's life. > >> Why not simply tell a bit more? > > Because the only "more" I could tell would be related to my hand. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 14 10:39:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:39:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > We've been having a bit of discussion about the following > hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds > J7 754 Q762 KQ95 > North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major > or a strong balanced hand. > > South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of > weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one > would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, > but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of > an artificial conventional bid"? > This is not a psyche. It is an asking bid. The correct explanation of this bid should be "partner, please tell me more about your hand". If it is described as "strong asking relay" then that is a wrong explanation. It is up to the environment to decide whether or not the explanation "asking" is synonimous or not with "strong and asking". If it is, then the explanation at the table should be "asking but need not be strong". > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Apr 14 10:43:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:43:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] 3NT or 4S In-Reply-To: <005601c77e34$e66cfd10$6400a8c0@rota> References: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> <005601c77e34$e66cfd10$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <46209449.6020301@skynet.be> David Grabiner wrote: >> >> As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the >> 4S card fell off the tray. South who was responsible for moving the >> tray replaced the 4S card on the tray. However somehow the 4S card >> still did not make it to the other side of the screen. >> >> Neither North nor East noticed that West had not passed (nor bid 4S or >> any other bid). North passed thinking he was passing out 3NT. >> >> The tray was passed through to the other side of the screen where now >> neither South nor West noticed that East had not passed or bid. South >> passed thinking she was passing out 4S. >> > > The contract should have been 4S, since that call was made. North and East > are both at fault for being misinformed as to the contract because they accepted > a bidding tray with a bid missing. > South and West are also at fault for not noticing the missing bid. > Unfortunately, since East played in 3NT, what happened was not bridge, Sadly, that is not true. There is no rule that says that you have to be playing bridge. If one player thinks he is playing in a different strain than the real one, then his "ruffs" are simply counted as "discards" (and possibly vice-versa). The contract is 4S, and all tricks need to be given their rightful owner according to that contract. Any leads out of turn have been accepted. so all > I can to is to restore equity from the point at which bridge stopped being > played, > treating both sides as offending if necessary. > > The only other option is to treat the contract as being 4S all the way, awarding > tricks according to the actual play (if someone discarded a spade, it becomes a > ruff followed by an accepted lead out of turn), and let East's claim break down > at the point at which someone ruffs and East must thus realize the correct > contract. > I would prefer to restore equity. > There is no equity for silly plays. When my partner ruffs my ace, I would also like to be restored, but sadly there is nothing I can do about it. >> 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the >> diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S. > > South was properly informed, so she is entitled to the likely result after the > lead > she actually chose to make. I rule 4S down 1. I could rule 4S making for N-S > and 4S down 1 for E-W if I am not sure whether 4S would go down. > 4S has been played - we know how many tricks there were - no need to rule anything. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 14 12:04:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <46209282.4050200@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > It does. Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the > > ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) > > but that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs. > > > > Aha, but in that case it is not "undiscussed", it is merely "not > talked of". I realize that this seems like a strange statement, but > what I mean is that the meaning one player ascribes to it is fixed, That is irrelevant. the fact one one player *believes* it to be a splinter is not the same as having an agreement that it is a splinter. I've played with partners who think that AKx,KJ7xxx,x,AKx is a 3H rebid in the sequence 1H-1S-3H. That's not something I'd agree to if you put a gun to my head (and not something any partner would do to me twice!). If asked what the bid showed I'd say "Undiscussed but we are playing Acol in which it shows a single-suited hand with good Hearts and about 17/18 points - non-forcing." > even if not known to his partner. We are then again out of the scope > of our discussion. In a case like this "either splinter or natural" > is simply a misstatement. It is splinter (even if partner is > genuinely unaware of the bidders misconceptions of globality). > > What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it > > right despite the complete lack of agreement? > > > > Because there are no such things as odds - only clues. Of course there are "odds" (or probabilities if you prefer). If I have seven hearts the probabilities are that partner will have shortage there. If I have short hearts the probability is that partner will have length. That's basic stuff Herman. > And those clues need to be disclosed. No - they do not. If the clues partner has are a feature of the cards he was dealt he is under no obligation to reveal those clues to opps - indeed if he reveals those clues he is deliberately creating UI (which I believe a certain HdW considers illegal!). > Yes, you are correct that if there are no > clues, your explanation "undiscussed" is authorized and complete. But > I want to stress that I find those circumstances extremely rare. Even > among the examples you have tried to come up with, there are very few > in which "undiscussed" will be accepted by the director at the end. It doesn't matter what the director may (or may not) accept. Disclosure isn't based on "what will win a ruling?" it is based on "what are our agreements (explicit or implicit), understandings and experience?". Yes, it will be rare (in any but pick-up partnerships) that an explanation of "Undiscussed." is acceptable but explanations starting "Undiscussed, but..." are perfectly proper (and indeed required when the undiscussed bit is true). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Apr 14 13:22:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > This is not a psyche. It is an asking bid. The correct explanation of > this bid should be "partner, please tell me more about your hand". If > it is described as "strong asking relay" then that is a wrong > explanation. It is perfectly possible that the pair have an agreement that 2N is a strong asking relay which the 2N bidder has decided to psych. As in any case where the bid is claimed to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the hand we examine the subsequent actions of psycher's partner (e.g. does he subsequently pass in a sequence that would be forcing opposite a strong relay such as 2D-(p)-2N-(3H)-3S-(4H)-P-P-?). Tim From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sat Apr 14 16:40:07 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:40:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4620E7C7.8000601@cs.elte.hu> Herman De Wael wrote: >Robert Geller wrote: > > >>We've been having a bit of discussion about the following >>hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds >> J7 754 Q762 KQ95 >>North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major >>or a strong balanced hand. >> >>South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of >>weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one >>would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, >>but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of >>an artificial conventional bid"? >> >> >> > >This is not a psyche. It is an asking bid. The correct explanation of >this bid should be "partner, please tell me more about your hand". If >it is described as "strong asking relay" then that is a wrong >explanation. It is up to the environment to decide whether or not the >explanation "asking" is synonimous or not with "strong and asking". If >it is, then the explanation at the table should be "asking but need >not be strong". > > IMHO this is a psyche. Psyche is when you do somethig to misinform the other players at the table. With weak hand you normalli bid 2H (or 2S,3H,..) to play partner's suit and/or preempt opps. If you asks partners strength, you do it cos you want to know that. With weak hand you do not need this information. The only exception, if you have no other methods (like P/C 3H) to inquer partner's Major, but its not typical. Once my opponent did the following 4s pass 4N pass 5D pass 5S all pass It went down 4 (NV), but we could have made 7 Diamonds as well (V) I didn't feel, my balanced hand was strong enough to double, but partner surely would have bid his long suit after 4S pass pass. The player who bid the rkc had very weak hand. I think he did well. Did he psyche? 4N: rkc. He really asked partners' number of keycards. 5S: He really wanted to stop after partner had only 1 of 5 (he would stop otherwise as well). But if you say it was not a psyche, it sounds very strange for me. Other example: A pair plays basic system with 1N: 12-14. 1N-2N in this system is 11-12 balanced of course. An other pair also plays 12-14 NT, but they define the 1N-2N bid simply: invitational to 3N. (Requires partner to pass with weak but raise with strong hand). Do you think they play tha same or different method? I'm sure those are the same, and both of them tells their opponents an absolutely correct explanation about this bid. I think the 2nd definition is better, but it's not important difference. In a compatition the South of these pairs should bid in the following situation: NV/NV 1N pass ? 32 632 T853 7654 Not so strong hand, pass is normal bid, but a player may bid 2N (!) Absolutely not bad idea. After 1N-pass-pass LHO's DBL is very likely and RHO's strength is enough for pass after the DBL is very likely, and our chance to find a good suit to escape is so poor. But after 1N-2N-p or 1N-2N-3N-p opponents may cannot open. I can imagine, that both of these two Southes tries this 2N. Do they psyche. The first surely does (he don't have 11-12 HCPs), but what about the second. They tell you correctly: he wants partner to pass or raise depends on his strength. It's true, but it's the same psyche :) cheers Laci From john at asimere.com Sat Apr 14 17:09:58 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:09:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? References: <000601c77e1b$3040fa50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004401c77ea6$f7cb3870$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a psych? >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> We've been having a bit of discussion about the following >> hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds >> J7 754 Q762 KQ95 >> North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major >> or a strong balanced hand. >> >> South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of >> weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one >> would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, >> but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of >> an artificial conventional bid"? >> >> -Bob > > In my opinion absolutely not! > > South is taking control of the auction, asks North for a precision of his > hand but does not (by agreement) indicate anything about his own hand > other > than just that he is taking control of the auction. I agree. In EBUland my CC states, "Relay, not necessarily strong". Clearly the call is not a psyche, but it might be MI if one lives in a culture where it is expected to be strong, the partnership habitually do this and it's not on the CC. My peers just shrug when it happens (CC or not), but we play bridge. John > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 14 18:44:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:44:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <009401c77e6b$c8d7ba10$9d493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <000001c77eb4$364345e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen ............. > > We've been having a bit of discussion about the following > > hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds > > J7 754 Q762 KQ95 > > North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major > > or a strong balanced hand. > > > > South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of > > weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one > > would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, > > but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of > > an artificial conventional bid"? > > > > -Bob > > > In the Netherlands it is called a baby-psyche. I have no idea what a "baby-psyche" is supposed to be and what can be the consequences of that. But I think I know what a psyche is and shall not bother to go into that. However, I have been playing "multi" as we do it in Norway for years, and exactly as 4NT can be Blackwood asking for Aces with no commitment on the player bidding 4NT so is 2NT over multi 2D just a request for a precision on what the "multi" opener actually holds, again with no commitment on the asking player. Other environments may have a different understanding on "Multi", but if they stick to the "standard" answers: 2C or 2H showing Hearts and 2D or 2S showing spaces (one alternative showing the stronger "weak hand" the other the weaker "weak hand") and 3NT showing the 20-21 NT hand then the player bidding 2NT now has full control over how to proceed, including the possibility to pass. I do not understand how that 2NT bid (properly declared) can be ruled as a psyche. Regards Sven From tzimnoch at comcast.net Sun Apr 15 05:06:53 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:06:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <000001c77eb4$364345e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c77eb4$364345e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <462196CD.6020104@comcast.net> Sven Pran wrote: > I have no idea what a "baby-psyche" is supposed to be and what can be the > consequences of that. But I think I know what a psyche is and shall not > bother to go into that. Essentially a psych that is so obvious and freqent that opponents should be ashamed to admit they were taken in by it. 1H - X - 1S Psyched on the right hands, 1S is a classic baby psych. The bid is made frequently enough without either a spade suit or the values and no one should be surprized. -Todd From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sun Apr 15 09:42:10 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:42:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? References: <000001c77eb4$364345e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <462196CD.6020104@comcast.net> Message-ID: <003c01c77f31$ab38a610$3b493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> > Sven Pran wrote: > > I have no idea what a "baby-psyche" is supposed to be and what can be the > > consequences of that. But I think I know what a psyche is and shall not > > bother to go into that. > > Essentially a psych that is so obvious and freqent that > opponents should be ashamed to admit they were taken in by it. > > 1H - X - 1S > > Psyched on the right hands, 1S is a classic baby psych. The > bid is made frequently enough without either a spade suit or > the values and no one should be surprized. > There are more and applied to disturb the auction. A tournament player will discover/know some of them, but not a LOL. We have more than 100K registered players, but only 2K have enough experience to defend or to summon the TD. Ben From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 15 11:47:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:47:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <4620E7C7.8000601@cs.elte.hu> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> <4620E7C7.8000601@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <4621F49F.4020800@skynet.be> Laszlo Hegedus wrote: >> >> > IMHO this is a psyche. Psyche is when you do somethig to misinform the > other players at the table. This is a circular reasoning. Misinforming the opponents is when you don't tell them precisely with which hands a certain bid can be done. So this is not a psyche, but misinformation. > With weak hand you normalli bid 2H (or > 2S,3H,..) to play partner's suit and/or preempt opps. If you asks > partners strength, you do it cos you want to know that. No, you don't. Not in this case. In this case you bid 2NT, tricking your opponents into thinking you have something to ask with. But that trick only works if you don't at the same time say "asking, no guarantee of strength". If you believe the trick still works when explaining it like that, then please use the trick and the explanation. > With weak hand > you do not need this information. The only exception, if you have no > other methods (like P/C 3H) to inquer partner's Major, but its not typical. > > Once my opponent did the following > > 4s pass 4N pass > 5D pass 5S all pass > > It went down 4 (NV), but we could have made 7 Diamonds as well (V) > I didn't feel, my balanced hand was strong enough to double, but > partner surely would have bid his long suit after 4S pass pass. The > player who bid the rkc had very weak hand. I think he did well. > > Did he psyche? > 4N: rkc. He really asked partners' number of keycards. > 5S: He really wanted to stop after partner had only 1 of 5 (he would > stop otherwise as well). > > But if you say it was not a psyche, it sounds very strange for me. > Again, if you explain it as "asking for aces", there is no misrepresentation. But if you explain it as "asking for aces, guarantees 2 of them himself", there is misinformation. Granted, no-one would explain BW like that, so in this case there is never MI, but in the original, many people believe that 2NT guarantees something. It depends on the environment to know if they are being misinformed or not. But in both cases, since the object of the bid is the same (asking something from partner without guaranteeing anything), the bid can never be called a psyche, since it does not depart from it's systemic meaning (it does not really have any). It is a tactical bid, and players who are fooled by it should tell themselves they have learnt a lesson and maybe they won't be tricked next time. > Other example: > > A pair plays basic system with 1N: 12-14. > 1N-2N in this system is 11-12 balanced of course. > An other pair also plays 12-14 NT, but they define the 1N-2N bid simply: > invitational to 3N. (Requires partner to pass with weak but raise with > strong hand). > > Do you think they play tha same or different method? I'm sure those are > the same, and both of them tells their opponents an absolutely correct > explanation about this bid. I think the 2nd definition is better, but > it's not important difference. > Yes, the second explanation is better. The first explanation is that of a beginner who has learnt tables of bids, not understanding what they really mean. > In a compatition the South of these pairs should bid in the following > situation: > > NV/NV > > 1N pass ? > > 32 > 632 > T853 > 7654 > > Not so strong hand, pass is normal bid, but a player may bid 2N (!) > Absolutely not bad idea. After 1N-pass-pass LHO's DBL is very likely and > RHO's strength is enough for pass after the DBL is very likely, and our > chance to find a good suit to escape is so poor. But after 1N-2N-p or > 1N-2N-3N-p opponents may cannot open. > > I can imagine, that both of these two Southes tries this 2N. Do they > psyche. The first surely does (he don't have 11-12 HCPs), but what about > the second. They tell you correctly: he wants partner to pass or raise > depends on his strength. It's true, but it's the same psyche :) > Well, indeed, if you insist that the first explanation is systemically correct, then it is a psyche. But if the actual bid comes, then it is easy to say that the first explanation is not the correct one, that it's actually only the second explanation, and that it's a tactical bid. Anyway, since both psyches and tactical bids are allowed, what are we talking about - aha! misinformation! Yes: if the players insist that 11-12 is the correct information, then I shall slap them with a MI charge. > cheers > Laci > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sun Apr 15 16:45:10 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:45:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <4621F49F.4020800@skynet.be> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> <4620E7C7.8000601@cs.elte.hu> <4621F49F.4020800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46223A76.3040207@cs.elte.hu> Herman De Wael wrote: >Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>IMHO this is a psyche. Psyche is when you do somethig to misinform the >>other players at the table. >> >> > >This is a circular reasoning. Misinforming the opponents is when you >don't tell them precisely with which hands a certain bid can be done. >So this is not a psyche, but misinformation. > > > I used the word 'misinform' with its general meaning, which is not the same as MI in bridge laws. After pass-pass- NV/V u have 62,432,Q86432,J3 and you decide to bid 1S, and if your screenmate asks u tell him something like '11-22 points, 5+ spades'. There is no MI now, your explanation is absolutely correct. But you really misinformed (general sense of the word) your opponents (and your partner as well) with your psyche. >>Once my opponent did the following >> >>4s pass 4N pass >>5D pass 5S all pass >> >>It went down 4 (NV), but we could have made 7 Diamonds as well (V) >>I didn't feel, my balanced hand was strong enough to double, but >>partner surely would have bid his long suit after 4S pass pass. The >>player who bid the rkc had very weak hand. I think he did well. >> >>Did he psyche? >>4N: rkc. He really asked partners' number of keycards. >>5S: He really wanted to stop after partner had only 1 of 5 (he would >>stop otherwise as well). >> >>But if you say it was not a psyche, it sounds very strange for me. >> >> >> > >Again, if you explain it as "asking for aces", there is no >misrepresentation. But if you explain it as "asking for aces, >guarantees 2 of them himself", there is misinformation. Granted, >no-one would explain BW like that, so in this case there is never MI, >but in the original, many people believe that 2NT guarantees >something. It depends on the environment to know if they are being >misinformed or not. > >But in both cases, since the object of the bid is the same (asking >something from partner without guaranteeing anything), the bid can >never be called a psyche, since it does not depart from it's systemic >meaning (it does not really have any). It is a tactical bid, and >players who are fooled by it should tell themselves they have learnt a >lesson and maybe they won't be tricked next time. > > Ok i see, it's only definition problem. You wrote: it's not a psyche, it's a tactical bid ... Something like: It's not an elephant, it's a huge animal with trunk. I think psyche is the tactical bid. Another example: You play no limit poker, you have very poor hand, but you bet five times as big amount of money as the pot. You really psyche, unless there is no 'bidding system', your bid has promised nothig at all. But there is a really big misstatement about the hand you have. Is it a psyche or not? Tactical bid only? regards Laci From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 16 09:24:23 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:24:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092036.02180a70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:09 14/04/2007 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >We've been having a bit of discussion about the following >hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds > J7 754 Q762 KQ95 >North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major >or a strong balanced hand. > >South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of >weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one >would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, >but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of >an artificial conventional bid"? Nope. 2NT is an asking bid ; it doesn't tell anything ; the fact that it should usually be strong is common brige knowledge, not convention. Contrast with transfers, which show a suit. If I want to ask partner his strength on a hand where I don't care (e.g. via checkback Stayman), nobody may disallow it. Of course, if this happens more than once, the fact that 2NT isn't necessarily strong should be disclosed, as it is unusual (in the same way as non-major-oriented Stayman should). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 16 09:28:10 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:28:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092540.02182770@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:39 14/04/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >This is not a psyche. It is an asking bid. The correct explanation of >this bid should be "partner, please tell me more about your hand". If >it is described as "strong asking relay" then that is a wrong >explanation. It is up to the environment to decide whether or not the >explanation "asking" is synonimous or not with "strong and asking". And even more so in Flanders, where many understand "forcing" (as in e.g. forcing NT response) as "strong relay", with silly dialogs ensuing, like : - but you said it was forcing ! - it was ; by the way, I answered. - he hasn't a forcing in his hand ! - who decides this ? Perhaps this has to do with the fact that, in ancient bridge, "forcing" could mean "game force", like in "forcing 2-bids". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 16 09:29:36 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:29:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: References: <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092905.02184360@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:22 14/04/2007 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > This is not a psyche. It is an asking bid. The correct explanation of > > this bid should be "partner, please tell me more about your hand". If > > it is described as "strong asking relay" then that is a wrong > > explanation. > >It is perfectly possible that the pair have an agreement that 2N is a >strong asking relay which the 2N bidder has decided to psych. As in any >case where the bid is claimed to be a deliberate misrepresentation of >the hand we examine the subsequent actions of psycher's partner (e.g. >does he subsequently pass in a sequence that would be forcing opposite a >strong relay such as 2D-(p)-2N-(3H)-3S-(4H)-P-P-?). This sequence isn't forcing. The commitment level is 3 of opener's major. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 16 10:12:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:12:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <461E237F.9030908@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Talleyrand (1754-1838), epigram on the Bourbons, slightly changed: "Herman n'ont rien appris, ni rien oubli?." Herman De Wael: >>Richard n'a rien appris non plus! >> >>He still hasn't grasped what I am saying. >> >>I am not saying that the laws require Meckwell to express their >>guess. I am saying that if Meckwell refuse to express their >>guess, and their guess ends up being correct, they will, in all >>likelihood be ruled against. Because no director is going to >>believe that there was absolutely no background for their two >>guesses to coincide. >> >>So if they want 50% chance of a good board, they need to express >>their guess. Otherwise, they have 0% chance of a good board. >>They can take my advice or leave it, I don't care. Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >If you had to take the defense of a man accused of a crime he had >not committed, would you give him the advice to look for somebody >who would lie in order to provide him with an alibi? Sir John Harington (1561-1612): "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Richard Hills: (1) For a particular call, the partnership has zero explicit agreements and zero implicit agreements. (2) Upon interrogation, the partner of the player who made the particular call follows the advice of the De Wael School, and deliberately commits treason against Law 75A and Law 75C (and consequently Law 72B2) by falsely stating "we have agreement X". (3) A good board is gained because the Director is treasonously deceived when the 50% chance of partner holding cards which correspond to "explanation X" occurs. A treasonous decision to deliberately infract the Laws of Duplicate Bridge to gain a score advantage 50% of the time instead of 0% of the time seems to me to be tantamount to cheating. But..... Law 72A6: "The responsibility for penalising irregularities and redressing damage rests solely upon the Director and these Laws, not upon the players themselves." When the Director is in fact deceived by such a De Wael School explanation, so therefore rules that treasonous cheating has not occurred, then since it has prospered can none dare call it treason? :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Apr 16 10:48:53 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:48:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] 3NT or 4S In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 13/04/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Screens in use. > > Uncontested auction. > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > 4S All Pass > > This was how the auction was intended but things did not quite happen this way. > > As the tray was being passed through the screen after the 4S bid the > 4S card fell off the tray. South who was responsible for moving the > tray replaced the 4S card on the tray. However somehow the 4S card > still did not make it to the other side of the screen. > > Neither North nor East noticed that West had not passed (nor bid 4S or > any other bid). North passed thinking he was passing out 3NT. > > The tray was passed through to the other side of the screen where now > neither South nor West noticed that East had not passed or bid. South > passed thinking she was passing out 4S. > > I suspect that the 4S card had been caught in the screen and was > somehow picked up by the tray as it returned. > > South now brilliantly underled her diamond ace against 4S and partner > won the singleton queen. The play continues until about trick 8 or 9 > when declarer claimed pitching his spades on his established winners. > This was a novel idea for South who believed that spades were trumps. > > In reality the auction had gone: > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > --- Pass > > on one side of the screen and > > West North East South > 1S Pass > 2D Pass 3NT Pass > 4S Pass --- Pass > > on the other side of the screen. > > How would you rule? > > 3NT had made an overtrick with one defender defending that contract > and the other defending 4S. > > 4S would most likely have failed especially after the underlead of the > diamond - the underleader did think she was defending 4S. If normal rules for use of screens apply, south is responsible for pushing the tray over to the other side afte west's 4S bid. If the 4S bid didn't pass through the screen, then south is at fault. When that is said, both south and west should have been aware that something strange was going on, since there was a missing bid from east when the tray returned with 4S - pass - nothing. But it seems to me that neither of these players were familiar with the use of screens. The normal practise when a final bid has been passed out at one side of the screen is for those two players to remove all their bidding cards from the tray before passing it over to the other side. As the case stand, I'd resolve the rest of the tricks from the claim after 8-9 tricks, ruling in favour of the defending side at any point of doubt. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 16 12:02:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:02:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462349C3.2000803@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > (1) For a particular call, the partnership has zero explicit > agreements and zero implicit agreements. > Considering that: a) this is IMO a very rare thing to be happening b) if it does happen, everything Richard says is true (and does not contradict my opinions) c) if it does not happen, all the rest of Richard rantings are unimportant to the discussion I stop reading and contributing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 16 12:04:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092905.02184360@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > >case where the bid is claimed to be a deliberate misrepresentation of > >the hand we examine the subsequent actions of psycher's partner (e.g. > >does he subsequently pass in a sequence that would be forcing > opposite a > >strong relay such as 2D-(p)-2N-(3H)-3S-(4H)-P-P-?). > > This sequence isn't forcing. The commitment level is 3 of opener's > major. The strong relay is used with game interest opposite at least one of the majors. Since partner has chosen neither to double 4H nor to bid 4S/4N he is showing a hand suitable for game in S *and* defending 4H leaving the decision to me. The number of strong hands where it is right to defend 4H undoubled are tiny compared to the number of hands where one wishes partner to decide based on the nature of his hand. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 16 12:04:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092036.02180a70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > Nope. 2NT is an asking bid ; it doesn't tell anything ; That's one way of playing it. It can also be played as a "Game invite or better enquiry" (which can be psyched). > And even more so in Flanders, where many understand "forcing" (as in > e.g. forcing NT response) as "strong relay", with silly dialogs > ensuing, like : The EBU, wisely IMO, has regulated that the word "forcing" *in isolation* carries the implication of strength. Thus where a bid is forcing but may be weak there is automatically MI where the possible weakness is not disclosed. Whether such MI would be considered damaging is likely to depend on the experience of the players receiving such disclosure. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 16 12:52:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:52:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46235581.1090408@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Alain wrote: >> Nope. 2NT is an asking bid ; it doesn't tell anything ; > > That's one way of playing it. It can also be played as a "Game invite > or better enquiry" (which can be psyched). > Yes, but so rarely that in fact, it can't. You cannot say at the same time "I'm asking a question while promising something" and at the same time "I can bloody well ask with whatever I have". The two are not compatible. It's exactly the type of psyche that you can do only once in your lifetime. When you first discover the possibility. After that, you're tainted and you can no longer pretend that asking a question always promises a real interest in the reply. Given the footnote and in face of the evidence of the question being asked without anything, I would rule that the explanation "asking, and promising values" is a wrong one. But I'm sure you'll disagree, Tim. It strikes me as odd that you, who frequently psyches (IIRC), wants to hide behind disclosure walls while I, who psyches rarely and in only one manner, tries to explain to the fullest. And you criticize me? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Apr 16 14:42:56 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:42:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462349C3.2000803@skynet.be> References: <462349C3.2000803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0704160542t3a2d1b92j6c03da41a4ff5437@mail.gmail.com> On 4/16/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > (1) For a particular call, the partnership has zero explicit > > agreements and zero implicit agreements. > > > > Considering that: > a) this is IMO a very rare thing to be happening > b) if it does happen, everything Richard says is true (and does not > contradict my opinions) > c) if it does not happen, all the rest of Richard rantings are > unimportant to the discussion > > I stop reading and contributing. I have a question of my own: At what point do Herman's little quirks render him unfit to work as a TD or serve on Appeals Committees? First and foremost, I want to differentiate between taking a Devil's Advocate type position on a discussion list or an Appeals write up and official actions as a working TD or Appeals Committee member. I see nothing wrong with blowing smoke on a discussion list. Its fun. It might even qualify as productive. However, I would have very real concerns if these same idiosyncratic little beliefs were to be used in rendering judgments during an event of some kind. I very much believe that players should have an expectation of equal justice. The rulings that they receive should not depend on the luck of the draw with respect to which Tournament Director or which Appeals Committee is hearing their case. Obviously, life isn't perfect. Different TDs have radically different skill levels. Many of them will make honest mistakes. However, I believe that there is a very big difference between an honest mistake and refusal to conform/enforce to the majority opinion about the laws. To me, the most obvious analogy is Bobby Wolff. Like Herman, Wolff has his own little causes. Like Herman, Wolff believes that he can completely disregard stare decisis. My impression is that Wolff isn't permitted to serve on many appeals committees any more. Instead, his contributions have (largely) been limited to rendering increasingly bizarre commentary on the Appeals process. I'm really starting to wonder whether Herman has reached the same point: Obviously, this is a blurry line. I have no real way of knowing the types of rulings that Herman produces. However, I do believe that the behavior that he describes on this discussion list should render him unfit to serve in any official capacity. -- We seem to have discovered a new stage in the traditional K?bler-Ross process: 1. Denial: "The media doesn't show the good news in Iraq." 2. Anger: "The treasonous far-left-liberals and their media lapdogs are making us lose in Iraq." 3. Bargaining: "If we send x-thousand more troops to Iraq, victory will be ours." 4. Depression: "Did you catch 300 yet? [munch-munch-burp] God, it made me hate liberals even more. [channels flipping] They wouldn't last a day in ancient Sparta." 5. Advanced Literary Theory: "The hegemonic binary of 'success' and 'failure' traumatizes the (re)interpretive possibilities of an ethos of jouissance regarding the War in Iraq." From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 16 14:29:28 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:29:28 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Is_this_a_psych=3F?= References: Message-ID: <46236C27.000001.99485@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads Date : 16/04/2007 12:05:53 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Is this a psych? (Tim) The EBU, wisely IMO, has regulated that the word "forcing" *in isolation* carries the implication of strength. Thus where a bid is forcing but may be weak there is automatically MI where the possible weakness is not disclosed. 1S pass 1NT (alert) - yes please - forcing And you tell me I'm giving MI ? Hope not. 98% of those who use classical forcing NT (ie including all kinds of semi-weak hands) do likewise. 99% do understand. From the 5% that tell me they understood it as "strong", a majority are lawyering. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070416/a20df784/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/20070416/a20df784/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/20070416/a20df784/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 16 14:40:25 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:40:25 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Is_this_a_psych=3F?= References: Message-ID: <46236EB8.000004.99485@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads Date : 16/04/2007 12:05:52 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Is this a psych? Tim : The strong relay is used with game interest opposite at least one of the majors. Since partner has chosen neither to double 4H nor to bid 4S/4N he is showing a hand suitable for game in S *and* defending 4H leaving the decision to me. The number of strong hands where it is right to defend 4H undoubled are tiny compared to the number of hands where one wishes partner to decide based on the nature of his hand. AG : I'm sorry, Sir. The fact that you consider the sequence to be forcing doesn't mean you have to look at the 2NT bidder as if he did, too. You have to consider his system, as written, even if you consider it silly. According to great authors (including Robson, who has studied the problem in great length), when your bid is forcing to the 3-level, overcalls may be passed at the 4-level barring agreements to the contrary. It is possible to have the bidding go : 1S - p - 3C (Bergen) - 3H - 3S - 4H - all pass. The mathematics of doubling 4H for 1 down at teams are disastrous. In said sequence, when I don't double 4H, partner knows my interest was in spades, and that I don't have the double of 4H. Why can't he pass, if he considers 4S too high ? Especially if playing a "wild" style of weak 2's. I've written 2 lines on my CC about "commitment". From those, it is clear that said sequence is not forcing in our system and style Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070416/a699f1c0/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/20070416/a699f1c0/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/20070416/a699f1c0/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 16 15:29:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:29:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0704160542t3a2d1b92j6c03da41a4ff5437@mail.gmail.com> References: <462349C3.2000803@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0704160542t3a2d1b92j6c03da41a4ff5437@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46237A55.4080500@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On 4/16/07, Herman De Wael wrote: >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > (1) For a particular call, the partnership has zero explicit >> > agreements and zero implicit agreements. >> > >> >> Considering that: >> a) this is IMO a very rare thing to be happening >> b) if it does happen, everything Richard says is true (and does not >> contradict my opinions) >> c) if it does not happen, all the rest of Richard rantings are >> unimportant to the discussion >> >> I stop reading and contributing. > > I have a question of my own: At what point do Herman's little quirks > render him unfit to work as a TD or serve on Appeals Committees? > At the point where people start proposing hypothetical cases that start with a premise that I don't consider possible. Or interesting. My point in this thread was that it is impossible that a pair have no agreements. You disagreed, and I admitted that it is possible though very rare. And then you start a post with the premise that a pair don't have any agreements. Well, OK, if you want to talk about a once-in-a-lifetime occurence, that is OK by me - but I don't have to read it or comment. Because I would agree with you - but only if the first premise is correct. OK? That being said - let's see what you have to offer still: > First and foremost, I want to differentiate between taking a Devil's > Advocate type position on a discussion list or an Appeals write up and > official actions as a working TD or Appeals Committee member. I see > nothing wrong with blowing smoke on a discussion list. Its fun. It > might even qualify as productive. However, I would have very real > concerns if these same idiosyncratic little beliefs were to be used in > rendering judgments during an event of some kind. I very much believe > that players should have an expectation of equal justice. The rulings > that they receive should not depend on the luck of the draw with > respect to which Tournament Director or which Appeals Committee is > hearing their case. Obviously, life isn't perfect. Different TDs > have radically different skill levels. Many of them will make honest > mistakes. However, I believe that there is a very big difference > between an honest mistake and refusal to conform/enforce to the > majority opinion about the laws. > I don't see what this rant has to do with anything. I have never yet met a pair in a European Championships that claim to have no agreements at all. > To me, the most obvious analogy is Bobby Wolff. Like Herman, Wolff > has his own little causes. Like Herman, Wolff believes that he can > completely disregard stare decisis. My impression is that Wolff isn't > permitted to serve on many appeals committees any more. Instead, his > contributions have (largely) been limited to rendering increasingly > bizarre commentary on the Appeals process. I'm really starting to > wonder whether Herman has reached the same point: > I am honoured at the comparison. Let me just say that it is not because Richard disagrees with me that I must be ineligible for ACs. > Obviously, this is a blurry line. I have no real way of knowing the > types of rulings that Herman produces. However, I do believe that the > behavior that he describes on this discussion list should render him > unfit to serve in any official capacity. > Like not believing that a pair can have no agreements whatsoever? Please Richard, read your former post again and tell me why it merited any reply? A pair is proposed that has no implicit agreements? Sorry, but I don't have to comment on a pair like that. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 16 11:17:54 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:17:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092036.02180a70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301c7802b$981376f0$3ac887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "Everything for ther best in the best of all possible worlds. " vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Robert Geller" ; Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a psych? > Nope. 2NT is an asking bid ; it doesn't tell anything ; > the fact that it should usually be strong is common bridge > knowledge, not convention. Contrast with transfers, > which show a suit. If I want to ask partner his strength > on a hand where I don't care (e.g. via checkback Stayman), > nobody may disallow it. > > Of course, if this happens more than once, the fact that > 2NT isn't necessarily strong should be disclosed, as it is > unusual (in the same way as non-major-oriented Stayman > should). > +=+ Proper disclosure is the key. If it is the case that there is a partnership agreement, arrived at implicitly by repetition, that the bid may be weak, this must be disclosed in the manner required by the SO. Otherwise the 'psyche', baby or not, is based upon an undisclosed partnership understanding. Whether damage occurs through a failure to disclose in any instance is a matter of bridge judgement (which may well take into account the class of player against whom it is made). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 15:35:58 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:35:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416091740.02acd3c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:09 PM 4/13/07, Robert wrote: >We've been having a bit of discussion about the following >hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds > J7 754 Q762 KQ95 >North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major >or a strong balanced hand. > >South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of >weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one >would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, >but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of >an artificial conventional bid"? Clearly 2NT is "an artificial conventional bid", so the issue is what it shows. What matters isn't that "one" expects South to have strength; it is what *North* expects South to have (presumably there is no issue of lack of disclosure here). If the N-S agreement is that 2NT shows strength (e.g. if it establishes forcing pass situations, or allows opener to bid above 3NT with a suitable weak-two type hand), then this 2NT bid is a psych. If the N-S agreement is that this is merely an asking bid, promising nothing in particular about the asking hand, then the agreement hasn't been violated: not a psych. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 16 11:17:54 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:17:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092036.02180a70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c7802e$571f52b0$92a487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "Everything for ther best in the best of all possible worlds. " vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Robert Geller" ; Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a psych? > Nope. 2NT is an asking bid ; it doesn't tell anything ; > the fact that it should usually be strong is common bridge > knowledge, not convention. Contrast with transfers, > which show a suit. If I want to ask partner his strength > on a hand where I don't care (e.g. via checkback Stayman), > nobody may disallow it. > > Of course, if this happens more than once, the fact that > 2NT isn't necessarily strong should be disclosed, as it is > unusual (in the same way as non-major-oriented Stayman > should). > +=+ Proper disclosure is the key. If it is the case that there is a partnership agreement, arrived at implicitly by repetition, that the bid may be weak, this must be disclosed in the manner required by the SO. Otherwise the 'psyche', baby or not, is based upon an undisclosed partnership understanding. Whether damage occurs through a failure to disclose in any instance is a matter of bridge judgement (which may well take into account the class of player against whom it is made). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 16:06:27 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:06:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46223A76.3040207@cs.elte.hu> References: <4621F49F.4020800@skynet.be> <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> <4620E7C7.8000601@cs.elte.hu> <4621F49F.4020800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416095751.02ac8c30@pop.starpower.net> At 10:45 AM 4/15/07, Laszlo wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Again, if you explain it as "asking for aces", there is no > >misrepresentation. But if you explain it as "asking for aces, > >guarantees 2 of them himself", there is misinformation. Granted, > >no-one would explain BW like that, so in this case there is never MI, > >but in the original, many people believe that 2NT guarantees > >something. It depends on the environment to know if they are being > >misinformed or not. > > > >But in both cases, since the object of the bid is the same (asking > >something from partner without guaranteeing anything), the bid can > >never be called a psyche, since it does not depart from it's systemic > >meaning (it does not really have any). It is a tactical bid, and > >players who are fooled by it should tell themselves they have learnt a > >lesson and maybe they won't be tricked next time. > >Ok i see, it's only definition problem. You wrote: it's not a psyche, >it's a tactical bid ... >Something like: It's not an elephant, it's a huge animal with trunk. >I think psyche is the tactical bid. > >Another example: You play no limit poker, you have very poor hand, but >you bet five times as big amount of money as the pot. You really psyche, >unless there is no 'bidding system', your bid has promised nothig at >all. But there is a really big misstatement about the hand you have. Is >it a psyche or not? Tactical bid only? I think this shows a total misunderstanding of poker. The analogy may well be valid, but in support of the opposite conclusion from what is implied above. It is the fundamental basis of poker that there is absolutely no inherent presumption on anyone's part that the size of a player's bet in any way represents the quality of that player's hand. Which is precisely Herman's point with regard to Blackwood: there cannot be a "misstatement" where there has been no "statement". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 16:40:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:40:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: References: <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> At 05:27 PM 4/13/07, twm wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one > > basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he > > believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? > >But it's not a 50/50 toss of the coin. Assuming the bid is undiscussed >and equally likely to be either by inference I expect partner to have a >good chance of working out which by looking at his hand. There are is >also the possibility that if I splinter my LHO will double and save >partner a guess. Of course an LHO with 7+ hearts might decide not to >double when informed that the bid is undiscussed. > > > No, that is a case that I don't believe will come up. > >It does. Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the >ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) but >that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs. > > > Rather, the bidder has some idea about this going to be understood. I > > want to know what that idea was, and my AC will investigate fully, > > and judge on the evidence. That's their job, as you say. > >What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it right >despite the complete lack of agreement? One wonders what the De Wael school would make of the "two-way double", which, by explicit agreement, can be made with either a pure takeout double or a pure penalty double; partner is required to "guess" which it is based purely on the contents of his own hand. Proponents of this particular convention claim that he will get it right "almost every time". ISTM that because such an agreement could not be "disclosed" in a manner consistent with the requirements of the DWs without requiring the doubler's partner to base his disclosure solely on the contents of his hand (no other disambiguating criterion exists), a DWs-following TD would have either to require the doubler's partner to do precisely that or to rule that the use of this particular convention creates MI every time regardless of what is actually held or explained. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 17:08:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:08:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0704160542t3a2d1b92j6c03da41a4ff5437@mail.gmail.co m> References: <462349C3.2000803@skynet.be> <462349C3.2000803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416104517.02acd080@pop.starpower.net> At 08:42 AM 4/16/07, rwilley wrote: >I have a question of my own: At what point do Herman's little quirks >render him unfit to work as a TD or serve on Appeals Committees? > >First and foremost, I want to differentiate between taking a Devil's >Advocate type position on a discussion list or an Appeals write up and >official actions as a working TD or Appeals Committee member. I see >nothing wrong with blowing smoke on a discussion list. Its fun. It >might even qualify as productive. However, I would have very real >concerns if these same idiosyncratic little beliefs were to be used in >rendering judgments during an event of some kind. I very much believe >that players should have an expectation of equal justice. The rulings >that they receive should not depend on the luck of the draw with >respect to which Tournament Director or which Appeals Committee is >hearing their case. Obviously, life isn't perfect. Different TDs >have radically different skill levels. Many of them will make honest >mistakes. However, I believe that there is a very big difference >between an honest mistake and refusal to conform/enforce to the >majority opinion about the laws. > >To me, the most obvious analogy is Bobby Wolff. Like Herman, Wolff >has his own little causes. Like Herman, Wolff believes that he can >completely disregard stare decisis. My impression is that Wolff isn't >permitted to serve on many appeals committees any more. Instead, his >contributions have (largely) been limited to rendering increasingly >bizarre commentary on the Appeals process. I'm really starting to >wonder whether Herman has reached the same point: Mr. Wolff, who has contributed greatly to the game of bridge as both a player and an administrator, is now regarded by much of the official ACBL community as being, to put it politely, a bit past his prime. His idiosyncratic opinions about points of law, which continue to get more and more idiosyncratic as he ages, are listened to with deference, even published as official commentary from time to time, out of respect for his stature and his continuing desire to contribute to the game, but have not been taken seriously by very many folks for some years now. But Mr. Wolff is not, and (TTBOMK) never has been, a working TD. That, to use an American idiom, would be a whole different ball game. This is in no way intended to imply an answer to Richard's question. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 16 17:09:57 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:09:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] "normal practice" [was: 3NT or 4S] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2007, at 4:48 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > The normal practise when a final bid has been > passed out at one side of the screen is for those two players to > remove all their bidding cards from the tray before passing it over to > the other side. Sorry, but if this is normal practice, it shouldn't be. Who says the bid is "final"? There have been at most two passes. To me, picking up your bidding cards at this point is as annoying as the similar "normal practice" without screens, where at least some of the players *assume* the auction is over and pick up their cards before there have been three passes. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 16 17:23:32 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:23:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <001301c7802b$981376f0$3ac887d9@Hellen> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070416092036.02180a70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001301c7802b$981376f0$3ac887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2007, at 5:17 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Otherwise the 'psyche', baby or > not, is based upon an undisclosed partnership understanding. Perhaps not "based upon", but rather "made in the presence of". I daresay many of the players around here wouldn't recognize an implicit partnership understanding if it reared up and bit 'em on the ass. Of course, they wouldn't psych either, but still... From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 16 17:38:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46235581.1090408@skynet.be> Message-ID: > *From:* Herman De Wael > *To:* blml > *Date:* Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:52:49 +0200 > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Alain wrote: > >> Nope. 2NT is an asking bid ; it doesn't tell anything ; > > > > That's one way of playing it. It can also be played as a "Game > > invite or better enquiry" (which can be psyched). > > > > Yes, but so rarely that in fact, it can't. > > You cannot say at the same time "I'm asking a question while > promising something" and at the same time "I can bloody well ask with > whatever I have". The two are not compatible. > > It's exactly the type of psyche that you can do only once in your > lifetime. When you first discover the possibility. After that, you're > tainted and you can no longer pretend that asking a question always > promises a real interest in the reply. More like once per partner IMO. > Given the footnote and in face of the evidence of the question being > asked without anything, I would rule that the explanation "asking, > and promising values" is a wrong one. While I'd investigate the partnership agreements and history before (in all probability) ruling MI. > But I'm sure you'll disagree, Tim. Of course I disagree - competent TDs actually bother to investigate before ruling. Explainer may be a clueless novice to whom the idea of psyching a GI+ 2N would not occur while his partner is devious old hand who agreed to play GI+ in the hope of getting a chance to psych it. > It strikes me as odd that you, who frequently psyches (IIRC), Not particularly frequently - probably less than once per session. > wants to hide behind disclosure walls Herman, if any regular partner of *mine* failed to mention the possibility of me having a weak hand I'd call the TD myself (at the first legal opportunity) - I know MI when I hear it. OTOH were I playing in an individual event with a fixed system and threw in a psych I'd not expect the TD to adjust. But the question wasn't asked about *my* system. It was asked about a pair whose agreements we don't know, whose familiarity we don't know, and whose explanation at the table wasn't even given to us. I am not in the habit of presuming that the pair in question play the same way that I do. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 16 17:38:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: Ré&. : Re: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46236C27.000001.99485@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > (Tim) The EBU, wisely IMO, has regulated that the word "forcing" *in > isolation* carries the implication of strength. Thus where a bid is > forcing but may be weak there is automatically MI where the possible > weakness is not disclosed. > > 1S pass 1NT (alert) > > - yes please > - forcing > > And you tell me I'm giving MI ? Hope not. If you are in the EBU the forcing bid may contain a weak hand. Why not just add "can a be weak hand with 3 card support." (or whatever). > 98% of those who use classical forcing NT (ie including all kinds of > semi-weak hands) do likewise. In EBU land they have learnt to add "not necessarily strong". > 99% do understand. Those who understand (and that includes the majority of experienced players) will not have been damaged by the omission. The TD will rule MI but no damage (and if I'm the TD tell the complainant to stop lawyering). > From the 5% that tell me they understood it as "strong", a majority > are lawyering. The majority of those in the UK who misunderstand are inexperienced players who have never heard of the forcing NT before. The TD will rule MI and adjust for possible damage. The technical adequacy of the explanation is thus NOT a judgement decision - only the possibility of damage. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 19:20:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:20:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <4620E7C7.8000601@cs.elte.hu> References: <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46209339.9050604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416131548.029ff160@pop.starpower.net> At 10:40 AM 4/14/07, Laszlo wrote: >A pair plays basic system with 1N: 12-14. >1N-2N in this system is 11-12 balanced of course. >An other pair also plays 12-14 NT, but they define the 1N-2N bid simply: >invitational to 3N. (Requires partner to pass with weak but raise with >strong hand). > >Do you think they play tha same or different method? I'm sure those are >the same, and both of them tells their opponents an absolutely correct >explanation about this bid. I think the 2nd definition is better, but >it's not important difference. > >In a compatition the South of these pairs should bid in the following >situation: > >NV/NV > >1N pass ? > >32 >632 >T853 >7654 > >Not so strong hand, pass is normal bid, but a player may bid 2N (!) >Absolutely not bad idea. After 1N-pass-pass LHO's DBL is very likely and >RHO's strength is enough for pass after the DBL is very likely, and our >chance to find a good suit to escape is so poor. But after 1N-2N-p or >1N-2N-3N-p opponents may cannot open. > >I can imagine, that both of these two Southes tries this 2N. Do they >psyche. The first surely does (he don't have 11-12 HCPs), but what about >the second. They tell you correctly: he wants partner to pass or raise >depends on his strength. It's true, but it's the same psyche :) Sometimes you have to ask the right question. Laci is correct that it doesn't matter whether they describe the bid as telling or asking. If you want to know whether or not this is a psych, you have to ask a different question, something like: suppose it goes 1NT-P-2NT- and fourth hand intervenes at the three-level; is opener's pass forcing? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 19:50:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:50:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> At 10:59 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > At 09:15 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: > > > >> But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case > >> is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder > >> has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that > >> sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is > >> no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the > >> same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and > >> there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are > >> you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". > > > > The same way you are going to not believe them: by understanding that > > even if they are both flipping coins to decide which way to treat 4H, > > they will wind up "on the same wavelength" 50% of the time -- which > > means that always believing them and never believing them are equally > > fallacious. In Herman's world, they would have no way to recover from > > the ambiguity inherent in a genuine lack of agreement -- disaster if > > they guess differently (50% of the time), unfavorable adjustment from > > Herman if they guess similarly (the other 50% of the time). In > effect, > > having no agreement becomes a de facto infraction in itself. In Tim's > > world, TDs and ACs look at evidence and listen to what the players > have > > to say, decide whether they in fact had "no agreement" as they > claimed, > > and rule accordingly; that's their job. > >Eric, > >do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one >basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he >believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? No, that is a case that I >don't believe will come up. Yes, I do. Because "a true 50/50 toss of the coin" here means that if asked the meaning of the call, either answer -- natural or splinter -- in isolation, would be correct 50% of the time. But he will put all his eggs in one basket because he expects partner to be "on the same wavelength", i.e. that partner will also understand that the nature of their actual agreement is a true 50/50 toss of the coin. That will induce partner to "guess" whether 4H is natural or a splinter *based on the number of hearts he holds* (possibly combined with other clues from the auction). That he will be able to do this successfully well over 50% of the time doesn't change the "50/50" nature of the agreement -- but may well make putting all his eggs in one basket the best way to maximize his expected result. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 20:42:42 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:42:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Whale?= In-Reply-To: <46208BCC.6090906@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413121721.02b1d190@pop.starpower.net> <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> <461F8273.2060102@skynet.be> <461F938F.000001.69027@CERAP-MATSH1> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413121721.02b1d190@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416143300.02acb020@pop.starpower.net> At 04:07 AM 4/14/07, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > So here we are. Partner bid 3S. I'm pretty sure that he intends > it to > > be non-forcing, but I'm not certain, so I am going to raise to game > > with my minimum just in case. The DWs gives me the choice of either > > describing 3S as forcing, deliberately misleading my opponents about > > the likely contents of partner's hand (I really don't expect him to > > have enough for a forcing 3S), or as non-forcing, deliberately > > misleading my opponents about the contents of my own hand (I know I > > don't have enough for my 4S bid over a non-forcing 3S). It > > specifically does not allow me to truthfully reveal my uncertainty, > > even though, if 3S really was intended as non-forcing, as I expect, it > > is only by doing so that I can offer an explanation that's consistent > > with the actual auction! > >But don't you see that this is ludicrous? If partner wants to reach a >good contract, he does not bid something which can be misunderstood. >If he knows that you don't know what 3S means, and that you'll always >raise it to 4 no matter what your hand is, why then does he not bid 4S >himself? >And if what you are saying is in fact true, then the real "agreement" >is not that 3S is either forcing or not, but that it is in fact, >forcing (since you'll be raising anyway). There is no guess to be >made, only one explanation to be given. The explanation is not "I >don't know", but "We have not discussed the strngth of this bid, it is >unlimited". Since there can be no intention (partner knows that you >would not be able to figure out the intention), there is no need to >guess at the intention, under DwS directives. > >The counter-examples you continue to give are those in which there is >no conflict between our views. Maybe we should find better examples. The question that was asked was, "Is 3S forcing?" I confess I fail to see how "I don't know" and "We have not discussed the strength of this bid" are in any way different answers. But I can easily see how answering "Yes" -- on the rationale "that it is in fact, forcing (since [I]'ll be raising anyway)" -- could easily mislead my opponents into thinking that I expect partner's hand be suitable for a forcing 3S. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 16 20:43:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:43:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> References: <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4623C3BA.6040909@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:27 PM 4/13/07, twm wrote: > >> Herman wrote: >> >>> do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one >>> basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he >>> believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? >> But it's not a 50/50 toss of the coin. Assuming the bid is undiscussed >> and equally likely to be either by inference I expect partner to have a >> good chance of working out which by looking at his hand. There are is >> also the possibility that if I splinter my LHO will double and save >> partner a guess. Of course an LHO with 7+ hearts might decide not to >> double when informed that the bid is undiscussed. >> >>> No, that is a case that I don't believe will come up. >> It does. Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the >> ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) but >> that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs. >> >>> Rather, the bidder has some idea about this going to be understood. I >>> want to know what that idea was, and my AC will investigate fully, >>> and judge on the evidence. That's their job, as you say. >> What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it right >> despite the complete lack of agreement? > > One wonders what the De Wael school would make of the "two-way double", > which, by explicit agreement, can be made with either a pure takeout > double or a pure penalty double; partner is required to "guess" which > it is based purely on the contents of his own hand. Proponents of this > particular convention claim that he will get it right "almost every > time". ISTM that because such an agreement could not be "disclosed" in > a manner consistent with the requirements of the DWs without requiring > the doubler's partner to base his disclosure solely on the contents of > his hand (no other disambiguating criterion exists), a DWs-following TD > would have either to require the doubler's partner to do precisely that > or to rule that the use of this particular convention creates MI every > time regardless of what is actually held or explained. > I see no problem with any scenario here. If both players know what they are doing, and they explain it correctly, what's the problem. The only problem is with people who give penalty doubles, partner figuring out that it is a penalty double, and passing it, then refusing to say what it is. Those people do not reveal who is taking the decision, while they both know who it is. If the partner of a two-way doubler instead explains the double as the way he figured it out, he is at least informing the opponents of the correct player who took the decision. I find giving the opponents correct information about holdings far more important than giving them correct theoretical systemic information. They have no use for the second, only for the first. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 16 20:51:35 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:51:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:59 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> At 09:15 AM 4/13/07, Herman wrote: >>> >>>> But there cannot be ambiguity. Not is some cases. Maybe the Roudi case >>>> is too simple, since there are too many hands where the Roudi bidder >>>> has natural clubs too. Your splinter example was far better in that >>>> sense. The man who bids 4H either has 6 hearts or only one. There is >>>> no ambiguity as to his intentions. And the bid cannot mean both at the >>>> same time. The responder will either pass or go on to 4S or 6S, and >>>> there too is no ambiguity. If both are on the same wavelength, how are >>>> you going to believe them when they say "no agreement". >>> The same way you are going to not believe them: by understanding that >>> even if they are both flipping coins to decide which way to treat 4H, >>> they will wind up "on the same wavelength" 50% of the time -- which >>> means that always believing them and never believing them are equally >>> fallacious. In Herman's world, they would have no way to recover from >>> the ambiguity inherent in a genuine lack of agreement -- disaster if >>> they guess differently (50% of the time), unfavorable adjustment from >>> Herman if they guess similarly (the other 50% of the time). In >> effect, >>> having no agreement becomes a de facto infraction in itself. In Tim's >>> world, TDs and ACs look at evidence and listen to what the players >> have >>> to say, decide whether they in fact had "no agreement" as they >> claimed, >>> and rule accordingly; that's their job. >> Eric, >> >> do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one >> basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he >> believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? No, that is a case that I >> don't believe will come up. > > Yes, I do. Because "a true 50/50 toss of the coin" here means that if > asked the meaning of the call, either answer -- natural or splinter -- > in isolation, would be correct 50% of the time. But he will put all > his eggs in one basket because he expects partner to be "on the same > wavelength", i.e. that partner will also understand that the nature of > their actual agreement is a true 50/50 toss of the coin. That will > induce partner to "guess" whether 4H is natural or a splinter *based on > the number of hearts he holds* (possibly combined with other clues from > the auction). That he will be able to do this successfully well over > 50% of the time doesn't change the "50/50" nature of the agreement -- > but may well make putting all his eggs in one basket the best way to > maximize his expected result. > You have used words like "expects partner to be on the same wavelength", "clues from the auction", "maximise his expected result". I fail to see how this is consistent with true 50/50 tosses. I am not criticizing your understanding of the law, but I do wish you'd try and take real-life examples and not hypothetical ones. No-one jumps to 4H in a situation where there are still 2 (50/50) possibilities as wide apart as a singleton or a 7-card suit. If they do, you would be right. But they don't, not in a 50/50 case. And even if it's only 60/40, I'd expect the opponents to be informed of which is the 60% chance. And that just is my point. If 2 players end up on the same wavelength, how likely is it that it was a true 50/50, and how likely is it that there was some framwork that they both related to? What is the TD most likely to be doing? And do you really want to have your players hide behgind "it was a true 50/50 toss of the coin, this". Well, I don't, and they will have a hard time convincing me that it really was 50/50. And I guess you'd be equally hard to convince, or you're no good director. And all this leads me to give as advice to players: if you have even an inkling of which one it is - better tell your opponents this, because if you turn out to have it correct, chances are the TD will rule against you if you don't say it. Call that bad advice if you want - but don't call it bad law. It's not law, just advice. Oh, and, have you really ever given as a reply to an opponent who asks what your partner's bid means "I have honestly no idea" (not while meaning "other than the obvious ones that you also have")? I have, but I've also added "most likely it will be ..." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 16 21:01:09 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:01:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4623C7F5.1080109@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >> It's exactly the type of psyche that you can do only once in your >> lifetime. When you first discover the possibility. After that, you're >> tainted and you can no longer pretend that asking a question always >> promises a real interest in the reply. > > More like once per partner IMO. > Not in the same club where your tendencies are known, I would not. >> Given the footnote and in face of the evidence of the question being >> asked without anything, I would rule that the explanation "asking, >> and promising values" is a wrong one. > > While I'd investigate the partnership agreements and history before (in > all probability) ruling MI. > You see, you agree with me. Of course I'd also investigate. >> But I'm sure you'll disagree, Tim. > > Of course I disagree You just don't want to agree with me, do you? > - competent TDs actually bother to investigate > before ruling. Oh, I'd investigate all right. But I know what the result of the investigation will be, in 99% of the cases. > Explainer may be a clueless novice to whom the idea of > psyching a GI+ 2N would not occur while his partner is devious old hand > who agreed to play GI+ in the hope of getting a chance to psych it. > Exactly a case that I'd not allow. The devious old hand has told his partner to answer "asking, promising" while in the hope of a chance to psych it. He could easily have told his partner to answer "asking, does not promise anything". >> It strikes me as odd that you, who frequently psyches (IIRC), > > Not particularly frequently - probably less than once per session. > He says to the person accused of being a frequent psycher on blml, for psyching on average twice a year. >> wants to hide behind disclosure walls > > Herman, if any regular partner of *mine* failed to mention the > possibility of me having a weak hand I'd call the TD myself (at the > first legal opportunity) - I know MI when I hear it. > Yet you write things like the sentences above. Don't tell me we're not on different sides of some fence, and your side is the one of less disclosure. > OTOH were I playing in an individual event with a fixed system and threw > in a psych I'd not expect the TD to adjust. > I'm not certain of that. Depends on what the fixed system is. > But the question wasn't asked about *my* system. It was asked about a > pair whose agreements we don't know, whose familiarity we don't know, > and whose explanation at the table wasn't even given to us. I am not in > the habit of presuming that the pair in question play the same way that > I do. > I am. I am talking about real-life dramas. Not hypothetical ones. And you must surely also know psyching types who are less than economical with the truth. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Apr 16 23:02:46 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:02:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this apsyche? Message-ID: <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> Ciao blmlers! It seems to me that it simply depends on what you are playing and what the 2NT bid means in the partnership. (If this is so then we have really wasted a lot of time and words on this.) An example: although I usually don't play 2diam. multi we do have a few other similar opening bids which can have more than one meaning. We use the lowest relay to enquire, ask for a description of the opening. The relay is not forcing, is generally weak and the reply of partner can be passed. We use 2NT (when unpassed) as a forcing bid, promising at least opening count, forcing for at least one round. If I were to bid 2NT in such a sequence with a weak hand it would be a psyche as far as I understand the term. My partner will have alerted my bid and described it (if asked) as forcing, at least an opening, at least invitational to game (depending on the further description of opener's hand). Is there anyone out there who doesn't believe it would be a psyche if I made the bid with a weak hand, intending to pass anything partner replied, to keep the opponents out of game? If, on the other hand, the 2NT bid doesn't promise anything and merely asks the partner to further describe his holding, and is so described; then it is hard to see how it could be a psyche. Returning to the starting point (the original question): we could have saved a lot of time and words had we simply asked the originator of this just exactly what he played and how the bid was described in his system. (But then, in retrospect, I doubt that it is in the interest of many of the active blmlersout there to save time and words.) Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 17 01:14:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:14:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462349C3.2000803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: "...Richard rantings..." Richard Hills: One of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary's definitions of the word "rant" is "declaim, recite theatrically". Since I started this thread with a quote from the theatre's greatest ever writer, William Shakespeare, then that is one statement by Herman De Wael that I must agree with. By the way, Herman seems to assume that Richard Willey and myself are one and the same person. But the confusion is of little consequence, since, in my opinion, the question posed by Richard Willey should perhaps cause Herman to rethink his adherence to the De Wael School and instead cause Herman to adopt the normal legal philosophy of "stare decisis". For blmlers who are not legal eagles, the definition of "stare decisis" is the doctrine that, when a court (in bridge terms a National Authority) has once laid down a principle of law applicable to a certain set of facts, it and inferior courts (in bridge terms its Directors) will adhere to that principle and apply it to future cases where the facts are substantially the same. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Apr 17 03:25:58 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:25:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this apsyche? In-Reply-To: <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> References: <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> Message-ID: <46242226.6070101@cs.elte.hu> Jeff Easterson wrote: >Ciao blmlers! It seems to me that it simply depends on what you are >playing and what the 2NT bid means in the partnership. (If this is so >then we have really wasted a lot of time and words on this.) An >example: although I usually don't play 2diam. multi we do have a few >other similar opening bids which can have more than one meaning. We use >the lowest relay to enquire, ask for a description of the opening. The >relay is not forcing, is generally weak and the reply of partner can be >passed. We use 2NT (when unpassed) as a forcing bid, promising at least >opening count, forcing for at least one round. If I were to bid 2NT in >such a sequence with a weak hand it would be a psyche as far as I >understand the term. My partner will have alerted my bid and described >it (if asked) as forcing, at least an opening, at least invitational to >game (depending on the further description of opener's hand). Is there >anyone out there who doesn't believe it would be a psyche if I made the >bid with a weak hand, intending to pass anything partner replied, to >keep the opponents out of game? >If, on the other hand, the 2NT bid doesn't promise anything and merely >asks the partner to further describe his holding, and is so described; >then it is hard to see how it could be a psyche. >Returning to the starting point (the original question): we could have >saved a lot of time and words had we simply asked the originator of this >just exactly what he played and how the bid was described in his system. > (But then, in retrospect, I doubt that it is in the interest of many >of the active blmlersout there to save time and words.) Ciao, JE > > OK. It seems to me you are right, but it generates other questions. Suppose there are two pairs in the same competition who plays very similar systems with only a little difference. They play multi 2D, with 2N relay for suit and strength. In pair#1's system it shows good hand: minimum invitational to game, according to the strength of the 2D. It makes the situation forcing only after partner's positiv anwser but it promises strength, so the opener will double or compete with weak hands as well, if his cards are right to those bids. In pair#2's system it promises nothing, just asks partner's hand, but can be weak. It does not make the situation forcing, so the 2D opener very rarely double or compete after opps overcall on higher level. Of course, if a member of one of these pairs bids 2N with weak hand after partner's 2D opening, then the player of pair#1 psyches, the other one doesn't. But you are sitting at the table as opponent of them, you see the bidding 2D-P-2N and all the four players tell you "forcing relay" in this situation, and you don't know which tipe of the "forcing relay" they play. In this situation, after opps explanation an information is missing to you. Are these explanations correct? There are 4 logocal anwsers. A, pair#1's explanation is correct: "forcing relay", but pair#2's explanation is insufficient, they should have tell you something like that: "forcing relay, but does not promis good hand". B, pair#2's explanation is correct: "forcing relay", but pair#1's explanation is insufficient, they should have tell you something like that: "forcing relay, promises good hand". C, both expalanation are insufficient. D, both are correct, if you need more information, you should ask more. In my bridge experience i founded that pair#2's system is bad and the majority does not play like that, so my anwser is the A, but it's only my opinion. regards Laci From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 17 09:13:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:13:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this apsyche? In-Reply-To: <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> References: <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> Message-ID: <46247382.1030802@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ciao blmlers! It seems to me that it simply depends on what you are > playing and what the 2NT bid means in the partnership. (If this is so > then we have really wasted a lot of time and words on this.) An > example: although I usually don't play 2diam. multi we do have a few > other similar opening bids which can have more than one meaning. We use > the lowest relay to enquire, ask for a description of the opening. The > relay is not forcing, is generally weak and the reply of partner can be > passed. We use 2NT (when unpassed) as a forcing bid, promising at least > opening count, forcing for at least one round. If I were to bid 2NT in > such a sequence with a weak hand it would be a psyche as far as I > understand the term. My partner will have alerted my bid and described > it (if asked) as forcing, at least an opening, at least invitational to > game (depending on the further description of opener's hand). Is there > anyone out there who doesn't believe it would be a psyche if I made the > bid with a weak hand, intending to pass anything partner replied, to > keep the opponents out of game? > If, on the other hand, the 2NT bid doesn't promise anything and merely > asks the partner to further describe his holding, and is so described; > then it is hard to see how it could be a psyche. > Returning to the starting point (the original question): we could have > saved a lot of time and words had we simply asked the originator of this > just exactly what he played and how the bid was described in his system. True Jeff, but then it turns out it's explained as one and used as the other. Is it a psyche then, or a misexplanation? In order to be truely useful in baffling the opponents, it is better if you explain it in such a way that they think it is strong. I don't like that tactic. Use asking bids while weak all you want to, but don't add to the confusion by explaining them as strong! I don't like it when a pair uses this ruse and then come up to the TD with a fully detailed CC which includes indications that it is always strong. It's easy enough to write it on the CC, all the while knowing the ruse is there. It's not something you discover for the first time (well, not after the first time it isn't). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 17 09:38:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:38:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003801c77ce9$ededfe50$a19487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ The evidence has to be assessed. In appeals committees >evidence from the actions of the players is normally considered >stronger than the statements of the players unsupported by >corroboration from CC or system notes. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: I agree, but I also note that Grattan carefully wrote "actions" and "normally". In the small and tight-knit community of Canberra Bridge Club experts there is a lengthy knowledge of the past actions of any particular expert, so it is easy to deduce from the historical record of "actions" (in the plural) whether a Canberra expert's purported lucky coincidence is in fact a lucky coincidence, or whether it is instead a implicit concealed partnership understanding (CPU). For example, the historical record of one Canberra expert means that his constant "baby psyching" has transmogrified from a true psyche to an implicit partnership understanding pseudo-psyche (although it cannot be called "concealed", since all of his opponents are aware of his habits). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 17 09:58:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:58:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this apsyche? In-Reply-To: <46242226.6070101@cs.elte.hu> References: <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> <46242226.6070101@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <46247E0D.1020100@skynet.be> Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Ciao blmlers! It seems to me that it simply depends on what you are >> playing and what the 2NT bid means in the partnership. (If this is so >> then we have really wasted a lot of time and words on this.) An >> example: although I usually don't play 2diam. multi we do have a few >> other similar opening bids which can have more than one meaning. We use >> the lowest relay to enquire, ask for a description of the opening. The >> relay is not forcing, is generally weak and the reply of partner can be >> passed. We use 2NT (when unpassed) as a forcing bid, promising at least >> opening count, forcing for at least one round. If I were to bid 2NT in >> such a sequence with a weak hand it would be a psyche as far as I >> understand the term. My partner will have alerted my bid and described >> it (if asked) as forcing, at least an opening, at least invitational to >> game (depending on the further description of opener's hand). Is there >> anyone out there who doesn't believe it would be a psyche if I made the >> bid with a weak hand, intending to pass anything partner replied, to >> keep the opponents out of game? >> If, on the other hand, the 2NT bid doesn't promise anything and merely >> asks the partner to further describe his holding, and is so described; >> then it is hard to see how it could be a psyche. >> Returning to the starting point (the original question): we could have >> saved a lot of time and words had we simply asked the originator of this >> just exactly what he played and how the bid was described in his system. >> (But then, in retrospect, I doubt that it is in the interest of many >> of the active blmlersout there to save time and words.) Ciao, JE >> >> > OK. It seems to me you are right, but it generates other questions. > Suppose there are two pairs in the same competition who plays very > similar systems with only a little difference. They play multi 2D, with > 2N relay for suit and strength. > > In pair#1's system it shows good hand: minimum invitational to game, > according to the strength of the 2D. It makes the situation forcing only > after partner's positiv anwser but it promises strength, so the opener > will double or compete with weak hands as well, if his cards are right > to those bids. > > In pair#2's system it promises nothing, just asks partner's hand, but > can be weak. It does not make the situation forcing, so the 2D opener > very rarely double or compete after opps overcall on higher level. > > Of course, if a member of one of these pairs bids 2N with weak hand > after partner's 2D opening, then the player of pair#1 psyches, the other > one doesn't. But you are sitting at the table as opponent of them, you > see the bidding 2D-P-2N and all the four players tell you "forcing > relay" in this situation, and you don't know which tipe of the "forcing > relay" they play. In this situation, after opps explanation an > information is missing to you. Are these explanations correct? There are > 4 logocal anwsers. > > > A, pair#1's explanation is correct: "forcing relay", but pair#2's > explanation is insufficient, they should have tell you something like > that: "forcing relay, but does not promis good hand". > > B, pair#2's explanation is correct: "forcing relay", but pair#1's > explanation is insufficient, they should have tell you something like > that: "forcing relay, promises good hand". > > C, both expalanation are insufficient. > > D, both are correct, if you need more information, you should ask more. > > > In my bridge experience i founded that pair#2's system is bad and the > majority does not play like that, so my anwser is the A, but it's only > my opinion. > You have to look at it in a different way though, Laci. Suppose you ask both pairs, and both tell you it's always strong. In the one pair, that is according to their system notes, in the other, that is a mistake by answerer. Yet it was done with a very weak hand, and you are damaged. Do you really think that the director will rule misinformation on the second pair and psyche on the first one? As I said before, I don't like it when pairs write their system notes and then "psyche" those notes, when in fact there was no reason to write it like that. Only if there is some chance that the bidding can go overboard is there reason to believe the system notes. With a previous partner I had written in the notes that over 2Cl, 2NT was a forcing relay, promising 14 points. The systemic answer in case the 2Cl opener had its strongest option (26-27) was: 7NT. That is a system you cannot psyche anymore, or if you do - it's dangerous. > regards > Laci > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 10:34:33 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:34:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] "normal practice" [was: 3NT or 4S] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 16/04/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2007, at 4:48 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > > The normal practise when a final bid has been > > passed out at one side of the screen is for those two players to > > remove all their bidding cards from the tray before passing it over to > > the other side. > > Sorry, but if this is normal practice, it shouldn't be. Who says the > bid is "final"? There have been at most two passes. To me, picking up > your bidding cards at this point is as annoying as the similar > "normal practice" without screens, where at least some of the players > *assume* the auction is over and pick up their cards before there > have been three passes. You misunderstood the position I was referring to Ed. On the NS side of the screen they thought that north's pass over the 4S bid that hadn't gotten through the screen was the 3rd and final pass in the auction. And then the "normal" practice IS to remove the bidding cards before returning the tray through the screen. I know this practice isn't supported by regulation, but this is how it is done. The only reason for this is to save time. Without screens, I completely agree with you. And here in Norway removing the bidding card is illegal at this time. They shall remain at the table until the opening lead has been turned face up. Kind regards, Harald > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 14:09:24 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:09:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4623C3BA.6040909@skynet.be> References: <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> <4623C3BA.6040909@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 16/04/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > At 05:27 PM 4/13/07, twm wrote: > > > >> Herman wrote: > >> > >>> do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one > >>> basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he > >>> believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? > >> But it's not a 50/50 toss of the coin. Assuming the bid is undiscussed > >> and equally likely to be either by inference I expect partner to have a > >> good chance of working out which by looking at his hand. There are is > >> also the possibility that if I splinter my LHO will double and save > >> partner a guess. Of course an LHO with 7+ hearts might decide not to > >> double when informed that the bid is undiscussed. > >> Here I have to tell about a true incident from a long way back in time. Hans Olof Hall?n was playing a tournament with a new partner. They had discussed quite a lot, but not everything. On one deal Hans Olof opened 1S and his partner responded 4H - this was unfortunately undiscussed. There's two possible meanings to the call - either a lot of hearts or no hearts. Hans Olof didn't have a clue, so he inspected his own hand. He held a heart void, so the odds favoured his partner holding a long suit. Thus he passed, and his partner had to declare the 0-0 fit. :-) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran [snip] > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 17 15:35:37 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:35:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4623C3BA.6040909@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070417091954.02abd890@pop.starpower.net> At 02:43 PM 4/16/07, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > One wonders what the De Wael school would make of the "two-way > double", > > which, by explicit agreement, can be made with either a pure takeout > > double or a pure penalty double; partner is required to "guess" which > > it is based purely on the contents of his own hand. Proponents of > this > > particular convention claim that he will get it right "almost every > > time". ISTM that because such an agreement could not be > "disclosed" in > > a manner consistent with the requirements of the DWs without requiring > > the doubler's partner to base his disclosure solely on the contents of > > his hand (no other disambiguating criterion exists), a > DWs-following TD > > would have either to require the doubler's partner to do precisely > that > > or to rule that the use of this particular convention creates MI every > > time regardless of what is actually held or explained. > >I see no problem with any scenario here. If both players know what >they are doing, and they explain it correctly, what's the problem. > >The only problem is with people who give penalty doubles, partner >figuring out that it is a penalty double, and passing it, then >refusing to say what it is. Those people do not reveal who is taking >the decision, while they both know who it is. > >If the partner of a two-way doubler instead explains the double as the >way he figured it out, he is at least informing the opponents of the >correct player who took the decision. Of course, the entire rationale for this (perfectly legal) convention is to keep the knowledge of which player holds the long trumps unrevealed if the partnership passes out the double. In a De Wael school world this convention would not exist. >I find giving the opponents correct information about holdings far >more important than giving them correct theoretical systemic >information. They have no use for the second, only for the first. Which is, even if correct, no excuse for ignoring the laws, which clearly mandate that they be given the second. It's no coincidence that the ACBL has mounted a decade-long campaign (familiar to readers of "Ruling the Game" in the Bridge Bulletin) to teach their players *not* to respond to inquiries by (illegally) offering their opinions as to the meaning of partner's calls in the absense of any systemic (explicit or implicit) agreement. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Apr 17 15:45:08 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:45:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Is_this_a_psyche=B2?= Message-ID: <4624CF64.8040500@aol.com> Ciao, geduldige blmlers. I seem to recall that there is a specification somewhere demanding "full disclosure". Thus, if the 2NT bid shows a certain minimum strength (opening count, whatever) the player alerting it (if asked) should say so. And, of course anything else that is system imminent. If it promises nothing but only asks for a further description (could be weak or strong, which seems to me a curious way to play it) it should be so described and then it can hardly be psyched. In the first case, if the player making the bid does not have the hand promised it may very well be a psyche. Ciao, JE From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 17 15:45:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:45:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this apsyche? In-Reply-To: <46242226.6070101@cs.elte.hu> References: <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> <4623E476.8090703@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070417093852.02ac9570@pop.starpower.net> At 09:25 PM 4/16/07, Laszlo wrote: >OK. It seems to me you are right, but it generates other questions. >Suppose there are two pairs in the same competition who plays very >similar systems with only a little difference. They play multi 2D, with >2N relay for suit and strength. > >In pair#1's system it shows good hand: minimum invitational to game, >according to the strength of the 2D. It makes the situation forcing only >after partner's positiv anwser but it promises strength, so the opener >will double or compete with weak hands as well, if his cards are right >to those bids. > >In pair#2's system it promises nothing, just asks partner's hand, but >can be weak. It does not make the situation forcing, so the 2D opener >very rarely double or compete after opps overcall on higher level. > >Of course, if a member of one of these pairs bids 2N with weak hand >after partner's 2D opening, then the player of pair#1 psyches, the other >one doesn't. But you are sitting at the table as opponent of them, you >see the bidding 2D-P-2N and all the four players tell you "forcing >relay" in this situation, and you don't know which tipe of the "forcing >relay" they play. In this situation, after opps explanation an >information is missing to you. Are these explanations correct? There are >4 logocal anwsers. > >A, pair#1's explanation is correct: "forcing relay", but pair#2's >explanation is insufficient, they should have tell you something like >that: "forcing relay, but does not promis good hand". > >B, pair#2's explanation is correct: "forcing relay", but pair#1's >explanation is insufficient, they should have tell you something like >that: "forcing relay, promises good hand". > >C, both expalanation are insufficient. > >D, both are correct, if you need more information, you should ask more. > >In my bridge experience i founded that pair#2's system is bad and the >majority does not play like that, so my anwser is the A, but it's only >my opinion. I don't know what's "logical", and I don't know what "should" occur, but I do know this: If someone needs more information than was initially offered, and asks for it, and gets it, no problems ensue and no director is needed. You can't say that for A, B or C. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 17 16:18:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:18:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: References: <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> <4623C3BA.6040909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4624D73F.6090104@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Here I have to tell about a true incident from a long way back in time. > Hans Olof Hall?n was playing a tournament with a new partner. They had > discussed quite a lot, but not everything. > > On one deal Hans Olof opened 1S and his partner responded 4H - this > was unfortunately undiscussed. There's two possible meanings to the > call - either a lot of hearts or no hearts. Hans Olof didn't have a > clue, so he inspected his own hand. He held a heart void, so the odds > favoured his partner holding a long suit. Thus he passed, and his > partner had to declare the 0-0 fit. :-) > Very funny, but what does it teach us: A) if you are guessing wrong, there is nothing you can do to avoid a bad result - let's therefore concentrate on cases where the guess was right; B) The partner was obviously gambling that Hans-Olof would understand, possibly from some part of the discussion that he thought was relevant, there is therefore at least some indication that their system included splinters; If Hans-Olof had held, say, 4 hearts, he would have bid spades again (or something in the minors); I'm sure the director would not have gone looking for precisely what it was that made him think 4H was a splinter. C) We don't know that if that had been the case, Hans-Olof would have alerted and explained that he thought it would be splinter. The story is great but I'm not sure it proves any point. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 17 16:24:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:24:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070417091954.02abd890@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> <461F9AD1.60000@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416101455.02ac7b80@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417091954.02abd890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4624D8A8.2090504@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:43 PM 4/16/07, Herman wrote: > > >> I find giving the opponents correct information about holdings far >> more important than giving them correct theoretical systemic >> information. They have no use for the second, only for the first. > > Which is, even if correct, no excuse for ignoring the laws, which > clearly mandate that they be given the second. No, no, no, no! Your use of the word "mandate" is a bit troublesome. The laws tell us that the opponents are entitled to the system, and nothing more. The laws do not tell us that it is forbidden to tell them more. Telling them more that they are entitled to is not ignoring the laws! Since it is never easy to know beforehand what the director will rule the system is going to be, telling them what you know (or think to know) of your partner's hand can never be wrong. Even if it turns out that you get the system wrong but have given a correct description of the hand, they can hardly be damaged, can they? (yes I know they can still be damaged, but only from a rebound, not firsthand). > It's no coincidence > that the ACBL has mounted a decade-long campaign (familiar to readers > of "Ruling the Game" in the Bridge Bulletin) to teach their players > *not* to respond to inquiries by (illegally) offering their opinions as > to the meaning of partner's calls in the absense of any systemic > (explicit or implicit) agreement. > And I still wonder why the ACBL have thought up that crazy idea? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 17 16:26:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:26:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> At 02:51 PM 4/16/07, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > Yes, I do. Because "a true 50/50 toss of the coin" here means that if > > asked the meaning of the call, either answer -- natural or splinter -- > > in isolation, would be correct 50% of the time. But he will put all > > his eggs in one basket because he expects partner to be "on the same > > wavelength", i.e. that partner will also understand that the nature of > > their actual agreement is a true 50/50 toss of the coin. That will > > induce partner to "guess" whether 4H is natural or a splinter > *based on > > the number of hearts he holds* (possibly combined with other clues > from > > the auction). That he will be able to do this successfully well over > > 50% of the time doesn't change the "50/50" nature of the agreement -- > > but may well make putting all his eggs in one basket the best way to > > maximize his expected result. > >You have used words like "expects partner to be on the same >wavelength", "clues from the auction", "maximise his expected result". >I fail to see how this is consistent with true 50/50 tosses. I am not >criticizing your understanding of the law, but I do wish you'd try and >take real-life examples and not hypothetical ones. No-one jumps to 4H >in a situation where there are still 2 (50/50) possibilities as wide >apart as a singleton or a 7-card suit. If they do, you would be right. >But they don't, not in a 50/50 case. And even if it's only 60/40, I'd >expect the opponents to be informed of which is the 60% chance. They don't? You sit down to play with a brand new partner. You know that in your area, where the "standard" system is 2/1 GF, roughly half the players play 1S-P-4H as to play, the other half play it as a splinter. You pick up -/KQ10xxxxxxx/x/xx, and hear 1S-P-? Your call? I'd guess that at least 99 out of 100 experts in a bidding contest would happily call 4H (and probably comment "WTP?"). They will expect partner to (a) understand that they have not agreed on the meaning of 4H, which is a priori roughly 50/50 to be natural or splinter, (b) look at their own heart holding, (c) notice that the opponents are not bidding as though they have the big heart fit they would have to have if partner were splintering, (d) figure out that 4H must therefore be based on long hearts, and thus (e) pass. One has to wonder what Herman ("no-one jumps to 4H in [this] situation") would choose to call if not 4H. >And that just is my point. If 2 players end up on the same wavelength, >how likely is it that it was a true 50/50, and how likely is it that >there was some framwork that they both related to? What is the TD most >likely to be doing? And do you really want to have your players hide >behgind "it was a true 50/50 toss of the coin, this". Well, I don't, >and they will have a hard time convincing me that it really was 50/50. >And I guess you'd be equally hard to convince, or you're no good director. Of course it wasn't "really" 50/50 *when the call was made* just because it was 50/50 a priori. What changes the a priori odds are the cards one actually holds and the auction one actually hears. This happens on every deal. Partner opens a Precision 1C, promising 16+ HCP. I hold 22 HCP. By Herman's logic, I must describe partner's 1C opening as showing 16-18 HCP, otherwise I am guilty of "misinforming" my opponents by telling them that partner could hold 19 HCP or more (I'm guessing that's roughly a 50/50 proposition before I look at my hand, although I haven't calculated the odds) when I know that there is no possibility of that being true. >And all this leads me to give as advice to players: if you have even >an inkling of which one it is - better tell your opponents this, >because if you turn out to have it correct, chances are the TD will >rule against you if you don't say it. > >Call that bad advice if you want - but don't call it bad law. It's not >law, just advice. > >Oh, and, have you really ever given as a reply to an opponent who asks >what your partner's bid means "I have honestly no idea" (not while >meaning "other than the obvious ones that you also have")? > >I have, but I've also added "most likely it will be ..." So Herman, in the absense of any agreement, facing a partner who is presumably aware of the fact that they have no agreement, gratuitously tells partner how he will take the bid, and, therefore, how to interpret his subsequent responses. That sounds like deliberate and egregious generation of UI. It is *precisely* the practice of adding "most likely it will be..." (or, equivalently, "I'm going to take it as...") that the ACBL has gone to great lengths (rightfully, IMO, and for the most part successfully) to stamp out. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Apr 17 20:28:20 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:28:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:26:36 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>Quoting Herman >> >>Oh, and, have you really ever given as a reply to an opponent who asks >>what your partner's bid means "I have honestly no idea" (not while >>meaning "other than the obvious ones that you also have")? >> >>I have, but I've also added "most likely it will be ..." > >So Herman, in the absense of any agreement, facing a partner who is >presumably aware of the fact that they have no agreement, gratuitously >tells partner how he will take the bid, and, therefore, how to >interpret his subsequent responses. That sounds like deliberate and >egregious generation of UI. It is *precisely* the practice of adding >"most likely it will be..." (or, equivalently, "I'm going to take it >as...") that the ACBL has gone to great lengths (rightfully, IMO, and >for the most part successfully) to stamp out. > It's not just the ACBL, Eric. From the 2006 EBU Orange Book... 3.B.3. A player should explain only the partnership agreement. If the player does not know the meaning of partner?s call, or there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how the player intends to interpret it. Brian. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 17 22:29:41 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:29:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] "normal practice" [was: 3NT or 4S] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560704130121i6808aa70g3ff463ecfd5a355@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > You misunderstood the position I was referring to Ed. Ah. Okay, fair enough - although I bet (just guessing) the "correct" procedure after three passes is to remove the screen and then pick up the bidding cards. It doesn't seem your "normal practice would really save all that much time, but what do I know? :-) > Without screens, I completely agree with you. And here in Norway > removing the bidding card is illegal at this time. They shall remain > at the table until the opening lead has been turned face up. A sensible regulation - which of course means it isn't in place here in the ACBL. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Apr 17 22:37:24 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:37:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?Is_this_a_psyche=B2?= In-Reply-To: <4624CF64.8040500@aol.com> References: <4624CF64.8040500@aol.com> Message-ID: <705F2922-0CBA-4D14-A036-AE81925F745F@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I seem to recall that there is a specification somewhere demanding > "full > disclosure". "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents,,," -- Law 75A > Thus, if the 2NT bid shows a certain minimum strength > (opening count, whatever) the player alerting it (if asked) should say > so. And, of course anything else that is system imminent. If it > promises nothing but only asks for a further description (could be > weak > or strong, which seems to me a curious way to play it) it should be so > described and then it can hardly be psyched. In the first case, if > the > player making the bid does not have the hand promised it may very well > be a psyche. Or not. But the question in the thread has to do with which situation applies in the original case postulated, and we have no conclusive evidence either way. I would suggest that anything beyond what you've posted here is idle speculation and thus a waste of time, but isn't that what blml is all about these days? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 17 23:54:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:54:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] De mortuis nil nisi bonum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: East-West South holds: K64 82 AKT42 KQ2 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1D Dble 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S(1) Pass 4S (1) Break in tempo What ruling do you make if: (a) the North-South agreement is to open 1NT with 12-14 hcp? (b) the North-South agreement is to open 1NT with 16-18 hcp? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Wed Apr 18 00:49:36 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:49:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] De mortuis nil nisi bonum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2007, at 5:54 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > What ruling do you make if: > > (a) the North-South agreement is to > open 1NT with 12-14 hcp? > > (b) the North-South agreement is to > open 1NT with 16-18 hcp? "Continue the bidding." To EW: "If NS declare and, when dummy comes down, you feel you were damaged, or if your side declares and you feel, after the play, that you were damaged, call me back." From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 18 02:12:51 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:12:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> [Robert Geller] We've been having a bit of discussion about the following hand in Japan. South is nv vs vul at imps, and holds J7 754 Q762 KQ95 North is dealer and opens 2D (multi) = a weak 2 in either major or a strong balanced hand. South bid 2NT, asking for North's hand type (strength/suit of weak 2 or strong 2nt). Obviously this is a tactical bid and one would normally expect South to have more strength for his bid, but the question is, should this be considered a "psych of an artificial conventional bid"? [nige1] I agree that if 2N is agreed to be a simple relay or asking bid then there is no problem; but if the understanding is that it is a strong relay, a director may well judge it to be a "psych of an artificial conventional bid"; in the UK, this may not be a problem because it is legal to psych such bids here. *Tactical bid* is a euphemism coined by secretary birds to describe a *deviation* by an expert. Their hope is that the call will escape recording and possible classification as a concealed understanding. Experts often employ minor *deviations* rather than gross *psychs* -- these are more likely to escape comment. Are such undeclared habits legal if partner is aware of them? IMO No -- although many BLMLers seem to interpret the rules differently. I don't object to psychs but the rules about them need completion to clearly include deviations; they also need clarification. This is yet another aspect of the game that should be a matter of *legislation* in the forthcoming revision of TFLB rather than haphazard local *regulation*. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 18 03:30:21 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:30:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Nigel wrote: > *Tactical bid* is a euphemism coined by secretary birds to describe > a *deviation* by an expert. Pfui. A "tactic" is "a device for accomplishing an end". A "tactical bid" is one which may or may not be systemic (a preempt is a tactical bid), but is designed to accomplish an end - usually that of misleading or obstructing opponents. All psychic bids are thus tactical bids. A "deviation" is a departure from agreed systemic meaning which does not rise to the category of a psyche (i.e., it is not a *gross* distortion of agreed strength or suit length). It would seem then that if a deviation is done deliberately (as opposed to mistakenly, i.e., a misbid) it too is a tactical bid. I don't think it's reasonable to allege or imply that anyone who uses the term "tactical bid" is (a) a secretary bird and (b) trying to muddy the waters. Note that none of the definitions I've stated above depends in the slightest on the degree of expertise of the bidder. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 18 04:03:08 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:03:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704121426.l3CEQ42m007412@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704121426.l3CEQ42m007412@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46257C5C.1000408@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > This weekend's Trials to select the ACT Open Team for the Aussie > Interstate Open Teams will be 12 pairs playing 11 rounds of 14- > board matches in a round robin, with the top three pairs forming > the team. The scoring will be Butler against a datum (yes, I > know that cross-imps is a slightly superior method), More than "slightly superior" for reasons that have often been discussed in this forum. Compared to this, your questions about VP scales are like asking what color the smokestacks on the Titanic should have been painted. > Essentially forget VP scales and score by net IMPs with upper and > lower caps If the pairs are all of high standard, just use straight IMPs with no cap. The point of VPs is to prevent over-valuing a huge result against a weak team or pair. If that doesn't apply, don't bother with VPs. If you do use VPs, use the EBU or Bethe scales, not the silly WBF ones, which are unsuitable for this purpose. They are too nearly linear and have weird breakpoints. From: Herman De Wael > it seems to me this text tries to solve two problems at once: As usual, Herman is on target. > a- should VP scales be decimalised or rounded? > sometimes, a > higher number of IMPs will lead to a lower number of VP. That's just a > consequence of rounding. No good reason to round off in a small match. Computers or a calculator can handle the arithmetic. As Herman says, though, it will seldom matter. > b- should the scales be linear or not? > With regards to b-, it is my opinion that if all teams play all > boards, it should not be right for a good board to have a different > influence when it is played in a match that is otherwise lost or in a > match that is already blitzed. It's not so much "play all boards" -- which is definitely important! -- as whether all boards should count the same. If there are weak pairs, boards against them should count less, and VPs are one way to achieve that. If all pairs are strong, then all boards should count the same. But all this is trivial compared to the travesty of using Butler in a serious event. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 18 05:47:05 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:47:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] De mortuis nil nisi bonum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007f01c7816c$3be54240$6400a8c0@rota> Richard Hills writes: > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > South holds: > > K64 > 82 > AKT42 > KQ2 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > 1D Dble 1S 2H > 2S 3H 3S(1) Pass > 4S > > (1) Break in tempo I need another piece of information to determine whether 3S demonstrably suggested one action over another. Do N-S play maximal overcall doubles? If they do not, then 3S is at least somewhat invitational (even if ostensibly competitive, South might go on), so it doesn't demonstrably suggest anything; he could have been considering a pass or penalty double (which would suggest pass over 4S) or 4S (which would suggest 4S over pass). Thus, no matter what South does, I will not adjust. If N-S play maximal overcall doubles, then 3S is purely competitive, showing long spades, with no expectation that South will bid 4S except as a sacrifice. It is unlikely that North was considering a pass, so I could rule that the slow 3S (apparently considering double) demonstrably suggested 4S over pass. > What ruling do you make if: > > (a) the North-South agreement is to > open 1NT with 12-14 hcp? South is minimum for the 2S raise, so he would not normally accept an invitation. If N-S are playing maximal overcall doubles, I can't tell whether South is being actively ethical (thinking that North was considering a pass, and bending over backwards) or actively unethical (competing because he thinks North has extras), but I have to rule against him if I think that North was unlikely to be considering a pass. > (b) the North-South agreement is to > open 1NT with 16-18 hcp? South is medium for the 2S raise, with the maximum 15 HCP but only three spades and a doubleton heart which is likely to be a duplicated value. If N-S are playing maximal overcall doubles, I rule that pass is a logical alternative to 4S. From geller at nifty.com Wed Apr 18 05:48:49 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:48:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200704180348.AA08392@geller204.nifty.com> The classical example of a tactical bid is a deliberate underbid in the same strain where you hope to buy the cntract. For example, say you hold Kxxxxx x xxxxx x Pard opens 1S and RHO bids 2H. Anticipating some wild later bidding many players would deliberately underbid (2S or 3S if 3S is a preempt) in the hopes of buying the contract at a lower level than if they jumped to 4S. This tactical underbidding may or may not work, but there's nothing unethical. -Bob Ed Reppert ????????: > >On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Nigel wrote: > >> *Tactical bid* is a euphemism coined by secretary birds to describe >> a *deviation* by an expert. > >Pfui. A "tactic" is "a device for accomplishing an end". A "tactical >bid" is one which may or may not be systemic (a preempt is a tactical >bid), but is designed to accomplish an end - usually that of >misleading or obstructing opponents. All psychic bids are thus >tactical bids. > >A "deviation" is a departure from agreed systemic meaning which does >not rise to the category of a psyche (i.e., it is not a *gross* >distortion of agreed strength or suit length). It would seem then >that if a deviation is done deliberately (as opposed to mistakenly, >i.e., a misbid) it too is a tactical bid. > >I don't think it's reasonable to allege or imply that anyone who uses >the term "tactical bid" is (a) a secretary bird and (b) trying to >muddy the waters. > >Note that none of the definitions I've stated above depends in the >slightest on the degree of expertise of the bidder. > >_______________________________________________ >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.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 18 09:29:38 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:29:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>>So Herman, in the absence of any agreement, facing a partner who >>>is presumably aware of the fact that they have no agreement, >>>gratuitously tells partner how he will take the bid, and, >>>therefore, how to interpret his subsequent responses. That >>>sounds like deliberate and egregious generation of UI. It is >>>*precisely* the practice of adding "most likely it will be..." >>>(or, equivalently, "I'm going to take it as...") that the ACBL >>>has gone to great lengths (rightfully, IMO, and for the most >>>part successfully) to stamp out. Brian Meadows: >>It's not just the ACBL, Eric. From the 2006 EBU Orange Book... >> >> >>3.B.3. A player should explain only the partnership agreement. >>If the player does not know the meaning of partner's call, or >>there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how the >>player intends to interpret it. >> Australian Bridge Federation (ABF) 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 the 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 unauthorised information to partner." Richard Hills: However, this thread's "demolish the De Wael School logic" theme is not totally fair. Although Herman's logic in support of his weird interpretation of the Laws is in fact fallacious, Herman's motives are admirable. Note the middle sentence in the above ABF Alert Regulation: "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 the opponents." All of us - Eric, Brian, Herman and myself - are aware of some who give niggardly explanations, revealing only their explicit written agreements, but concealing their implicit unwritten agreements. I agree with Herman's ends that all implicit agreements should be disclosed. I merely dispute Herman's ridiculous ends-justify-the- means argument that to achieve that goal all (or almost all) non- agreements must be disclosed as agreements. Herman De Wael: >The laws tell us that the opponents are entitled to the system, and >nothing more. The laws do not tell us that it is forbidden to tell >them more. > >Telling them more that they are entitled to is not ignoring the >laws! +=+ "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 ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 17 18:52:19 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:52:19 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Is_this_a_psyche=B2?= References: <4624CF64.8040500@aol.com> Message-ID: <4624FB41.00000D.22327@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Jeff Easterson Date : 17/04/2007 15:45:21 A : blml at amsterdamned.org Sujet : [blml] Is this a psyche2 I seem to recall that there is a specification somewhere demanding "full disclosure". Thus, if the 2NT bid shows a certain minimum strength (opening count, whatever) the player alerting it (if asked) should say so. And, of course anything else that is system imminent. If it promises nothing but only asks for a further description (could be weak or strong, which seems to me a curious way to play it) it should be so described and then it can hardly be psyched. AG : there are pair whose system includes a Benji 2C, and an automatic (or at least 99% of the cases) 2D response. In this case, answering "waiting" and nothing else will be full description. The question is : do words like "relay" and "forcing" mean anything else ? "relay" may, in some cases, be nothing else, ie, after a first GF ask, the next ask doesn't tell anything, it just waits for description. Therefore, you're not allowed to state a priori that "relay" isn't a full explanation. As said before by some, "forcing" may carry implications ; two attitudes seem illogical to me : - legalizing what these implications are, like the EBU did, as implications are per se subjective ; - forgetting that the term "forcing NT" does mean more than "NT bid that's forcing", because it's the name of a convention. So, explaining a 1NT response to 1M as "forcing" means 'it is a "forcing NT" or a close variation' ; you're always allowed to ask if need be. The explanation is complete, if the convention is known of both sides. It isn't the word "forcing" that is defined in detail ; it is the locution forcing NT". In our case, since there is no convention like "forcing 2NT", the word forcing" shouldn't mean anything more than "forcing", ie asking for another, descriptive, bid. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070417/9d20f0f4/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/20070417/9d20f0f4/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070417/9d20f0f4/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 17 19:02:50 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:02:50 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__De_Whale?= References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070417091954.02abd890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4624FDB8.000010.22327@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- (HdW) >I find giving the opponents correct information about holdings far >more important than giving them correct theoretical systemic >information. They have no use for the second, only for the first. AG : but they are only entitled (have legal right) to the latter. If partner overcalls a CRaSh 1S (both majors or both minors), they're allowed to know exactly that. If I pass that overcall, they know it's 95% probable we have a misfit, but don't know who holds what, and we know. This doesn't mean we're cheats, it means that CRaSh is a good system. A live case : partner overcalled 1D over a strong club, showing a weak hand with either major. When I later doubled 4H, they had to guess whether : - I hold a stack in hearts - I hold a strong hand, and know from my holding and their bidding that partner holds hearts. Declarer (an experienced player with good knowledge of artificial bidding) didn't guess, and -2 became -4. Please don't tell me I had to reveal which was partner major. They have indeed use for this information, but aren't entitled to it, according to the last sentence of L75C. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070417/82b14236/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/20070417/82b14236/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070417/82b14236/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 18 10:22:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:22:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4625D53F.6000107@skynet.be> Nigel wrote: > Are such undeclared habits legal if partner is aware of them? IMO No -- although many BLMLers seem to interpret the rules differently. I don't object to psychs but the rules about them need completion to clearly include deviations; they also need clarification. This is yet another aspect of the game that should be a matter of *legislation* in the forthcoming revision of TFLB rather than haphazard local *regulation*. > Of course those habits are legal - provided they are also explained. Experts have a tendency to call such deviations "normal bridge". I would like to believe them, provided they do them equally against beginners and other experts. So far, I have not found evidence among local experts that this is a tactic they are using. So on the whole, I don't believe there is a problem here. The first time a beginner counts out an expert's hand and draws a wrong conclusion, the expert should say: "well done to have counted so far, but please note that we experts do not always have what the bid should mean to you". If this is done with education in mind, then, no problem. I have noted something else in Jeff's post: the idea that a bid becomes illegal if it isn't explained properly. This is going to far, I believe. Surely you don't consider a pair to be illegally using the 1NT 15-17 if they are playing without a CC or an advance explanation of their whole system? Systems should be made available beforehand, but if that is not done, bridge is still possible, and the TD shall assess rectification if an opponent is damaged. But let's play bridge, shall we? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 18 10:30:51 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:30:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Brian Meadows wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:26:36 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >>> Quoting Herman >>> >>> Oh, and, have you really ever given as a reply to an opponent who asks >>> what your partner's bid means "I have honestly no idea" (not while >>> meaning "other than the obvious ones that you also have")? >>> >>> I have, but I've also added "most likely it will be ..." >> So Herman, in the absense of any agreement, facing a partner who is >> presumably aware of the fact that they have no agreement, gratuitously >> tells partner how he will take the bid, and, therefore, how to >> interpret his subsequent responses. That sounds like deliberate and >> egregious generation of UI. It is *precisely* the practice of adding >> "most likely it will be..." (or, equivalently, "I'm going to take it >> as...") that the ACBL has gone to great lengths (rightfully, IMO, and >> for the most part successfully) to stamp out. >> > > It's not just the ACBL, Eric. From the 2006 EBU Orange Book... > > > 3.B.3. A player should explain only the partnership > agreement. If the player does not know the meaning of partner?s > call, or there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how > the player intends to interpret it. > And this is not what I was saying. I don't say he should explain how he's going to interpret it. I say he should explain what he thinks it is. Besides, this rule is just plain silly. Suppose I happen to know that there is something on my CC, yet I can't remember what. By this rule I should be obliged to say "I don't remember", have my partner get UI, have the opponents get MI? I'd rather choose (even by random), say "it's that", and if I remember correctly I have given no UI, no MI, and I haven't even shown to have broken the rule written above. Are you going to get a mind-reader in to determine that I willfully broke this regulation? And if you do find out, what are you going to rule? Insist on me getting it wrong? Write down a bottom anyway? And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from saying what I think? Come on, this rule is badly thought out, unworkable in practice, never followed, and applicable to one country only (well, two). And you are going to use that to counter my argumentation? Sorry, i'm not convinced. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 18 11:18:01 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:18:01 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Is_this_a_psych=3F?= References: <4625D53F.6000107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4625E249.000001.74337@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Experts have a tendency to call such deviations "normal bridge". I would like to believe them, provided they do them equally against beginners and other experts. So far, I have not found evidence among local experts that this is a tactic they are using. AG : not playing the same way against experts and beginners (for example, doubling beginners more often and psyching them less often) is good tactics, part of "normal bridge". See e.g. Mollo's "finer arts". Therefore, you can't demand that they prove they do likewise against strong and weak players. HdW : I have noted something else in Jeff's post: the idea that a bid becomes illegal if it isn't explained properly. AG : The expectancy of deviations should be written explicitly on the CC. Pairs that tend to adjust HCP ranges according to honor structure, demote weak suits, vary their competitive bids in a huge extent ATV etc. should say this in the "pre-alert" part of the CC. Else, deviation tendencies might indeed be considered illegal, because it would be using an undisclosed agreement. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070418/613b711f/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/20070418/613b711f/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070418/613b711f/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 18 13:58:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:58:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462607CE.9060802@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Note the middle sentence in the above ABF Alert Regulation: > > "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 the opponents." > A sentence which is lacking in the EBU and ACBL regulations. It should be there - good on you, ozzies. > All of us - Eric, Brian, Herman and myself - are aware of some who > give niggardly explanations, revealing only their explicit written > agreements, but concealing their implicit unwritten agreements. > > I agree with Herman's ends that all implicit agreements should be > disclosed. I merely dispute Herman's ridiculous ends-justify-the- > means argument that to achieve that goal all (or almost all) non- > agreements must be disclosed as agreements. > What we disagree upon, Richard, is just how often we come accross real "no agreement" cases. You want to stress that those cases exist and that my generalization is therefore too general. I want to stress to the players that they should use the phrase very sparingly in in trying to do that, to the players, I simply dismiss the possibility. As I've often said, there is no discussion as to the laws, just as to the frequency with which the exceptions prove the rule. > Herman De Wael: > >> The laws tell us that the opponents are entitled to the system, and >> nothing more. The laws do not tell us that it is forbidden to tell >> them more. >> >> Telling them more that they are entitled to is not ignoring the >> laws! > > +=+ "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 ~ +=+ This sentence is often quoted. Yet is proves nothing. Every statement that is not in the laws has an opposite. If it is true that a statement which is not in the laws is illegal, then its opposite, also not in the laws, is also illegal. "There is nothing in the laws that says that to hide your cards from opponents is allowed, therefore it must be illegal. Please show me your cards!" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Apr 18 14:24:06 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:24:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46260DE6.3020703@meadows.pair.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > Brian Meadows wrote: >> It's not just the ACBL, Eric. From the 2006 EBU Orange Book... >> >> >> 3.B.3. A player should explain only the partnership >> agreement. If the player does not know the meaning of partner?s >> call, or there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how >> the player intends to interpret it. >> > > And this is not what I was saying. > I don't say he should explain how he's going to interpret it. > I say he should explain what he thinks it is. > How often do you think that the two will be different, assuming an honest player? > Besides, this rule is just plain silly. > I'm making no comment on that one - Eric stated that the ACBL was doing much the same thing, I just posted to show that this time it's *not* just the ACBL doing things their own way. > Suppose I happen to know that there is something on my CC, yet I can't > remember what. By this rule I should be obliged to say "I don't > remember", have my partner get UI, have the opponents get MI? That's what it says - and while I haven't played bridge in England since I emigrated, my recollection is that this rule, in one form or another, has been in place for quite some time. AFAIR previous wordings advised a player to ask an opponent to consult the CC if there was a chance of it being there. > I'd rather choose (even by random), say "it's that", and if I remember > correctly I have given no UI, no MI, and I haven't even shown to have > broken the rule written above. Are you going to get a mind-reader in > to determine that I willfully broke this regulation? >And if you do > find out, what are you going to rule? Insist on me getting it wrong? > Write down a bottom anyway? If I did have proof, I'd do exactly the same as with any other player who insisted on breaking one of the SO's regulations. What I'd do depends on how many times I know you've done it. > And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from > saying what I think? That, of course, is the obvious problem with the rule. At what point does "I'm not sure" become "I don't know"? However, like it or not, the rule is in place. For its justification in England and Wales, you'd have to talk to someone on the EBU L&EC, I suspect. > Come on, this rule is badly thought out, unworkable in practice, never > followed, and applicable to one country only (well, two). I think you're wrong as regards the "never followed" bit. I think that most players will do their best to follow the regulations imposed by their NCBO, even though they think they're damn silly ones (and I've done my fair share of that in the past). As for countries, it's three and counting, and I hope I don't get angry mails from Anne about not counting it as four... And you are > going to use that to counter my argumentation? Sorry, i'm not convinced. > I'm not convinced that it's the right way to do things, Herman - as above, you've mentioned the obvious flaw in this sort of rule. While it's in place, though, if I ever play offline bridge again, whether in England or the USA, I will do my best to follow the Laws and regulations. If my NCBO explicitly tells me not to guess at a meaning, then I won't, and I would hope that most other players will say the same. And if partner gets UI, and opponents don't get the information to which they're entitled, then maybe the resulting penalties will give me the incentive to make damn sure I *do* know the answer next time. Brian. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Apr 18 14:28:39 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:28:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46260EF7.8080808@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Brian Meadows wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:26:36 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >>>> Quoting Herman >>>> >>>> Oh, and, have you really ever given as a reply to an opponent who asks >>>> what your partner's bid means "I have honestly no idea" (not while >>>> meaning "other than the obvious ones that you also have")? >>>> >>>> I have, but I've also added "most likely it will be ..." >>>> >>> So Herman, in the absense of any agreement, facing a partner who is >>> presumably aware of the fact that they have no agreement, gratuitously >>> tells partner how he will take the bid, and, therefore, how to >>> interpret his subsequent responses. That sounds like deliberate and >>> egregious generation of UI. It is *precisely* the practice of adding >>> "most likely it will be..." (or, equivalently, "I'm going to take it >>> as...") that the ACBL has gone to great lengths (rightfully, IMO, and >>> for the most part successfully) to stamp out. >>> >>> >> It's not just the ACBL, Eric. From the 2006 EBU Orange Book... >> >> >> 3.B.3. A player should explain only the partnership >> agreement. If the player does not know the meaning of partner?s >> call, or there is no agreement, there must be no statement of how >> the player intends to interpret it. >> >> > > And this is not what I was saying. > I don't say he should explain how he's going to interpret it. > I say he should explain what he thinks it is. > Herman, would you please be so kind to explain to me where the difference (in practice, not in sophistry) is between "It is X" and "I am going to treat it as X"? The effect on the auction in progress is exactly the same, is it not? Partner knows how you treat his last bid, so he knows how to treat your next bid. There is a German expression for your kind of argument which does not translate very well into English, but your German is very good, so you might know it, and I will try to explain it in English, too. It is "Augenwischerei", literally "to wipe your eyes (with your hands or a piece of cloth or whatever)", the idiomatic meaning being that you try to clear your view by ingenious arguments, thereby in fact obscuring it because you do not like what you see in the first place. > Besides, this rule is just plain silly. > > Suppose I happen to know that there is something on my CC, yet I can't > remember what. By this rule I should be obliged to say "I don't > remember", have my partner get UI, have the opponents get MI? > No, you should tell oppos to look on the CC, leaving partner in the dark whether you remember correctly or not, giving no MI whatsoever (which you would not have done by saying "I don`t remember" either, by the way. Since you give no information, what MI can there be?). Which you know perfectly well. > I'd rather choose (even by random), say "it's that", and if I remember > correctly I have given no UI, no MI, and I haven't even shown to have > broken the rule written above. Are you going to get a mind-reader in > to determine that I willfully broke this regulation? And if you do > find out, what are you going to rule? Insist on me getting it wrong? > Write down a bottom anyway? > Why should I? If it is on the CC then it is your agreement. So you gave no UI, no MI. But if you guessed wrong you gave MI and loads of UI, making either a disaster or an unfavourable ruling practically certain. Where is the sense in that? > And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from > saying what I think? > Yes. Just tell them to look on the CC. Where is the problem with that? > Come on, this rule is badly thought out, unworkable in practice, never > followed, and applicable to one country only (well, two). Herman, the speeding rules on our streets are badly thought out, unworkable in practice, never followed, and most of it is applicable only for my country (which is a very good thing for a lot of other countries). What do you think will happen when I am caught speeding? Even if I am prepared to pay the fine, does that make my behaviour right? The main problem with the Bridge rules is that the fallible part (i.e. the players) is intractable, unwilling to follow them, often bad at thinking, and that is applicable just about everywhere. Oh, most of them don`t do it on purpose, they just can`t be bothered to learn the rules, let alone follow them. It seems to me that most (if not all) problems you see with certain laws is not so much in the law itself but in what the people do with it. Sorry, I don`t think one of us can change that. If you want to make rules that 95% of the players can apply, just tell them to generate UI any chance they get, hesitate with random holdings, talk about hands in a loud voice, ask questions when it is not their turn and do a couple of other things that every TD sees constantly. That should make a lot of people happy. Every serious player will quit, of course, and so would you and I. > And you are > going to use that to counter my argumentation? Sorry, i'm not convinced. > > > I gathered as much. Herman, does the fact that you are alone on this tell you anything? Could it be that the majority is right? Being in the majority is no guarantee for being right, true, but until now the only arguments for your approach were that "our" approach can lead to problems (no one denied that, but so can your approach, and rather more of them in my opinion) and (I hope to quote you right, but this is from memory, the original mal is gone) you "choose to believe that the wording of the existing laws allow it", while the rest of this list ( as far as they participated in this thread) could point to the existing laws as a basis why this is not the case. Whether you, me, my neighbour or George W. Bush consider any one rule silly or not does not take anything away from the fact that it is the rule, regardless what anyone thinks about it, and will remain so until it is changed. There are problems in the application of the current rules, and there may even be parts of your approach that can help us there, that has to be considered at length and quite impartially (as far as such a process is possible with human beings), but my firm opinion is that a) your approach is in conflict with the current rules at least some of the time and b) the procedures as you envision them do not work on a fairly big percentage of everyday situations. I think that you jeopardize your chances of being heard and making a contribution to the betterment of our rules by being, shall we say, inflexible. Which is, in itself, not good, because everybody should be heard. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 18 14:52:25 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:52:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <46260DE6.3020703@meadows.pair.com> References: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:24 18/04/2007 -0400, Brian wrote: > > I don't say he should explain how he's going to interpret it. > > I say he should explain what he thinks it is. > > > >How often do you think that the two will be different, assuming an >honest player? Last time was when a player (correctly) described his parner's 4C opening an Namyats, then proceded to pass it, based on his 2641 pattern. But, above all, whenever the bid is two-way and you're about to take a drastic guess (like passing a Multi 2D with opening values and diamonds), the above distinguo (explain what you know about the meaning of the bid, not how you intend to interpret it) is important. >That's what it says - and while I haven't played bridge in England since >I emigrated, my recollection is that this rule, in one form or another, >has been in place for quite some time. AFAIR previous wordings advised a >player to ask an opponent to consult the CC if there was a chance of it >being there. At least there isn't any MI there. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 18 14:45:58 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:45:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?Is_this_a_psyche=B2?= In-Reply-To: <705F2922-0CBA-4D14-A036-AE81925F745F@rochester.rr.com> References: <4624CF64.8040500@aol.com> <4624CF64.8040500@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070418082914.02af0ae0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:37 PM 4/17/07, Ed wrote: >On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > I seem to recall that there is a specification somewhere demanding > > "full > > disclosure". > >"Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must >be fully and freely available to the opponents,,," -- Law 75A > > > Thus, if the 2NT bid shows a certain minimum strength > > (opening count, whatever) the player alerting it (if asked) should say > > so. And, of course anything else that is system imminent. If it > > promises nothing but only asks for a further description (could be > > weak > > or strong, which seems to me a curious way to play it) it should be so > > described and then it can hardly be psyched. In the first case, if > > the > > player making the bid does not have the hand promised it may very well > > be a psyche. > >Or not. But the question in the thread has to do with which situation >applies in the original case postulated, and we have no conclusive >evidence either way. I would suggest that anything beyond what you've >posted here is idle speculation and thus a waste of time, but isn't >that what blml is all about these days? The thread has moved on from the original case to the issue raised by Herman, who postulates a pair playing 2NT usually strong, but who in practice might, with a suitable hand, bid 2NT lacking the usual strength. He sees that pair facing a decision whether to offer the latter description, making the occasional weak hand "systemic", or the former, making the occasional weak hand "psychic". Herman argues that the claim to have "psyched" may well really be an MI infraction based on their failure to offer the "could be weak" explanation, when, obviously, it *could* have been weak, since it was. The answer, offered both by Herman and by me, is that we must look beyond the explanation and examine the agreements with respect to subsequent actions. Herman asks whether opener, holding a 26-count, systemically bids 7NT (as opposed, presumably, to some artificial reply at a relatively low level that includes 26-counts). I ask whether the 2NT bid creates a forcing pass situation if the opponents come in at the three-level. Either suffices to determine whether the weak 2NT is actually "systemic" or "psychic". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 18 14:54:42 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:54:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <46260EF7.8080808@t-online.de> References: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418145311.0284a1b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:28 18/04/2007 +0200, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >Herman, would you please be so kind to explain to me where the >difference (in practice, not in sophistry) is between "It is X" and "I >am going to treat it as X"? Easy. There are cases where your system tells you it is X but your hand tells you it can't be X. In such a case, you have to say "it is X". From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 18 15:03:55 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:03:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <46260EF7.8080808@t-online.de> References: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418145652.0284e550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:28 18/04/2007 +0200, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >What do you think will happen when I am caught speeding? >Even if I am prepared to pay the fine, does that make my behaviour right? I know it goes a bit offtracks, but I dare answer "yes", which will let you rethink about the First law of Diplomacy ("never ask a question in a way that a positive answer will throw you off-balance", because diplomats always answer positively) : I know of a guy who insists that the right speed between point A and point B is about 65 km/h, because there is little danger in doing so and it minimizes fuel consumption and pollution. The limit is 50 km/h. He claims that, since he spoils the air in a lesser extent, his behaviour is good citizenship, and that his wins in consumption outwegh his losses in fines. Perhaps the guy is right. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 18 15:07:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:07:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462607CE.9060802@skynet.be> References: <462607CE.9060802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46261811.6020801@NTLworld.com> [ABF alert regulations] "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 the opponents." [richard.hills] Note the middle sentence in the above ABF Alert Regulation: A sentence which is lacking in the EBU and ACBL regulations. It should be there - good on you, ozzies. [Richard] All of us - Eric, Brian, Herman and myself - are aware of some who give niggardly explanations, revealing only their explicit written agreements, but concealing their implicit unwritten agreements. I agree with Herman's ends that all implicit agreements should be disclosed. I merely dispute Herman's ridiculous ends-justify-the-means argument that to achieve that goal all (or almost all) non-agreements must be disclosed as agreements. [nige1] That ABF regulation should be part of the rules enforced everywhere. Another illustration that basic rules should be part of TFLB rather than delegated to to local jurisdictions. IMO, Herman is right that the rules should insist that a player guess when unsure of the meaning of partner's bid. (but I disagree with Herman that this guess should take into account the contents of the player's own hand). Such a rule will be simpler to enforce and easier for a player to understand than the current guff about "general knowledge", "implicit agreements", and so on. I agree with Richard, however, that it is hard to interpret the current rules that way. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 18 15:11:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:11:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070418090235.02af94a0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:30 AM 4/18/07, Herman wrote: >Suppose I happen to know that there is something on my CC, yet I can't >remember what. By this rule I should be obliged to say "I don't >remember", have my partner get UI, have the opponents get MI? >I'd rather choose (even by random), say "it's that", and if I remember >correctly I have given no UI, no MI, and I haven't even shown to have >broken the rule written above. Are you going to get a mind-reader in >to determine that I willfully broke this regulation? And if you do >find out, what are you going to rule? Insist on me getting it wrong? >Write down a bottom anyway? >And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from >saying what I think? >Come on, this rule is badly thought out, unworkable in practice, never >followed, and applicable to one country only (well, two). And you are >going to use that to counter my argumentation? Sorry, i'm not convinced. I would suggest to Herman that if he happens to know that there is something on his CC, yet he can't remember what, it just might be appropriate to answer the opponents' inquiry with "I happen to know that there is something on my CC, yet I can't remember what". That will result in the opponents looking at his CC and getting the information they have asked for and are entitled to -- isn't that the point? It is true that this response will transmit UI to his partner, but I assume that Herman's partners are sufficiently ethical that no problem is likely to ensue. The anti-Herman position in this thread boils down to the notion that your first obligation to your opponents, regardless of its MI or UI implications, is to tell them the truth. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 18 15:15:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4624D8A8.2090504@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > The laws tell us that the opponents are entitled to the system, and > nothing more. Get a grip Herman. the laws quite clearly state (and I will quote L75C in full). When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. Not system. Not the contents of explainer's hand. Not any foibles of which explainer is aware but his partner isn't. Just agreement (explicit or implicit) and experience. The relative familiarity of the partners is absolutely critical to what should, and should not, be disclosed. Disclosing *more* than opponents should know is deliberate creation of UI (unless one is behind screens in which case it merely causes the problem of different explanations on different sides of the screen). > Since it is never easy to know beforehand what the director will rule It is *totally irrelevant* what a director might rule. One discloses (insofar as it is possible) the complete and perfect truth. Deliberately tailoring disclosure to how one believes the TD might rule is cheating. tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 18 15:15:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf._:__Is_this_a_psyche˛ In-Reply-To: <4624FB41.00000D.22327@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > - legalizing what these implications are, like the EBU did, as > implications are per se subjective ; The EBU wrote the regulation as it did because inexperienced players (who thought "Forcing" had implications) always thought the implication was related to strength. > > - forgetting that the term "forcing NT" does mean more than "NT bid > that's forcing", because it's the name of a convention. In the EBU we are not supposed to *explain* conventions by name - we are supposed to disclose what the bid shows (in case opps do not know the convention or do not play it the same way we do). > So, explaining a 1NT response to 1M as "forcing" means 'it is a > "forcing NT" > or a close variation' ; you're always allowed to ask if need be. The > explanation is complete, if the convention is known of both sides. If the convention is known by both sides it doesn't make the explanation "complete" it simply renders the lack of completeness non-damaging. > It isn't the word "forcing" that is defined in detail ; it is the > locution forcing NT". I disagree. Personally I understand the basic reasoning behind the "Forcing NT" but I don't play it myself and am aware that not all partnerships use it exactly the same way. Unlike inexperienced players I know *enough* to ask for clarification when getting an incomplete answer. > In our case, since there is no convention like "forcing 2NT", the > word forcing" shouldn't mean anything more than "forcing", ie asking > for another, descriptive, bid. But that's not how inexperienced UK players understand it (probably because the only times it is used in teaching Acol it *does* carry connotations of strength). It is exactly the players who need better initial disclosure who are protected by the EBU interpretation - an experienced player who admitted to being sufficiently bunny-like to having been misled would be laughed at. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 18 15:15:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Suppose I happen to know that there is something on my CC, yet I > can't remember what. A completely different issue. Firstly there is ambiguity about the agreement and secondly the disclosure obligation is easily resolved by referring opps to the CC itself. > And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from > saying what I think? Of course not. If you are 95% certain as to how partner intends the call you say "Undiscussed but based on (reason for certainty) it's 95% likely to be (explanation). > Come on, this rule is badly thought out, unworkable in practice, It works well enough. If one is 95% certain one is generally going to back that certainty (unless absolutely impossible when one looks at one's hand). In closer (definitely anything in the 60/40 range) cases one says "It's either A or, perhaps slightly more likely, B but partner probably hopes I can work out which." Yes, that creates a degree of UI (no MI) but far less than saying "It's B" or "I'm assuming it's B". Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 18 15:57:58 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:57:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <462623E6.7030009@NTLworld.com> [Ed Reppert] Pfui. A "tactic" is "a device for accomplishing an end". A "tactical bid" is one which may or may not be systemic (a preempt is a tactical bid), but is designed to accomplish an end - usually that of misleading or obstructing opponents. All psychic bids are thus tactical bids. [nige1] Ed dismissively quotes the dictionary but I understand that, in a bridge context, bridge legislators here and in America do classify some expert deviations as "tactical" and do treat them differently from ordinary *baby* psychs. As explained in my previous post, it's better to refer to *deviations* rather than *psychs* because some of the departures may be *minor* rather than *gross*. *Baby deviations* include: opening weak in third seat; bidding a short major after RHO doubles partner's one-opener; and overcalling 1N with a weak hand and a long minor. More sophisticated *tactical bids* seem to be favoured by experts. For example spurious strong relays, trial bids, cue bids, exclusion bids, splinter bids, and fit jumps. Such deviations can devastate opponents but are less dangerous to their perpetrators. (In theory, some might even be classified as *controlled psychs*). Different players favour different ploys (but details of an individual's habits will be known to a regular partner). Anyway my contention is that undeclared understandings of the latter kind hardly ever attract adverse rulings by directors. For instance, I guess is that few will even be recorded in our EBU psych book. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 18 16:42:04 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:42:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <462623E6.7030009@NTLworld.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418163300.0284d370@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:57 18/04/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >. > >More sophisticated *tactical bids* seem to be favoured by experts. For >example spurious strong relays, trial bids, cue bids, exclusion bids, >splinter bids, and fit jumps. Such deviations can devastate opponents >but are less dangerous to their perpetrators. (In theory, some might >even be classified as *controlled psychs*). I have one example from real life to offer, and the problem with it is similar to the problem about the 2NT "relay". Ax KQJx x KJxxxx 1C 2C 2NT* ? 2NT = genuine clubs in a 15+ balanced type You'd like to BW, but 4NT would be natural in your style. And bidding 3H would only serve to pinpoint your problem (1 spade loser + 1 ace). Not to mention that your problem remains if partner bids 3NT over 3H. So you bid 4S, an exclusion BW, and partner says "he asks me to count keycards outside of spades". Right explanation ! Usually, the reason for an E(R)(KC)BW will be a void in said suit, but nobody said that at the table. The bid asks, it doesn't tell. This is a typical tactical bid, aimed at giving as few unnecessary info as possible. Now, what if they interpret this as showing a void ? Can they assume it does ? Was partner compelled to add : "doesn't tell anything about that suit" or anything ? Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 18 17:07:55 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <462631BB.5060904@NTLworld.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418163300.0284d370@pop.ulb.ac.be> <462631BB.5060904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4626344B.2000600@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I have one example from real life to offer, and the problem with it is similar to the problem about the 2NT "relay". Ax KQJx x KJxxxx 1C 2C 2NT* ? 2NT = genuine clubs in a 15+ balanced type You'd like to BW, but 4NT would be natural in your style. And bidding 3H would only serve to pinpoint your problem (1 spade loser + 1 ace). Not to mention that your problem remains if partner bids 3NT over 3H. So you bid 4S, an exclusion BW, and partner says "he asks me to count keycards outside of spades". Right explanation ! Usually, the reason for an E(R)(KC)BW will be a void in said suit, but nobody said that at the table. The bid asks, it doesn't tell. This is a typical tactical bid, aimed at giving as few unnecessary info as possible. Now, what if they interpret this as showing a void ? Can they assume it does ? Was partner compelled to add : "doesn't tell anything about that suit" or anything ? [nige1] In the light of his partner's accurate explanation, Alain's 4S bid was not a deviation. I doubt that a director would or should rule against him. Suppose, instead that partner explained the 4S bid as "Showing a void in spades and asking for outside aces". Then, IMO, the director should be be worried -- especially if Alain had previously employed this convention, lacking a void. [nige2] Oh dear. I've changed my mind. On second thoughts, I believe that Alain's partner's explanation is incomplete. He should add "4N is not systemically available as an Ace asking bid, so partner may be improvising". From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 18 17:11:08 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:11:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <200704180348.AA08392@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200704180348.AA08392@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <05495C7A-FC44-4181-BE2A-F570229AA0C8@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > This tactical underbidding may or may not > work, but there's nothing unethical. Agreed. From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Apr 18 17:45:56 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:45:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46263D34.5050601@meadows.pair.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 08:24 18/04/2007 -0400, Brian wrote: > >> > I don't say he should explain how he's going to interpret it. >> > I say he should explain what he thinks it is. >> > >> >> How often do you think that the two will be different, assuming an >> honest player? > > Last time was when a player (correctly) described his parner's 4C > opening an Namyats, then proceded to pass it, based on his 2641 pattern. > > But, above all, whenever the bid is two-way and you're about to take a > drastic guess (like passing a Multi 2D with opening values and > diamonds), the above distinguo (explain what you know about the meaning > of the bid, not how you intend to interpret it) is important. > Remember that this discussion is about a player who doesn't KNOW the meaning of the bid, either because he doesn't think he has any agreements, or because he has forgotten the ones he has. Herman made no mention of the *meaning* of the bid, see above. Recognising your partner's misbid from your own hand is a totally different matter. If you have forgotten, or haven't discussed, the meaning of a particular bid, then I would suggest that a player is always going to interpret it as per what he thinks it is. For this not to be the case, you'd have to have something like a 4-1-4-4 hand, partner opens 4C, player doesn't think they have any agreements here, thinks it's Namyats from his own holding but decides to treat it as a club pre-empt and passes. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Brian. From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Apr 18 18:47:11 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:47:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <05495C7A-FC44-4181-BE2A-F570229AA0C8@rochester.rr.com> References: <200704180348.AA08392@geller204.nifty.com> <05495C7A-FC44-4181-BE2A-F570229AA0C8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0704180947m72e9bfe6t8094a16658857436@mail.gmail.com> Couple comments here: 1. I don't believe that the concept of a tactical bid has any place in either the Laws or the Regulatory structures. For better or worse, certain Zonal authorities have been waging a crusade against psyches. (Don Oakie's infamous letter in the 1978 ACBL Bulletin is a classic example of this type of policy) For better or worse, organizations like the ACBL quickly determined that their one size fits all policy banning psyches could not be enforced. More specifically, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the laws (or alternatively any political leverage) was able to run rings around the official policies. Therefore, the ACBL invented the concept of a "tactical" bid. A tactical bid is nothing more than a psyche that was perpetrated by an individual with enough clout that the ACBL will not enforce its regulations. More explicitly: If Zia makes a bid, its tactical If I make the bid, its a psyche If, at some point in time, Zonal Organizations see fit to offer a rigorous/official definition of the expression "Tactical bid" then I see nothing wrong with introducing this as part of the lexicon and using as part of the regulatory structure. Until they do, a psyche is a psyche is a psyche. 2. I will omit my regularly scheduled diatribe that life would be much easier if regulatory frameworks reflected player practice and concepts like "Mixed strategies" were incorporated as part of the legal structure. -- We seem to have discovered a new stage in the traditional K?bler-Ross process: 1. Denial: "The media doesn't show the good news in Iraq." 2. Anger: "The treasonous far-left-liberals and their media lapdogs are making us lose in Iraq." 3. Bargaining: "If we send x-thousand more troops to Iraq, victory will be ours." 4. Depression: "Did you catch 300 yet? [munch-munch-burp] God, it made me hate liberals even more. [channels flipping] They wouldn't last a day in ancient Sparta." 5. Advanced Literary Theory: "The hegemonic binary of 'success' and 'failure' traumatizes the (re)interpretive possibilities of an ethos of jouissance regarding the War in Iraq." From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 18 16:56:59 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418163300.0284d370@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418163300.0284d370@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <462631BB.5060904@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I have one example from real life to offer, and the problem with it is similar to the problem about the 2NT "relay". Ax KQJx x KJxxxx 1C 2C 2NT* ? 2NT = genuine clubs in a 15+ balanced type You'd like to BW, but 4NT would be natural in your style. And bidding 3H would only serve to pinpoint your problem (1 spade loser + 1 ace). Not to mention that your problem remains if partner bids 3NT over 3H. So you bid 4S, an exclusion BW, and partner says "he asks me to count keycards outside of spades". Right explanation ! Usually, the reason for an E(R)(KC)BW will be a void in said suit, but nobody said that at the table. The bid asks, it doesn't tell. This is a typical tactical bid, aimed at giving as few unnecessary info as possible. Now, what if they interpret this as showing a void ? Can they assume it does ? Was partner compelled to add : "doesn't tell anything about that suit" or anything ? [nige1] In the light of his partner's accurate explanation, Alain's 4S bid was not a deviation. I doubt that a director would or should rule against him. Suppose, instead that partner explained the 4S bid as "Showing a void in spades and asking for outside aces". Then, IMO, the director should be be worried -- especially if Alain had previously employed this convention, lacking a void. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070418/86d6b248/attachment-0001.htm From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 18 17:59:30 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:59:30 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__RXf=2E=5F=3A=5F=5FIs=5F?= =?iso-8859-1?q?this=5Fa=5FpsycheX?= References: Message-ID: <46264060.000007.74337@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads In the EBU we are not supposed to *explain* conventions by name - we are supposed to disclose what the bid shows (in case opps do not know the convention or do not play it the same way we do). AG : there seems to be a difference there. The Belgian Federation issued a booklet with about 40 basic conventions : Landy, Drury, Drury-fit, Unusual NT (for minors), Puppet Stayman, ... . From intermediate level upwards, if you play one of them without any notable changes, you may explain them by name. Also, mentioning them by name on your CC is enough. But that's not how inexperienced UK players understand it (probably because the only times it is used in teaching Acol it *does* carry connotations of strength). AG : wouldn't you say the 2NT response to an Acol 2S bid is forcing ? (notice that it is not necessarily negative, as you would need it for flat, misfit, hands too strong for a 3NT response, so that "negative" doesn't fit) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070418/d83df20a/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/20070418/d83df20a/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/20070418/d83df20a/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 18 22:43:15 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:43:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <46260DE6.3020703@meadows.pair.com> References: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070418160738.031b2e30@pop.starpower.net> At 08:24 AM 4/18/07, Brian wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from > > saying what I think? > >That, of course, is the obvious problem with the rule. At what point >does "I'm not sure" become "I don't know"? However, like it or not, the >rule is in place. For its justification in England and Wales, you'd have >to talk to someone on the EBU L&EC, I suspect. If you are 95% certain, why would you want to say either "I'm not sure" or "I don't know", as opposed to saying (gasp!) "I am 95% certain"? Herman has told us what he thinks; he has not thought or written that "he's not sure" or that "he doesn't know", but rather that "[he is] only 95% certain". Why *should* he refrain from saying what he thinks? How is it that we so clearly and precisely convey our uncertainty -- along with all the possibilities and relevant considerations -- to one another in our posts, yet struggle so mightily to find a way to convey the same information to our opponents at the table? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Apr 18 23:12:42 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:12:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070418160738.031b2e30@pop.starpower.net> References: <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070418160738.031b2e30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <462689CA.8070706@meadows.pair.com> Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:24 AM 4/18/07, Brian wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> And then again: suppose I am only 95% certain. Should I refrain from >>> saying what I think? >> That, of course, is the obvious problem with the rule. At what point >> does "I'm not sure" become "I don't know"? However, like it or not, the >> rule is in place. For its justification in England and Wales, you'd have >> to talk to someone on the EBU L&EC, I suspect. > > If you are 95% certain, why would you want to say either "I'm not sure" > or "I don't know", as opposed to saying (gasp!) "I am 95% certain"? > > Herman has told us what he thinks; he has not thought or written that > "he's not sure" or that "he doesn't know", but rather that "[he is] > only 95% certain". Why *should* he refrain from saying what he thinks? > Well the problem I see with it, Eric, is that the EBU has said that if you don't know, you mustn't indicate how you're going to take it. Let us say that you're asked to explain a bid and you're not sure about its meaning. At what value of N does "It means XYZ but I'm only N% sure of that" become "I don't really know but I'm going to take it as XYZ"? > How is it that we so clearly and precisely convey our uncertainty -- > along with all the possibilities and relevant considerations -- to one > another in our posts, yet struggle so mightily to find a way to convey > the same information to our opponents at the table? > Could it possibly be because we don't have an NCBO regulating what we can and can't say on BLML? Brian. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 19 09:22:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:22:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704181230v450c734ej38d84566ad94ba90@mail.gmail.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> <4625D53F.6000107@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560704181230v450c734ej38d84566ad94ba90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <462718C2.80307@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > For a bid to be legal you must reasonably expect the opponents to > understand or disclose the use of the bid in advance - Law 40B. > > So someone that bid s 2NT knowing that the opponents might understand > it as strong without any prior disclosure is indeed not playing > according to the rules. > > Wayne > Yes Wayne, bnut what troubles me is your (and others') use of the sentence "bid is legal". It looks as if you would rule that if the disclosure is absent, the bid itself becomes illegal. That is not the intention of the laws (IMO). Perhaps you yourself have no wrong interpretation, but by saying it like this, lesser directors might start believing that the remedy is to cancel the illegal bid (as they would with a illegal redouble, or with the use of an illegal system). I believe when L40C and L12C are applied, the infraction would be the not-telling, not the bid itself. Perhaps more care should be taken in the wording next set of laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 19 09:23:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Is_this_a_psyche In-Reply-To: <46264060.000007.74337@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > AG : there seems to be a difference there. The Belgian Federation > issued a booklet with about 40 basic conventions : Landy, Drury, > Drury-fit, Unusual NT (for minors), Puppet Stayman, ... . > > From intermediate level upwards, if you play one of them without any > notable changes, you may explain them by name. Also, mentioning them > by name on your CC is enough. There is very little "flighted" bridge in the EBU so in any event one could be playing against fairly inexperienced players. Of course if one knows opps are experienced one can use convention names as shorthand. > But that's not how inexperienced UK players understand it (probably > because the only times it is used in teaching Acol it *does* carry > connotations of strength). > > AG : wouldn't you say the 2NT response to an Acol 2S bid is forcing ? *I* would (because technically it is) - But then I don't believe that *I* am in the category of players these regulations are designed to protect. However, when teaching I'd probably have described the 2S opener as "forcing to at least 3S". I'd then describe the 2N response as "negative (any bad hand), but you can also use it on certain strong hands (unsuitable for other actions) because your partner has promised to bid again." I'm not trying to teach linguistic nuances, I'm trying to teach a system. I don't think my teaching untypical and, to me, it is easy to see how many players equate "forcing" with "strong" until they learn otherwise. Sadly a number of partnerships, with less than admirable ethics, were aware of this mental quirk and would deliberately exploit it when disclosing their methods. I'm sure you are aware that I'm far from being the EBU's biggest fan but in this instance I think they got the regulation pretty much spot-on. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 11:52:49 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:52:49 +1200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <462718C2.80307@skynet.be> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> <4625D53F.6000107@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560704181230v450c734ej38d84566ad94ba90@mail.gmail.com> <462718C2.80307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560704190252v6b8d1866of0c82b3d5efd3624@mail.gmail.com> On 19/04/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > For a bid to be legal you must reasonably expect the opponents to > > understand or disclose the use of the bid in advance - Law 40B. > > > > So someone that bid s 2NT knowing that the opponents might understand > > it as strong without any prior disclosure is indeed not playing > > according to the rules. > > > > Wayne > > > > Yes Wayne, bnut what troubles me is your (and others') use of the > sentence "bid is legal". It looks as if you would rule that if the > disclosure is absent, the bid itself becomes illegal. That is not the > intention of the laws (IMO). > > Perhaps you yourself have no wrong interpretation, but by saying it > like this, lesser directors might start believing that the remedy is > to cancel the illegal bid (as they would with a illegal redouble, or > with the use of an illegal system). I believe when L40C and L12C are > applied, the infraction would be the not-telling, not the bid itself. > > Perhaps more care should be taken in the wording next set of laws. > "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." L40C The bid maybe legal but the law clearly says you are not allowed to make it if it unless it has been disclosed or the bidder can expect the opponents to understand it. Wayne From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 19 12:48:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:48:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704190252v6b8d1866of0c82b3d5efd3624@mail.gmail.com> References: <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> <4625D53F.6000107@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560704181230v450c734ej38d84566ad94ba90@mail.gmail.com> <462718C2.80307@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560704190252v6b8d1866of0c82b3d5efd3624@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <462748E1.70601@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > The bid maybe legal but the law clearly says you are not allowed to > make it if it unless it has been disclosed or the bidder can expect > the opponents to understand it. > > Wayne > No Wayne, this does not conform to normal practice. If I don't have a CC, and I have not stated beforehand that I am playing Stayman, then my bidding 2Clubs does not become illegal if my partner forgets to alert it (if such an alert is necessary). Your sentence above makes no sense: "The bid maybe legal but you are not allowed to make it ..". A bid cannot be illegal and allowed at the same time, or legal and not allowed. The bid itself is and always should be legal, it is the misexplanation which is the irregularity, and the redress is ALWAYS based on the bid being made and the correct explanation given. There can NEVER be a case in which a bid, once made, is disallowed because of insufficient explanation. NEVER. If there can be such a case, then where do we draw the line? I admit that the current law is poorly written and an alternative reading can be made of it. But 30 years of practice must have learnt us that one cannot say "a bid is illegal if it is not properly disclosed". Not if one wants to use the word illegal in the same meaning as illegal redouble or illegal use of disallowed system. In those cases, the bid is illegal and will be taken away. BTW, I don't think prior disclosure or post-factum misexplanation matter in this regard. Andy post-factum misexplanation is also a mistaken prior disclosure, because if the whole system were to be told in advance, no post-factum explanations would be necessary. That does not mean that certain bids, even if properly explained post-factum, cannot become subject of misexplanation rulings. Sometimes opponents are damaged because they are no longer able to make defensive agreements. But those cases are also solved with adjustments based on the bid being made and the opponents having gotten correct prior explanations. But I repeat: a misexplained bid never becomes illegal! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From karel at esatclear.ie Thu Apr 19 15:29:20 2007 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:29:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green Message-ID: You're in a teams match. The bidding proceeds 1D 3C ?? Your hand S AQxx H KTx D xxx C Qxx You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and noted they are playing Ghestem. LHO does not alert 3C's Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding, why wake them up), it goes ... All pass !! RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ... 3C - 2. Any redress ? You play - Double over 3C's (pre-emptive) = TO + values - Double over ghestem as penalize one or both suits K. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 19 15:37:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:37:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <4626344B.2000600@NTLworld.com> References: <462631BB.5060904@NTLworld.com> <200704132209.AA08305@geller204.nifty.com> <46256283.9060709@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418163300.0284d370@pop.ulb.ac.be> <462631BB.5060904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070419092920.02acad20@pop.starpower.net> At 11:07 AM 4/18/07, Nigel wrote: >[Alain Gottcheiner] >I have one example from real life to offer, and the problem with it is >similar to the problem about the 2NT "relay". > > Ax > KQJx > x > KJxxxx > >1C 2C >2NT* ? > >2NT = genuine clubs in a 15+ balanced type >You'd like to BW, but 4NT would be natural in your style. And bidding 3H >would only serve to pinpoint your problem (1 spade loser + 1 ace). Not >to mention that your problem remains if partner bids 3NT over 3H. > >So you bid 4S, an exclusion BW, and partner says "he asks me to count >keycards outside of spades". Right explanation ! > >Usually, the reason for an E(R)(KC)BW will be a void in said suit, but >nobody said that at the table. The bid asks, it doesn't tell. > >This is a typical tactical bid, aimed at giving as few unnecessary info >as possible. Now, what if they interpret this as showing a void ? Can >they assume it does ? Was partner compelled to add : "doesn't tell >anything about that suit" or anything ? > >[nige1 snipped] > >[nige2] >Oh dear. I've changed my mind. On second thoughts, I believe that >Alain's partner's explanation is incomplete. He should add "4N is not >systemically available as an Ace asking bid, so partner may be >improvising". Alain bid exclusion key-card, and his partner is busy toting up his key cards outside of spades. Why would he even be thinking about what 4NT might have meant? Why should it occur to him to mention it (or occur to him at all)? He knows that 4S is exclusion key-card; it's not as if he is considering the meaning of the alternative 4NT call to help him decide what 4S meant (which *would* require it to be disclosed). Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From geller at nifty.com Thu Apr 19 15:53:49 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:53:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070419092920.02acad20@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070419092920.02acad20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200704191353.AA08417@geller204.nifty.com> The difference is that when you and your pard both have strong hands you're unlikely to be keeping the oppts out of the auction when they should be in, so your 4S is a clever improvisation. On the other hand responses of 2nt to a weak 2 ("ogust lite") or to a multi 2D ("asking lite") may well have the effect (especially against weaker players) of quasi-bluffing them out of the auction when they should be in. Also the relative frequency of "2nt lite" is likely to be much greater..... So there is a much greater chance of having discussed whether or not "2nt lite" is being used or having created an implicit agreement through experience, in which case the oppts are entitled to know. -Bob Eric Landau ????????: >At 11:07 AM 4/18/07, Nigel wrote: > >>[Alain Gottcheiner] >>I have one example from real life to offer, and the problem with it is >>similar to the problem about the 2NT "relay". >> >> Ax >> KQJx >> x >> KJxxxx >> >>1C 2C >>2NT* ? >> >>2NT = genuine clubs in a 15+ balanced type >>You'd like to BW, but 4NT would be natural in your style. And bidding 3H >>would only serve to pinpoint your problem (1 spade loser + 1 ace). Not >>to mention that your problem remains if partner bids 3NT over 3H. >> >>So you bid 4S, an exclusion BW, and partner says "he asks me to count >>keycards outside of spades". Right explanation ! >> >>Usually, the reason for an E(R)(KC)BW will be a void in said suit, but >>nobody said that at the table. The bid asks, it doesn't tell. >> >>This is a typical tactical bid, aimed at giving as few unnecessary info >>as possible. Now, what if they interpret this as showing a void ? Can >>they assume it does ? Was partner compelled to add : "doesn't tell >>anything about that suit" or anything ? >> >>[nige1 snipped] >> >>[nige2] >>Oh dear. I've changed my mind. On second thoughts, I believe that >>Alain's partner's explanation is incomplete. He should add "4N is not >>systemically available as an Ace asking bid, so partner may be >>improvising". > >Alain bid exclusion key-card, and his partner is busy toting up his key >cards outside of spades. Why would he even be thinking about what 4NT >might have meant? Why should it occur to him to mention it (or occur >to him at all)? He knows that 4S is exclusion key-card; it's not as if >he is considering the meaning of the alternative 4NT call to help him >decide what 4S meant (which *would* require it to be disclosed). > > >Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 19 15:55:45 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:55:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <46263D34.5050601@meadows.pair.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070419094004.02acd600@pop.starpower.net> At 11:45 AM 4/18/07, Brian wrote: >If you have forgotten, or haven't discussed, the meaning of a particular >bid, then I would suggest that a player is always going to interpret it >as per what he thinks it is. This is the fatal fallacy behind the De Wael school. If I'm unsure of the meaning of partner's bid, there must be more than one possible meaning for it. Let's say I believe that it is 60% likely to be A, 20% likely to be B, and 20% likely to be C. I "think" it is A, but I am *not* going to "interpret it" as A, which would mean that I would choose my subsequent call(s) to optimize my result based on the assumption that it is A. What I am going to do is choose my subsequent calls to optimize my result based on the assumption that it is 60% likely to be A, 20% likely to be B, and 20% likely to be C. That might or might not result in my making the same calls as I would have had I "interpreted it" as A. The De Wael school would have me reveal only what I think the bid means, without any indication of uncertainty. That means telling the opponents it means A, even when I am going to choose a different call than I would if that were the whole story. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 19 16:03:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:03:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070419155836.02c555f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:29 19/04/2007 +0100, Karel wrote: >You're in a teams match. The bidding proceeds > >1D 3C ?? > >Your hand >S AQxx >H KTx >D xxx >C Qxx > >You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and >noted they are playing Ghestem. LHO does not alert 3C's > >Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding, >why wake them up), it goes > > ... All pass !! > > >RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ... 3C - 2. Any redress ? If "you noted" means "you read on the CC" (or they pre-alerted), there is MI. You might be asked to "proctect yourself" by asking (since the non-alert contradicts the CC), but you made a good case for having a bridge reason not to do so. So I'd adjust. >You play >- Double over 3C's (pre-emptive) = TO + values With the right explanation (preempt) most would have doubled. Adjust on the basis of that action. Note that the adjustment would be useful only if you had a game of your own, which isn't that obvious. Best regards Alain From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 19 18:39:19 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:39:19 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Is_this_a_psych=3F?= References: <200704191353.AA08417@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46279B33.000004.13047@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Robert Geller The difference is that when you and your pard both have strong hands you're unlikely to be keeping the oppts out of the auction when they should be in, so your 4S is a clever improvisation. # Who said it was an improvisation ? We discussed that such a bid was merely asking, not showing a void. Is the explanation "asking for aces outside spades" complete ? Are opponents right to think it shows a void, by "argumentum ad numerum" (many think it does, so it should) ? If they are, we should warn them. But I've been taught such argumenta don't hold a bridge, only explanations, CCs and (in some countries) names from conventions booklets have value. A similar problem could happen when a player passes in a bad contract, because one doesn't have any bid (while most pairs do). For example (another, rather old, live case), you open 2D, Flannery, and partner passes with 2137 pattern, because 3C would have been a relay (in lieu of the usual 2NT). What if they question the pass on the grounds that "everybody would have bid 3C here, so the pass is a psyche" ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070419/5f909102/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/20070419/5f909102/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070419/5f909102/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 19 20:58:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:58:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070419094004.02acd600@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070419094004.02acd600@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4627BBC9.6020205@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > The De Wael school would have me reveal only what I think the bid > means, without any indication of uncertainty. That means telling the > opponents it means A, even when I am going to choose a different call > than I would if that were the whole story. > And I'm not certain that they are entitled to knowing that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 19 21:01:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:01:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4627BC95.8070702@skynet.be> Karel wrote: > You're in a teams match. The bidding proceeds > > 1D 3C ?? > > Your hand > S AQxx > H KTx > D xxx > C Qxx > > You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and > noted they are playing Ghestem. LHO does not alert 3C's > > Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding, > why wake them up), it goes > > ... All pass !! > > > RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ... 3C - 2. Any redress ? > Yes. You have been misinformed. The CC shows a wrong agreement. You do not need to ask a second time, for the non-alert - it's up to them to get their act together and you are not obliged to drag them out of the shit. If you ask "your cc says Ghestem" and this wakes LHO up, he is entitled to change his mind, since your remark is AI to him (I think). > You play > - Double over 3C's (pre-emptive) = TO + values > - Double over ghestem as penalize one or both suits > > Well, I guess the damage is another question - the misinformation is the interesting thing in this story. > K. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 20 00:53:14 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:53:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] De mortuis nil nisi bonum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Imps >>Dlr: South >>Vul: East-West >> >>South holds: >> >>K64 >>82 >>AKT42 >>KQ2 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >>1D Dble 1S 2H >>2S 3H 3S(1) Pass >>4S >> >>(1) Break in tempo Wayne Burrows: >What is the nature of the break in tempo? > >It could be argued that a slow 3S does >not suggest bidding 4S over pass since >the slow bidder maybe be slowly deciding >between pass and 3S or 3S and 4S [snip] Richard Hills: The question is not whether the slow bidding North was actually thinking about a Pass or about 4S. The question is what North's break in tempo _demonstrably suggests_ to South. In my extensive experience of competitive auctions, more breaks in tempo occur when the hesitator has extra values than when the hesitator holds sub-minimum values. Therefore, in my opinion, South's 4S was a demonstrably suggested logical alternative. >>What ruling do you make if: >> >>(a) the North-South agreement is to >>open 1NT with 12-14 hcp? David Grabiner: [snip] >South is minimum for the 2S raise, so >she would not normally accept an >invitation. If N-S are playing maximal >overcall doubles, I can't tell whether >South is being actively ethical >(thinking that North was considering a >pass, and bending over backwards) or >actively unethical (competing because >he thinks North has extras), but I have >to rule against him if I think that >North was unlikely to be considering a >pass. >>(b) the North-South agreement is to >>open 1NT with 16-18 hcp? David Grabiner: >South is medium for the 2S raise, with >the maximum 15 HCP but only three spades >and a doubleton heart which is likely to >be a duplicated value. If N-S are >playing maximal overcall doubles, I >rule that pass is a logical alternative >to 4S. Richard Hills: Good hand evaluation by David, with my only quibble being that "maximal overcall double" is a misnomer in this auction, since nobody overcalled (South opened, West doubled, North responded and East advanced). Roger Pewick: >If you don't finish this auction fairly >soon somebody is going to be penalized >for slow play. Oh, hold on, I haven't >been called to the table, have I? Richard Hills: Yes, Roger correctedly noted that this was a trick question. The complete auction and the complete deal -> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Dorothy Richard 1D Dble 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S(1) Pass 4S Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo A973 63 J653 965 QT52 J8 AQT74 KJ95 --- Q987 A873 JT4 K64 82 AKT42 KQ2 Result: Eight tricks, -300, a loss of nine imps when team-mates went one off in 4H at the other table. On the principle of "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" I will not cast aspersions at my partner's ethics, especially since -> John (MadDog) Probst: >In this case it makes no difference; The >1D opener has a punchy 6 loser hand; any >move by partner (thereby implying 5S) >suggests game. I'd be unhappy about a >pass here if it made exactly 9 tricks. Richard Hills: Obviously my competitive bidding as North is madder than anything MadDog can contemplate. :-) But this silly hand does demonstrate the serious point that there is no need to waste time by immediately summoning the Director after a break in tempo when quite frequently the non-offending side gains a benefit, rather than suffers damage, if a subsequent infraction of Law 16 occurs. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 20 03:29:16 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:29:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] De mortuis nil nisi bonum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004901c782eb$506ec2b0$6400a8c0@rota> Richard Hills writes: > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Dorothy Richard > 1D Dble 1S 2H > 2S 3H 3S(1) Pass > 4S Dble Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Break in tempo > > A973 > 63 > J653 > 965 > QT52 J8 > AQT74 KJ95 > --- Q987 > A873 JT4 > K64 > 82 > AKT42 > KQ2 > > Result: Eight tricks, -300, a loss of > nine imps when team-mates went one off in > 4H at the other table. > But this silly hand does demonstrate the > serious point that there is no need to > waste time by immediately summoning the > Director after a break in tempo when quite > frequently the non-offending side gains a > benefit, rather than suffers damage, if a > subsequent infraction of Law 16 occurs. However, the result at the other table is not the key issue in determining whether there was damage. If South's 4S bid is an infraction, the TD needs to determine whether it is likely, or at all probable, that E-W would reach and make 4H without the infraction. On this hand, I would rule no damage because West would not bid 4H absent the infraction, even though 4H might make if someone does bid it. From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 16:41:07 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:41:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Improving Swiss Teams events Message-ID: <2da24b8e0704200741p1dbd89faq1b2e63ccee77a3d2@mail.gmail.com> Swiss Team type events are one of the most popular formats in bridge. We argue that the accuracy of Swiss Team style events can be improved significantly if a Strength of Schedule adjustment is used to complement the normal scoring system. This hypothesis was tested using a series of Monte Carlo simulations. A computer program generated 128 bridge teams with known strength. These teams competing against one in a Swiss Teams type event. At the conclusion of the event, the sample statistic ? the ranking produced by the Swiss Teams event - was compared with the population statistic (the objective/known ranking of the team strength). We consider event event formats in which the sample statistic closely mirrors the population statistic superior to formats in which the sample statistic deviates significantly from the population statistic. Monte Carlo simulations can be used to test a variety of different hypotheses. For example, are tournaments with a large number of short rounds more accurate than tournaments with a small number of short rounds. (None too surprisingly, the answer depends on the fixed cost associated with the break between rounds) Alternatively, is there a relationship between the number of teams entering a tournament and the number of rounds necessary to accurately identify the winner. Our most striking result involved using a Strength of Schedule adjustment to the normal Swiss Team scoring system. We determined that a Strength of Schedule adjustment allows tournament organizers to significantly improve the efficiency of their events. Hypothetically, an event organizer could reduce the time required to stage an event without compromising the accuracy. Alternatively, an organizer could hold the length of an event constant and significantly improve the accuracy of the event. Strength of Schedule adjustments can implemented in a variety of ways. For the purpose of this study, we used a very simple SoS adjustment. 1. Run a normal Swiss Teams event 2. Calculate the total number of Victory Points won by each team 3. Sum all of the Victory Points won by each team that team i played against, excluding the head to head competition between team i and team j. 4.The Team's final rank is determined by adding the Victory Points that Team "i" won in head-to-head competition and some fraction of the total VPs won by all the teams that team "i" competed against. (This fraction is a function of the number of rounds in the tournament) We certainly don't claim that the SoS adjustment just described is by an optimal implementation. However, even this very crude implementation has a dramatic impact on the accuracy of the event. Consider the following tournament format: * 128 teams competing in a Swiss format * The event consists of "N" 20 board rounds * The primary statistic used to measure the accuracy of the event is the percentage chance that the strongest team will land in any of the top eight places at the close of the event. (We used other metrics including the Spearman rank coefficient and how many of the top eight teams placed in the top eight slots. Results were consistent across metrics) With no SoS adjustment, tournament organizers need to run twelve 20 board rounds to have a 95% chance that the strongest team will place in any one of the top eight slots. If we add an SoS adjustment, tournament organizers can run nine 20 board rounds while still achieving a 94.9% chance that the strongest team will place in any of the top eight places. Tournament organizers can reduce the length of the tournament by 25% without impacting the integrity of the results. (In comparison, if the Tournament Organizers were to run an event with nine 20 board rounds without any SoS adjustment, the accuracy of the event would drop from 95% to 92.3%) At this point in time, the primary value of this study is identify the fact that significant improvements can be made to the traditional Swiss Teams type format. Over time, we hope that it will be possible to make more concrete recommendations regarding the best implementation for an SoS correction as well as an executable that could be used to optimize events formats based on time constraints. Steve Willner was responsible for the original insight that an SoS correction would have a impact the accuracy of the Swiss Team format. All of the coding and simulation work (read this as the "real" work) was done by Alex Ogan and Gerben Dirksen. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 20 17:10:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:10:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <462689CA.8070706@meadows.pair.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070418160738.031b2e30@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070418160738.031b2e30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420093534.02ed16c0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:12 PM 4/18/07, Brian wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > If you are 95% certain, why would you want to say either "I'm not > sure" > > or "I don't know", as opposed to saying (gasp!) "I am 95% certain"? > > > > Herman has told us what he thinks; he has not thought or written that > > "he's not sure" or that "he doesn't know", but rather that "[he is] > > only 95% certain". Why *should* he refrain from saying what he thinks? > >Well the problem I see with it, Eric, is that the EBU has said that if >you don't know, you mustn't indicate how you're going to take it. > >Let us say that you're asked to explain a bid and you're not sure about >its meaning. At what value of N does "It means XYZ but I'm only N% sure >of that" become "I don't really know but I'm going to take it as XYZ"? > > > How is it that we so clearly and precisely convey our uncertainty -- > > along with all the possibilities and relevant considerations -- to one > > another in our posts, yet struggle so mightily to find a way to convey > > the same information to our opponents at the table? > >Could it possibly be because we don't have an NCBO regulating what we >can and can't say on BLML? Brian has set me straight here, pointing out that my advice would conflict with not only the EBU's prohibition against "speculating", but presumably the ACBL's as well. It was offered in the spirit of the advice that the ACBL has been giving in counter-reaction to its the incomprehensibility, complexity and lack of dissemination of its own disclosure rules, which is essentially to not worry about the rules and regulation, just be as forthcoming and as helpful as you can, make it your business to make sure the opponents get all the information they need; if they know everything about your agreements that you do, all will be well. The latter is, perhaps, all one needs in friendly club games or low-level competitions, but in higher-level, more serious competition, we cannot be quite so cavalier about the letter of the regulations. So what's the "real" answer here? I've made this argument before: If you are 95% certain that partner's bid means X, you must think there's a 5% chance that it means Y (for simplicity, I ignore cases with more than two possibilities). That it could be either X or Y is a direct consequence of your knowledge of your methods, hence disclosable. That the relative probabilities are 95%-5%, however, is a purely subjective judgment, albeit one which is based in part on various considerations which are themselves derived from your knowledge of your methods. Those are disclosable. The additional considerations, derived from the actual contents of your hand, are not. You should inform your opponents that partner's bid could mean either X or Y, accompanied by disclosure of all of those "various considerations" regarding your methods (but not your hand) that led you to your 95%-5% estimate, leaving them to make their own subjective judgment as to the relative probabilities of X and Y (making sound subjective judgments of probabilities is, after all, one of the key elements of bridge expertise). That will be based in part on what you've told them about your system, along with the contents of *their* hands. The desired "level playing field" is achieved only when their level of relevant knowledge about your system matches yours. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 20 18:06:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:06:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Improving Swiss Teams events In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0704200741p1dbd89faq1b2e63ccee77a3d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0704200741p1dbd89faq1b2e63ccee77a3d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4628E4FD.8050906@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > > Strength of Schedule adjustments can implemented in a variety of ways. > For the purpose of this study, we used a very simple SoS adjustment. > > 1. Run a normal Swiss Teams event > 2. Calculate the total number of Victory Points won by each team > 3. Sum all of the Victory Points won by each team that team i played > against, excluding the head to head competition between team i and > team j. > 4.The Team's final rank is determined by adding the Victory Points that > Team "i" won in head-to-head competition and some fraction of the total > VPs won by all the teams that team "i" competed against. (This fraction > is a function of the number of rounds in the tournament) > You have not told us the value(s) of this fraction, which resulted in the outcome you describe below. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 20 18:14:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:14:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:29 AM 4/19/07, Karel wrote: >You're in a teams match. The bidding proceeds > >1D 3C ?? > >Your hand >S AQxx >H KTx >D xxx >C Qxx > >You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and >noted they are playing Ghestem. LHO does not alert 3C's > >Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding, >why wake them up), it goes > > ... All pass !! > >RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ... 3C - 2. Any >redress ? I am going to listen and (hopefully) learn a bit more before I make that decision, but, based on what Karel has said above, probably not. "You" admit to having noted that the opponents' CC indicates that 3C was Ghestem, and also to having noted that LHO's failure to alert indicates that it is not. Both cannot be correct, so you know yourself to be in possession of contradictory information, and cannot expect redress if you "misinform yourself" by choosing to believe one piece of information while ignoring the other. Since you are aware that not all of the information you have can be correct, this is the obvious -- some might argue the only -- position in which you are clearly obliged to "protect yourself" as a precondition for redress. You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you abrogate any claim to have been misinformed. You are perfectly entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to your advantage at the table. That's the case here: you made a tactical decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding. In return, you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the point you knew for sure that you had been given some. Nice try. Better luck next time. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 20 18:38:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:38:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <4627BBC9.6020205@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070419094004.02acd600@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070419094004.02acd600@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420122803.02ec9530@pop.starpower.net> At 02:58 PM 4/19/07, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > The De Wael school would have me reveal only what I think the bid > > means, without any indication of uncertainty. That means telling the > > opponents it means A, even when I am going to choose a different call > > than I would if that were the whole story. > >And I'm not certain that they are entitled to knowing that. Then we have reached the bottom line of the debate over the De Wael school approach. I believe that a player has the right not only to listen to his opponents' bidding for the purpose of attempting to make inferences about the contents of their hands (indeed, that doing so is a key element of bridge expertise), but also to have all relevant knowledge of the opponents' system that might affect those inferences fully disclosed. Herman believes that a player has the right not only to refuse to disclose potentially vital components of that knowledge, but also to avoid creating subsequent problems for himself by deliberately concealing his refusal behind a pretence of certainty. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 20 19:14:03 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:14:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4628F4DB.2030205@NTLworld.com> [Eric landau] You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you abrogate any claim to have been misinformed. You are perfectly entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to your advantage at the table. That's the case here: you made a tactical decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding. In return, you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the point you knew for sure that you had been given some. Nice try. Better luck next time. [nige1] Again adding insult to injury. IMO, what is written on a convention card should be taken as a pair's agreement -- even if both players have subsequently forgotten it or have agreed" something else. A player should never be penalized for relying on the accuracy of his opponents' convention card. Also, it is ludicrous that, in order to obtain redress, you must "protect yourself" by asking about a bid that opponents seem to have forgotten to alert. Why are the victims of putative infractions expected to ask such kamikaze questions that may * wake up opponents to a misunderstanding? * reassure opponents that they are on the same wavelength? * provide unauthorised information to partner that he must lean over backwards to ignore? Even under current rules where the victim merits no redress, surely the law-breaker deserve some sanction? In practice, too often, the director simply castigates the victim for not protecting himself but leaves the law-breaker unpenalized, encouraged by his ill-gotten gains. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 20 22:21:16 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:21:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c78389$731199c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 09:29 AM 4/19/07, Karel wrote: > > >You're in a teams match. The bidding proceeds > > > >1D 3C ?? > > > >Your hand > >S AQxx > >H KTx > >D xxx > >C Qxx > > > >You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and > >noted they are playing Ghestem. LHO does not alert 3C's > > > >Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding, > >why wake them up), it goes > > > > ... All pass !! > > > >RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ... 3C - 2. Any > >redress ? > > I am going to listen and (hopefully) learn a bit more before I make > that decision, but, based on what Karel has said above, probably not. > > "You" admit to having noted that the opponents' CC indicates that 3C > was Ghestem, and also to having noted that LHO's failure to alert > indicates that it is not. Both cannot be correct, so you know yourself > to be in possession of contradictory information, and cannot expect > redress if you "misinform yourself" by choosing to believe one piece of > information while ignoring the other. > > Since you are aware that not all of the information you have can be > correct, this is the obvious -- some might argue the only -- position > in which you are clearly obliged to "protect yourself" as a > precondition for redress. > > You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you > abrogate any claim to have been misinformed. You are perfectly > entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to > your advantage at the table. That's the case here: you made a tactical > decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the > chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding. In return, > you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the > point you knew for sure that you had been given some. Nice > try. Better luck next time. This cannot possibly be correct! Whenever I am called to a table to rule on MI and there is doubt about the actual agreements I take written evidence (e.g. CC) to be stronger than verbal evidence (e.g. lack of alert) unless there is additional, overwhelming evidence corroborating the verbal evidence. Consequently I shall normally always rule in favour of a player who has relied upon information from opponents CC and has assumed that a failure to alert was just an oversight. There is definitely no obligation on any player to call opponents' attention to a (possibly) missing alert. (That is for the offender's partner to do at the proper time). Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 20 23:52:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:52:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <4628F4DB.2030205@NTLworld.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420163353.02bec0f0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:14 PM 4/20/07, Nigel wrote: >[Eric landau] >You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you >abrogate any claim to have been misinformed. You are perfectly >entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to >your advantage at the table. That's the case here: you made a tactical >decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the >chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding. In return, >you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the >point you knew for sure that you had been given some. Nice >try. Better luck next time. > >[nige1] > >Again adding insult to injury. What injury? Just because your opponents have given you misinformation that doesn't obligate them to have a bidding misunderstanding for your benefit. Knowing that you've been given misinformation, you can get out of their way and hope they do, but that doesn't mean you get redress if they don't. >IMO, what is written on a convention card should be taken as a pair's >agreement -- even if both players have subsequently forgotten it or have >agreed" something else. A player should never be penalized for relying >on the accuracy of his opponents' convention card. What is disclosed "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization" (L40B) should be taken as a pair's agreement. The SO "may prescribe a convention card" (L40E1), but that doesn't make it a sacred text that automatically takes precedence over all other forms of disclosure "in accordance with the regulations" (unless, of course, the SO says so in its regs). If you are aware that the opponents convention cards differ so that (at least) one of them contains MI perforce, you cannot claim damage regardless of which one was accurate by invoking some "right" to "rely on the accuracy" of whichever one you choose. It makes no legal difference (absent a specific reg from the SO) that the "disclosure 'in accordance'" came from one opponent via the CC and from the other via the alert procedure. You still know that you have MI from one or the other. >Also, it is ludicrous that, in order to obtain redress, you must >"protect yourself" by asking about a bid that opponents seem to have >forgotten to alert. The time to restore equity that has been disturbed by an infraction is when you become aware of the disturbance. Knowing you have MI, you can get your equity protected by calling the director. But you cannot fail to do so, hoping to gain "through subsequent action taken by an opponent" (L11A), and then, when the hoped-for bidding misunderstanding fails to materialize, change your mind and decide you want your equity back now. >Why are the victims of putative infractions expected to ask such >kamikaze questions that may >* wake up opponents to a misunderstanding? If you fear that you will wake them up to a misunderstanding, you are perfectly free to keep your knowledge of their MI infraction to yourself and hope that this will induce them to have one. But doing so does not entitle you to the result of such a misunderstanding if they don't actually have one. You can obtain redress for the MI at the point it becomes known. You cannot obtain "redress" for their not having a bidding misunderstanding only after it becomes known that they didn't have one. That's the whole point of L11A. Or you can call attention to the MI when you become aware of it (when you get the second of the two contradictory disclosures), restore equity at that point, and play bridge. But you don't get the double shot, hoping for them to fall off a cliff then asking redress if they don't. >* reassure opponents that they are on the same wavelength? You can only "reassure [them] that they are on the same wavelength" if indeed they are. In which case you are entitled to be on that wavelength too. Which is what transpires when you call attention to the MI. And if they're not on the same wavelength, at least one of them already knows it, and the other, if he doesn't, may find himself under UI restrictions. >* provide unauthorised information to partner that he must lean over >backwards to ignore? UI to partner? What UI? The disambiguation may be UI to one of your opponents, but your partner is just as entitled to know the opponents methods as you are. All you've done is point out a manifest contradiction in the opponents' disclosure -- that isn't even passing "I" to partner. >Even under current rules where the victim merits no redress, surely the >law-breaker deserve some sanction? In practice, too often, the director >simply castigates the victim for not protecting himself but leaves the >law-breaker unpenalized, encouraged by his ill-gotten gains. Nigel seems to think that he is entitled to *something* extra if the opponents *don't* have the bidding misunderstanding he hopes for, calling the difference "ill-gotten gains" and himself a "victim" of their failure to bid themselves into a zero. It is not against the law not to have a bidding misunderstanding, even if you've given MI that might cause your opponent to hope that you will. "Ill-gotten gains" come from inflicting damage on your opponents, not from failing to inflict damage on yourself. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 21 01:43:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:43:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420163353.02bec0f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000701c783a5$b9a1a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .................. > Knowing that you've been given misinformation, you can get > out of their way and hope they do, but that doesn't mean you get > redress if they don't. You do not "know" that you have been given misinformation; you know that you have been given conflicting information. And it is not your duty or even obligation to "protect yourself" if this will assist your opponents to get their possible misunderstanding clarified. And if you have a fair reason for assuming which information is correct and it turns out that you assumed wrong you shall almost automatically have the privilege of a misinformation ruling. Whether this ruling will result in redress depends on what damage if any is established. (Look further down for the case when you cannot reasonably assume which information is correct.) > > >IMO, what is written on a convention card should be taken as a pair's > >agreement -- even if both players have subsequently forgotten it or have > >agreed" something else. A player should never be penalized for relying > >on the accuracy of his opponents' convention card. > > What is disclosed "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > organization" (L40B) should be taken as a pair's agreement. The SO > "may prescribe a convention card" (L40E1), but that doesn't make it a > sacred text that automatically takes precedence over all other forms of > disclosure "in accordance with the regulations" (unless, of course, the > SO says so in its regs). Written declarations that have been prepared in advance will almost always take precedence over all other forms of disclosure, period. > If you are aware that the opponents > convention cards differ so that (at least) one of them contains MI > perforce, you cannot claim damage regardless of which one was accurate > by invoking some "right" to "rely on the accuracy" of whichever one you > choose. It makes no legal difference (absent a specific reg from the > SO) that the "disclosure 'in accordance'" came from one opponent via > the CC and from the other via the alert procedure. You still know that > you have MI from one or the other. Here you mix two different cases: If the two convention cards differ then you will have the information from one and your partner will have from the other. Consequently you have no reason to be aware of the conflict between the two convention cards and the laws will protect you if the information given to you is incorrect. If you are given one information by the CC and a different information by an alert or a missing alert then you are normally entitled to ignore the alert or missing alert and base your actions on what has been declared on the CC. Redress is very seldom granted to a player who claims damage due to an incorrect alert or a missing alert if the call in question has properly been declared on the CC, especially if this declaration is given on the front (main) page of the CC. The CC is available to you for a reason. ......... > The time to restore equity that has been disturbed by an infraction is > when you become aware of the disturbance. Wrong: The time to restore equity is when damage caused by the infraction is established. > Knowing you have MI, you can > get your equity protected by calling the director. True, but you don't "know" that you have misinformation just because you have conflicting information. You "know" that you have been misinformed when you discover that the information you have trusted for good reasons was incorrect. Even then you don't know for certain that you have been damaged by this misinformation, and the Director when called at this time should instruct you to continue the play of the cards and to call him again at the end of the play if you at that time feel damaged by the misinformation. ........ > If you fear that you will wake them up to a misunderstanding, you are > perfectly free to keep your knowledge of their MI infraction to > yourself and hope that this will induce them to have one. But doing so > does not entitle you to the result of such a misunderstanding if they > don't actually have one. You can obtain redress for the MI at the > point it becomes known. You cannot obtain "redress" for their not > having a bidding misunderstanding only after it becomes known that they > didn't have one. That's the whole point of L11A. At last some sense. If you have reason to suspect that you cannot safely assume which of different conflicting information is correct then you should call the Director. (Note that a missing alert does not normally give you reason to believe that declaration on the CC of a conventional call is incorrect.) The opponent who has disclosed an incorrect understanding of the call shall be denied the right to base his further actions on the correct understanding when this understanding could be the result of his misunderstanding being clarified by you calling the Director. This means for instance that if a player mistakenly may have believed that a particular call was natural and therefore did not alert this call he may not thereafter (during the auction and play of that board) select his actions from his knowledge of the true agreement when this knowledge could be the result of for instance "a reply to a question". If he does he shall be ruled to having violated Law 16A2. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Apr 21 03:41:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:41:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420163353.02bec0f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070420163353.02bec0f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <46296BDC.20205@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Nigel seems to think that he is entitled to *something* extra if the opponents *don't* have the bidding misunderstanding he hopes for, calling the difference "ill-gotten gains" and himself a "victim" of their failure to bid themselves into a zero. It is not against the law not to have a bidding misunderstanding, even if you've given MI that might cause your opponent to hope that you will. "Ill-gotten gains" come from inflicting damage on your opponents, not from failing to inflict damage on yourself. [nige1] Of course I said no such thing. In the UK at least, it is an *infraction* to enter incorrect information about your methods on your *convention card*. I accept that rules in America may be more lax. Irrespective of whether current rules allow the director to compensate Karen, I am sure that they allow the director to *punish her opponents* for this blatant infraction. I hope that, in future, fairer rules will entitle Karen to redress when she suffers a bad result by trusting opponents' card. Finally (as explained previously) current rules about protecting yourself should be eradicated because they are unfair, complex, superfluous, and add nothing of value to the game. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Apr 21 05:51:47 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:51:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <000701c783a5$b9a1a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c783a5$b9a1a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46298A53.8090701@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] And if you have a fair reason for assuming which information is correct and it turns out that you assumed wrong you shall almost automatically have the privilege of a misinformation ruling. Whether this ruling will result in redress depends on what damage if any is established. (Look further down for the case when you cannot reasonably assume which information is correct.) [nige1] IMO, even if the director rules no damage in the current instance, he should make the law-breakers correct their card. Furthermore, he should impose a suitable penalty on the law-breakers to recognise that they are likely to have gained considerably by bamboozling all their *previous* opponents. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Apr 21 07:22:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:22:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: >You're in a teams match. The bidding proceeds > >1D 3C ?? > >Your hand >S AQxx >H KTx >D xxx >C Qxx > >You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and >noted they are playing Ghestem. LHO does not alert 3C's > >Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding, >why wake them up), it goes > > ... All pass !! > > >RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ... 3C - 2. Any redress? Richard Hills: The facts are insufficient for me to give a fully informed ruling. I do have two guesses. My "first guess" (Sven Pran School) as to the actual facts is -> (a) LHO and RHO have a partnership agreement to play Ghestem. (b) You know about their agreement to play Ghestem by viewing their CC. (c) LHO commits the trivial infraction of failing to alert RHO's call. (d) This trivial infraction does not cause you any damage, since you already know about their Ghestem agreement. (e) However, the failure to alert causes you to guess, at your own risk, that not only has LHO forgotten to alert, but also LHO has forgotten that their partnership plays the Ghestem convention. (f) LHO has indeed forgotten the Ghestem convention, and does in fact pass RHO's Ghestem 3C. A triumph for your at-your-own-risk guess! (g) Oops. RHO also forgot that they were playing Ghestem. Unlucky. Rub of the green. My "second guess" (Richard Hills School) as to the actual facts is -> (x) LHO and RHO have a notional explicit partnership agreement to play the Ghestem convention. (y) Due to very frequent forgetting of Ghestem by both LHO and RHO, their notional explicit partnership agreement has been superseded by their actual implicit partnership agreement that 3C is a two-way convention, either a Ghestem two-suiter or a club one-suiter. (z) Ergo, LHO and RHO have given MI, and may also be playing an illegal convention (depending upon local Law 40D regulations). Sven Pran: >>Whenever I am called to a table to rule on MI and there is doubt about the actual agreements I take written evidence (e.g. CC) to be stronger >>than verbal evidence (e.g. lack of alert) unless there is additional, >>overwhelming evidence corroborating the verbal evidence. Richard Hills: Requiring "overwhelming evidence" to over-rule what is written on the CC is, in my opinion, too simplistic. It is the Director's job to assess the facts, not to assume that their Sven Pran School suspicions and/or Richard Hills School suspicions are almost always automatically correct. As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in the CC, quite often in partnerships one player is The Master. The Master issues the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". Then The Master writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC. And meanwhile The Master's partner has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, which means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Sat Apr 21 09:37:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:37:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Whale In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420122803.02ec9530@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070419094004.02acd600@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070413095025.02abb680@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070416133833.02a08a90@pop.starpower.net> <4623C5B7.7070609@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070417095002.02abd430@pop.starpower.net> <4625D73B.7000701@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070418144003.02845500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070419094004.02acd600@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070420122803.02ec9530@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4629BF38.2020505@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:58 PM 4/19/07, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> The De Wael school would have me reveal only what I think the bid >>> means, without any indication of uncertainty. That means telling the >>> opponents it means A, even when I am going to choose a different call >>> than I would if that were the whole story. >> And I'm not certain that they are entitled to knowing that. > > Then we have reached the bottom line of the debate over the De Wael > school approach. > Indeed we have. But it's not a question of approach - it's reading the laws and interpreting the words. > I believe that a player has the right not only to listen to his > opponents' bidding for the purpose of attempting to make inferences > about the contents of their hands (indeed, that doing so is a key > element of bridge expertise), Yes, he has the right to listen. He may draw inferences from all aspects of how a bid is made (hesitantly or confidently, fi). But he is not entitled to that same information. If an opponent makes his calls in a uniform manner, the player is not allowed to ask if he feels confident of that contract or not. Agreed? > but also to have all relevant knowledge > of the opponents' system that might affect those inferences fully > disclosed. > Yes, but what is relevant knowledge? Hearing about doubt can be very relevant - as is knowing who holds the king of your proposed trump suit. That does not mean such "relevant" knowledge is disclosable, does it? So I suggest that you take a good look at what it is you are accusing me of hiding from my opponents, and then check the laws to see if that information has to be disclosed or not. There have been a few things mentioned already - so it's not clear to me where you want to disagree from my views. For example, I have stated that if a player is going to incorporate two possible meanings for his partner's bid into his reply, then he should disclose both possible meanings. But if he's going to take only one meaning into account, then there is no reason for the opponents to know the other one. > Herman believes that a player has the right not only to refuse to > disclose potentially vital components of that knowledge, Of course he has. Because the discussion is not what is "vital", but "disclosable". Of course a player has the right to hide things that are not disclosable. And if you change the word "vital" in the sentence above to "disclosable", then I hope you trust me enough to know that I would never say that a player has the right to refuse to disclose disclosable knowledge. (with the true DwS as exception - but while I believe he has the right to refuse there - he should also face the consequences of MI) > but also to > avoid creating subsequent problems for himself by deliberately > concealing his refusal behind a pretence of certainty. > Which is exactly what I am saying. Uncertainty is not disclosable. Read the law again. Uncertainty is not a part of partnership understanding or even experience. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 21 09:40:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:40:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c783e8$63bb0240$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > Sven Pran: > > >>Whenever I am called to a table to rule on MI and there is doubt about > the actual agreements I take written evidence (e.g. CC) to be stronger > >>than verbal evidence (e.g. lack of alert) unless there is additional, > >>overwhelming evidence corroborating the verbal evidence. > > Richard Hills: > > Requiring "overwhelming evidence" to over-rule what is written on the CC > is, in my opinion, too simplistic. It is the Director's job to assess the > facts, not to assume that their Sven Pran School suspicions and/or Richard > Hills School suspicions are almost always automatically correct. > > As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in the CC, > quite often in partnerships one player is The Master. The Master issues > the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". Then The Master > writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC. And meanwhile The Master's partner > has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, which > means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the Hoffmeister > 1NT. This is of course true. Still the CC is like an abbreviated "contract" between two players as to what agreements they have made, and the kind of partnership you describe where one player "agrees" to something he doesn't even know has no place at all in the environments I know. I assume that if you (for instance as a member of the jury in a civil court) were faced with a written contract and a conflicting verbal claim as to what had been agreed upon between a plaintiff and a defendant you too would require "additional, overwhelming evidence" corroborating the verbal claim before you ruled against the written contract? Please note that I have said nothing about the nature of such additional evidence, not in court nor in bridge, it can be witness statements it can be drafts or whatever. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 21 09:42:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:42:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4629C073.1090806@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:29 AM 4/19/07, Karel wrote: > >> You're in a teams match. The bidding proceeds >> >> 1D 3C ?? >> >> Your hand >> S AQxx >> H KTx >> D xxx >> C Qxx >> >> You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and >> noted they are playing Ghestem. LHO does not alert 3C's >> >> Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding, >> why wake them up), it goes >> >> ... All pass !! >> >> RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ... 3C - 2. Any >> redress ? > > I am going to listen and (hopefully) learn a bit more before I make > that decision, but, based on what Karel has said above, probably not. > > "You" admit to having noted that the opponents' CC indicates that 3C > was Ghestem, and also to having noted that LHO's failure to alert > indicates that it is not. Both cannot be correct, so you know yourself > to be in possession of contradictory information, and cannot expect > redress if you "misinform yourself" by choosing to believe one piece of > information while ignoring the other. > OK, so you know one info (at least) is wrong. What are you to do? > Since you are aware that not all of the information you have can be > correct, this is the obvious -- some might argue the only -- position > in which you are clearly obliged to "protect yourself" as a > precondition for redress. > Protecting yourself is indeed (sort of) an obligation. But surely it cannot be an obligation if you are also informing your opponents of their misunderstanding. Revealing what you now know means giving them AI. > You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you > abrogate any claim to have been misinformed. You are perfectly > entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to > your advantage at the table. That's the case here: you made a tactical > decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the > chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding. In return, > you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the > point you knew for sure that you had been given some. Nice > try. Better luck next time. > So what you are actually saying is this: if you do not read the CC, and simply rely on the spoken word (and this one is the wrong one), you are entitled to redress. But if you read the CC, you have three options: either you tell the opponents they've made a mistake, or you trust the spoken word and have no recourse to MI, or you trust the written word and have partner misunderstand your next call. Seems as if reading the CC does you more harm than good. Surely this cannot be the case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 21 09:48:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:48:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in the CC, > quite often in partnerships one player is The Master. The Master issues > the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". Then The Master > writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC. And meanwhile The Master's partner has > zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, which means > that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. > exactly. Richard, almost a DwS type argument! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 21 09:51:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:51:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <46298A53.8090701@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c783e9$e410bfb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel > [Sven Pran] > And if you have a fair reason for assuming which information is correct > and > it turns out that you assumed wrong you shall almost automatically have > the > privilege of a misinformation ruling. Whether this ruling will result in > redress depends on what damage if any is established. (Look further down > for > the case when you cannot reasonably assume which information is correct.) > > [nige1] > IMO, even if the director rules no damage in the current instance, he > should make the law-breakers correct their card. Sure, and all Directors I know would do. > Furthermore, he should > impose a suitable penalty on the law-breakers to recognise that they are > likely to have gained considerably by bamboozling all their *previous* > opponents. The Director has no reason to go back on "previous" rounds, but he has every reason to issue a warning (which is an automatic implication of an order to change the CC), hardly anything more than that. In a masters league some years ago I made a borderline ruling (after consulting the Norwegian Law committee on telephone) that a pair was playing an illegal convention. The pair was ordered to amend their system effective immediately, but I found no damage to NOS on the current board and saw no reason for further action against that pair. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Apr 21 15:36:40 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:36:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <000101c783e9$e410bfb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c783e9$e410bfb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <462A1368.5040803@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] In a masters league some years ago I made a borderline ruling (after consulting the Norwegian Law committee on telephone) that a pair was playing an illegal convention. The pair was ordered to amend their system effective immediately, but I found no damage to NOS on the current board and saw no reason for further action against that pair. [nige1] I am a firm believer in the "protect the field" heresy - burn me at the stake! If a pair seem likely have profited form an illegal convention (or faulty card) in previous rounds of a competition, I believe the director should impose a penalty to reflect that illegal gain -- especially if the law-breakers are contenders to win the event. I realise that this is a cruel and uncomfortable kind of ruling that is unlikely to make the director many friends but it does have the saving grace of being just and fair. From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 21 17:13:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:13:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <462A1368.5040803@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c78427$a3d51430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel > [Sven Pran] > In a masters league some years ago I made a borderline ruling > (after consulting the Norwegian Law committee on telephone) > that a pair was playing an illegal convention. The pair was > ordered to amend their system effective immediately, but I > found no damage to NOS on the current board and saw no > reason for further action against that pair. > > [nige1] > I am a firm believer in the "protect the field" heresy - > burn me at the stake! > If a pair seem likely have profited form an illegal convention > (or faulty card) in previous rounds of a competition, > I believe the director should impose a penalty to reflect > that illegal gain -- especially if the law-breakers are > contenders to win the event. > Please explain how you intend to establish that they have profited from their illegal convention during previous rounds and your legal basis for taking any such action against them as you indicate. As this discussion is related to an event for teams the time limit in Law 81C6 will normally have expired as all results will have been officially published immediately after each match. (The way we play events for pairs in Norway the time limit in Law 81C6 will normally have expired also in such events here for the same reason). > I realise that this is a cruel and uncomfortable kind of ruling that is > unlikely > to make the director many friends but it does have the saving grace of > being just > and fair. IMHO your suggested action is not only cruel and uncomfortable; it is just plain illegal. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 21 19:51:14 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:51:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <000701c783a5$b9a1a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c783a5$b9a1a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0197D78F-06CB-4668-8B89-A168ABD33EF7@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > You do not "know" that you have been given misinformation; you know > that you > have been given conflicting information. Generally speaking, I would think, correct information is given by a complete explanation (including inferences not from GBK) of the partnership agreement. Anything else is, it seems to me, misinformation. Given that, can you provide an example of when, given 2 pieces of conflicting information, there has been no MI? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Apr 21 19:59:44 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <462A1368.5040803@NTLworld.com> References: <000101c783e9$e410bfb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <462A1368.5040803@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <601E9A81-7C4B-4907-A6A0-E8172FB09674@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 21, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Nigel wrote: > I am a firm believer in the "protect the field" heresy - burn me at > the > stake! Got a match? :-) > If a pair seem likely have profited form an illegal convention (or > faulty card) > in previous rounds of a competition, I believe the director should > impose a > penalty to reflect that illegal gain -- especially if the law- > breakers are > contenders to win the event. > > I realise that this is a cruel and uncomfortable kind of ruling > that is > unlikely to make the director many friends but it does have the > saving grace of > being just and fair. It's also illegal. You award procedural penalties for violations of procedure. While the amount of the penalty is a matter of TD discretion, there is nothing in the laws that even suggests that such a penalty should or could be tied to any "gain" a contestant may or may not have accrued at the table - particularly when the alleged gain occurred at tables other than the one to which the director was called. From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 21 21:22:07 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:22:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <0197D78F-06CB-4668-8B89-A168ABD33EF7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c7844a$59f281e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > You do not "know" that you have been given misinformation; you know > > that you > > have been given conflicting information. > > Generally speaking, I would think, correct information is given by a > complete explanation (including inferences not from GBK) of the > partnership agreement. Anything else is, it seems to me, > misinformation. Given that, can you provide an example of when, given > 2 pieces of conflicting information, there has been no MI? Of course when you have been given conflicting information you know that one of them must be wrong. But you never get redress for misinformation; redress is given for damage caused by misinformation. That is one reason why this discussion has gone off tracks. When you "know" from the CC that a particular call is conventional and should be alerted but it is not then you have such conflicting information. If you base your subsequent actions on the assumption that the CC is wrong because of the missing alert you would hardly ever receive any redress for damage if it should develop that the player just forgot to alert. But if the CC eventually is proven wrong and you are damaged because you trusted the CC (and assumed that the player just forgot to alert) then I can hardly imagine any Director denying you redress for damage. So the answer is: I do not generally care too much about misinformation other than as possible source for damage. And I am rather careful not to rule damage to a player who bases his claim for redress on technicalities alone. Regards Sven From mustikka at charter.net Sat Apr 21 22:48:22 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:48:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: De Whale Message-ID: <000d01c78456$66bceda0$841e5e47@DFYXB361> I meant this for blml, not private to Herman. Sorry. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Whale > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 12:37 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] De Whale > > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> At 02:58 PM 4/19/07, Herman wrote: >>> >>>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>>> The De Wael school would have me reveal only what I think the bid >>>>> means, without any indication of uncertainty. That means telling the >>>>> opponents it means A, even when I am going to choose a different call >>>>> than I would if that were the whole story. >>>> And I'm not certain that they are entitled to knowing that. >>> >>> Then we have reached the bottom line of the debate over the De Wael >>> school approach. >>> >> >> Indeed we have. But it's not a question of approach - it's reading the >> laws and interpreting the words. >> >>> I believe that a player has the right not only to listen to his >>> opponents' bidding for the purpose of attempting to make inferences >>> about the contents of their hands (indeed, that doing so is a key >>> element of bridge expertise), >> >> Yes, he has the right to listen. He may draw inferences from all >> aspects of how a bid is made (hesitantly or confidently, fi). But he >> is not entitled to that same information. If an opponent makes his >> calls in a uniform manner, the player is not allowed to ask if he >> feels confident of that contract or not. Agreed? >> >>> but also to have all relevant knowledge >>> of the opponents' system that might affect those inferences fully >>> disclosed. >>> >> >> Yes, but what is relevant knowledge? Hearing about doubt can be very >> relevant - as is knowing who holds the king of your proposed trump >> suit. That does not mean such "relevant" knowledge is disclosable, >> does it? >> >> So I suggest that you take a good look at what it is you are accusing >> me of hiding from my opponents, and then check the laws to see if that >> information has to be disclosed or not. >> >> There have been a few things mentioned already - so it's not clear to >> me where you want to disagree from my views. >> >> For example, I have stated that if a player is going to incorporate >> two possible meanings for his partner's bid into his reply, then he >> should disclose both possible meanings. >> But if he's going to take only one meaning into account, then there is >> no reason for the opponents to know the other one. >> >>> Herman believes that a player has the right not only to refuse to >>> disclose potentially vital components of that knowledge, >> >> Of course he has. Because the discussion is not what is "vital", but >> "disclosable". Of course a player has the right to hide things that >> are not disclosable. And if you change the word "vital" in the >> sentence above to "disclosable", then I hope you trust me enough to >> know that I would never say that a player has the right to refuse to >> disclose disclosable knowledge. (with the true DwS as exception - but >> while I believe he has the right to refuse there - he should also face >> the consequences of MI) >> >>> but also to >>> avoid creating subsequent problems for himself by deliberately >>> concealing his refusal behind a pretence of certainty. >>> >> >> Which is exactly what I am saying. Uncertainty is not disclosable. >> Read the law again. Uncertainty is not a part of partnership >> understanding or even experience. > > Exactly. It is wrong in general and illegal in bridge, to explain as an > agreement something which one DOES know is NOT an agreement. If done > deliberately and with rationalization about the action, it is intentional > MI and unethical. IMO. Raija From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Apr 22 01:55:10 2007 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:55:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <000101c7844a$59f281e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <0197D78F-06CB-4668-8B89-A168ABD33EF7@rochester.rr.com> <000101c7844a$59f281e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Good to see this inspired such a debate. Not going to start quoting laws right left and center ... just a few observations. The CC is written. At the point of being obvious .. this implies someone spent energy and time physically writing down an agreement. It is beyond belief to think that they would at this point write down the wrong agreement. So ... when the CC was created ... that was the pairs agreement. If anything after that changed ... it should have been reflected in the CC. It is common practice I believe when declarer to look at a pairs CC regarding their lead style or their openings, carding etc etc. This allows you to get the information without asking the opponents and then getting them to wonder why this information would be pertinent to you and possibly work out why you wish this information to their benefit. You absolutely have to believe what is on the CC is correct or else you go down the ludicrous scenario of aking the opps to verify every agreement on the CC. So if it goes 1D 3C and you look at the CC and it says Ghestem that is their agreement ... end of story. If at this stage you suspect the opps have forgotten their agreement - it is ludicrous to state you have to ask the opps .. . " erhh very sorry is the agreement on YOUR CC actually correct as erhhh there wasnt an alert and maybe you got it wrong ... btw I have to ask this in case you are screwing up to protect myself !!!" "Why thank you so much young man, I was dozing off there ... " In the actual case btw the responder to the ghestem was looking at 5/5 in the majors. Now the odds of it going 1D 3C (both majors) Pass (when the opps have a massive double minor fit and you are looking at 5/5 as against the far more statistically likely pd forgot) .... so you pass ... no one asks (why should they ?? it is on the CC), lo and behold you are right and no one knows any different ..... and apparently this is ok ... That was the actual case - I have no proof to any mind reading or second guessing pd's state, but there can be no argument that the CC is the definitive agreement and the opps are completely entitled to believe it and should it transpire that the opps are infact playing something else ... then surely redress is in order. Karel On 4/21/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > You do not "know" that you have been given misinformation; you know > > > that you > > > have been given conflicting information. > > > > Generally speaking, I would think, correct information is given by a > > complete explanation (including inferences not from GBK) of the > > partnership agreement. Anything else is, it seems to me, > > misinformation. Given that, can you provide an example of when, given > > 2 pieces of conflicting information, there has been no MI? > > Of course when you have been given conflicting information you know that one > of them must be wrong. But you never get redress for misinformation; redress > is given for damage caused by misinformation. That is one reason why this > discussion has gone off tracks. > > When you "know" from the CC that a particular call is conventional and > should be alerted but it is not then you have such conflicting information. > > If you base your subsequent actions on the assumption that the CC is wrong > because of the missing alert you would hardly ever receive any redress for > damage if it should develop that the player just forgot to alert. > > But if the CC eventually is proven wrong and you are damaged because you > trusted the CC (and assumed that the player just forgot to alert) then I can > hardly imagine any Director denying you redress for damage. > > So the answer is: I do not generally care too much about misinformation > other than as possible source for damage. And I am rather careful not to > rule damage to a player who bases his claim for redress on technicalities > alone. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Apr 22 04:17:04 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 03:17:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <601E9A81-7C4B-4907-A6A0-E8172FB09674@rochester.rr.com> References: <000101c783e9$e410bfb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <462A1368.5040803@NTLworld.com> <601E9A81-7C4B-4907-A6A0-E8172FB09674@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <462AC5A0.4070803@NTLworld.com> [Ed Reppert] It's also illegal. You award procedural penalties for violations of procedure. While the amount of the penalty is a matter of TD discretion, there is nothing in the laws that even suggests that such a penalty should or could be tied to any "gain" a contestant may or may not have accrued at the table - particularly when the alleged gain occurred at tables other than the one to which the director was called. [nige1] Thank you Karen. This is fun! Just to clarify the points at issue... [A] I suggested that a penalty for law-breakers may be appropriate even if the director rules no damage to the other side. [B] I also suggested that, for some offences (for example illegal or misdescribed methods), the director should impose a penalty on the law-breakers commensurate with the director's estimate of damage inflicted at previous tables. The former [A] is a procedural penalty. I believe it is quite legal. Ed believes that the latter [B] would also be a procedural penalty. I'm not so sure. And is it really illegal? I suppose that Ed Reppert, Sven Pran and Eric Landau may be correct under current law -- or under current law as interpreted by some directors. God forbid that a director do more work or be subjected to more hassle :) Especially as "protecting the field" is such an unpopular and unfashionable cause -- as far as directors are concerned. The field may have a different view :) especially if the law-breakers would otherwise win the event :( For some directors there is an unwritten "Three Wise Monkey" law that completely nullifies 81C6 :) Luckily for the game, I am sure that bolshier directors, who are called for one alleged infraction, sometimes rule different or additional infractions. If this is not the current law then we can but hope that the law-makers will rectify the anomaly in the new edition. If it is the current law then perhaps they will be kind enough to clarify it. Please -- no quibbles -- note that *putative* infractions need *investigation* before they are *established* [TFLB 81C6] The Director?s duties and powers normally include the following ... to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with 79C. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Apr 22 21:57:54 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:57:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704181519.l3IFJfPX001996@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704181519.l3IFJfPX001996@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <462BBE42.4070305@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John Probst" > Mmm. Butler's fine; it's surprising how fine. In fact it's ridiculous how > well it does. Anything is "fine" for some loose definition of "fine." Butler randomly adds and subtracts IMPs. It's like throwing a die after every board and adding the result to your IMP score. Sure, the final results will be highly correlated with results from any other scoring method, but that doesn't make it a good idea to use Butler in a serious event. The capper is that you can _worsen_ your final result by doing _better_ on a specific board. The choice between Butler and cross-IMPs seems to me a much bigger deal than choosing which VP scale to use. > What we do know is that it overstates imps by a ratio of 6:5 > compared with X-Imps This is mostly on bimodal boards. It's a matter of taste whether you like the extra weight of these boards or not. > I think VPs > makes sense in Swiss, but no reason to use it in all-play-all if everyone > plays the same boards. Not even if a few teams are much weaker than the rest of the field? Some teams will get swingy boards against the weak ones, while others will get flat boards or even boards where the right play gives a bad result. VPs (among other things) reduce the value of crushing a weak team. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Apr 22 22:05:21 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:05:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a psych? In-Reply-To: <200704191255.l3JCtdUQ028996@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704191255.l3JCtdUQ028996@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <462BC001.4040407@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > It looks as if you would rule that if the > disclosure is absent, the bid itself becomes illegal. This is what the language of L40B seems to say, and I'm pretty sure EK wrote something to that effect. An interpretation either way seems possible to me. The difference comes when the TD/AC identifies the "irregularity" in L12C2. Is it the absence of disclosure, as Herman suggests, or is it the call itself after the failure to disclose? Either way, failure to disclose is an infraction, and damage will be redressed, but the assigned score will often differ depending on which interpretation one chooses. > Perhaps more care should be taken in the wording next set of laws. Indeed. This is a matter where the WBFLC could usefully improve the language or give us an official interpretation. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 22 23:47:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:47:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462BBE42.4070305@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704181519.l3IFJfPX001996@cfa.harvard.edu> <462BBE42.4070305@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <462BD7E4.3010703@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "John Probst" >> Mmm. Butler's fine; it's surprising how fine. In fact it's ridiculous how >> well it does. > > Anything is "fine" for some loose definition of "fine." Butler randomly > adds and subtracts IMPs. It's like throwing a die after every board and > adding the result to your IMP score. Sure, the final results will be > highly correlated with results from any other scoring method, but that > doesn't make it a good idea to use Butler in a serious event. The > capper is that you can _worsen_ your final result by doing _better_ on a > specific board. > Bastille solves that particular problem, as I have proven : http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/bastille.html > The choice between Butler and cross-IMPs seems to me a much bigger deal > than choosing which VP scale to use. > >> What we do know is that it overstates imps by a ratio of 6:5 >> compared with X-Imps > > This is mostly on bimodal boards. It's a matter of taste whether you > like the extra weight of these boards or not. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 23 00:00:27 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:00:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4629C1BB.5040206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in the CC, >>quite often in partnerships one player is The Master. The Master issues >>the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". Then The Master >>writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC. And meanwhile The Master's partner >>has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, which >>means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the Hoffmeister >>1NT. Herman De Wael: >exactly. > >Richard, almost a DwS type argument! Richard Hills: No, unless by "almost" you mean "totally different". Under the De Wael School, determining whether or not a _mutual_ partnership agreement exists is solely dependent on what an _individual_ partner does. (a) If it is The Master who is first to bid 1NT, holding cards consistent with his Hoffmeister belief, Herman rules that both partners have a mutual partnership agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. (b) If it is The Master's partner who is first to bid 1NT, holding cards consistent with her 16-18 hcp balanced belief, Herman rules that both partners have a mutual partnership agreement to play the strong 1NT. (c) Meanwhile, in both cases, a sensible Director assesses the self- incriminating statements by The Master and The Master's partner to rule under Law 85 that neither in case (a) nor in case (b) is there any mutual partnership agreement. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 23 00:49:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:49:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: >...there can be no argument that the CC is >the definitive agreement... Law 75B: "...habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." Richard Hills: There can be no argument that Ghestem is a very accident-prone convention, with many players habitually violating it due to frequent memory lapses. So there can be no argument that the system card / convention card is _not always_ a definitively accurate statement of mutual partnership understandings. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 23 01:53:11 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:53:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's > > touching belief in the CC, quite often in partnerships >> one player is The Master. The Master issues the >> diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". >> Then The Master>> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the >> CC. And meanwhile The Master's partner has >> zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT >> convention is, which means that there is zero _partnership_ >> agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. >> > > exactly. > +=+ Indeed? I would think not at all exactly. If the slave has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has committed himself to that partnership agreement. No matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable for the consequences of his ignorance. It is perhaps worthy of a little thought what is the effect of he Law in relation to disclosure and making a call (whose meaning an opposing pair may not reasonably be expected to understand) without prior disclosure. The SO determines how a partnership understanding is to be disclosed. If the SO's regulation is satisfied, for example, with an alert or announcement - without prior disclosure on the CC or however - then the call is made lawfully because there has been no breach of the disclosure regulation at the time the call is made. Failure to alert etc. as required after the call is made creates misinformation which may lead to damage of opponents. If a call is made with a meaning that the SO requires to be disclosed before the call is made (for example, on the CC) then in the absence of such disclosure the call is made unlawfully and damage may ensue from that. If no damage arises from that circumstance there may still be damage from a failure to alert (or announce) the call as the regulations require. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 23 08:12:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:12:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> References: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be> <000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <462C4E35.2070204@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Truth often suffers more by the > heat of its defenders than from the > arguments of its opposers." > ~ William Penn. > =============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's >>> touching belief in the CC, quite often in partnerships >>> one player is The Master. The Master issues the >>> diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". >>> Then The Master>> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the >>> CC. And meanwhile The Master's partner has >>> zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT >>> convention is, which means that there is zero _partnership_ >>> agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. >>> >> exactly. >> > +=+ Indeed? I would think not at all exactly. If the slave > has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement > that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave > has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has > committed himself to that partnership agreement. No > matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of > the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable > for the consequences of his ignorance. And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find this a misbid? I don't! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 23 08:18:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:18:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> References: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be> <000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <462C4FBD.5000600@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > It is perhaps worthy of a little thought what is the > effect of he Law in relation to disclosure and making a > call (whose meaning an opposing pair may not reasonably > be expected to understand) without prior disclosure. > The SO determines how a partnership understanding is > to be disclosed. If the SO's regulation is satisfied, for > example, with an alert or announcement - without prior > disclosure on the CC or however - then the call is made > lawfully because there has been no breach of the disclosure > regulation at the time the call is made. Failure to alert etc. > as required after the call is made creates misinformation > which may lead to damage of opponents. > If a call is made with a meaning that the SO requires > to be disclosed before the call is made (for example, on > the CC) then in the absence of such disclosure the call is > made unlawfully and damage may ensue from that. If no > damage arises from that circumstance there may still be > damage from a failure to alert (or announce) the call as > the regulations require. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan does not clear up the question we are all having. Of course we know that there can be cases where the non-prior disclosure carries its own damage. Even a correctly alerted and explained call can still cause damage if the opponents were not informed before the deal started that a particular convention was being used, because by now it is too late to agree on specific defensive methods against the call. The question that we were asking however, was if this infraction is a different one than a simple misexplanation. The laws seem to say that it is illegal to use an agreement without prior disclosure. That would seem to indicate that the penalty would be different. Neither L40 (the TD assigns an adjusted score) nor L12 (score ... had the irregularity not happened) give us any particular information about the intention of the lawgivers. If the irregularity is the non-disclosure, then we should give a L12 adjustment based on full disclosure (with opponents being able to use their best defensive mechanism); but if the irregularity is the call, we should give an adjustment based on the call not being made. Can Grattan tell us which of these options he believes to be the correct one? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 23 08:23:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:23:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462C50D1.8090802@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in the CC, >>> quite often in partnerships one player is The Master. The Master issues >>> the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". Then The > Master >>> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC. And meanwhile The Master's partner >>> has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, which >>> means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the Hoffmeister >>> 1NT. > > Herman De Wael: > >> exactly. >> >> Richard, almost a DwS type argument! > > Richard Hills: > > No, unless by "almost" you mean "totally different". Under the De Wael > School, determining whether or not a _mutual_ partnership agreement exists > is solely dependent on what an _individual_ partner does. > Yes, but both individuals together make up the partnership. So it is the partnership's actions which are being checked: > (a) If it is The Master who is first to bid 1NT, holding cards consistent > with his Hoffmeister belief, Herman rules that both partners have a mutual > partnership agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. > Indeed, an agreement which the slave has failed to misrepresent. I rule MI. The explanation will not fit the hand. > (b) If it is The Master's partner who is first to bid 1NT, holding cards > consistent with her 16-18 hcp balanced belief, Herman rules that both > partners have a mutual partnership agreement to play the strong 1NT. > Indeed, and since the Master will explain it as Hoffmeister, the explanation will again be wrong. I rule MI. > (c) Meanwhile, in both cases, a sensible Director assesses the self- > incriminating statements by The Master and The Master's partner to rule > under Law 85 that neither in case (a) nor in case (b) is there any mutual > partnership agreement. > And rule MI. So where is the DwS different from the sensible one? Not different at all! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 23 09:42:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:42:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills earlier assertion: >(c) Meanwhile, in both cases, a sensible Director assesses the self- >incriminating statements by The Master and The Master's partner to rule >under Law 85 that neither in case (a) nor in case (b) is there any >mutual partnership agreement. Richard Hills later clarification: Only in the initial case of disagreement between The Master and his partner is there zero partnership agreement. For subsequent iterations of disagreement there is now _asymmetrical_ partnership understandings. For example, in one of my regular partnerships, for the first twelve months my partner and I had a notional explicit partnership agreement that 2NT was lebensohl after partner doubled an opposing weak two bid. I always remembered lebensohl, but for the first twelve months of our partnership my partner almost always forgot lebensohl. (She is highly intelligent with a good memory, but lebensohl happened to collide with a quirk in her visualisation of our system.) So we had an asymmetrical partnership understanding that my 2NT was always artificial (and usually weakly competing for the partscore) while pard's 2NT was almost always natural (with invitational to game strength). Of course, I fully explained our implicit asymmetrical agreement to the opponents, and dutifully bid to disaster whenever I gained UI from partner's failure to alert. The good news is that in the second year of our partnership my partner is now bidding consistent with the system. The bad news is that I am now perpetrating copious unforced errors, thus I single-handedly dragged our partnership to twelfth place out of twelve in the recent ACT Open Trials. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 23 10:09:02 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:09:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070420112138.02eccea0@pop.starpower.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070423100752.0221bdb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:14 20/04/2007 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:29 AM 4/19/07, Karel wrote: > > >You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you >abrogate any claim to have been misinformed. You are perfectly >entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to >your advantage at the table. That's the case here: you made a tactical >decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the >chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding. In return, >you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the >point you knew for sure that you had been given some. Nice >try. Better luck next time. Please note that this will allow any pair to write down any falsehood on their CC as long as the bid is in fact natural and they don't alert. I don't like this. Regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 23 12:22:52 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:22:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be><000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> <462C4FBD.5000600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003e01c78591$74e97ec0$d9c287d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "The searcher's eye not seldom finds more than he wished to find." G.E. Lessing (1779) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan does not clear up the question we are all having. > > Of course we know that there can be cases where the non-prior > disclosure carries its own damage. Even a correctly alerted and > explained call can still cause damage if the opponents were not > informed before the deal started that a particular convention was > being used, because by now it is too late to agree on specific > defensive methods against the call. > > The question that we were asking however, was if this infraction is a > different one than a simple misexplanation. The laws seem to say that > it is illegal to use an agreement without prior disclosure. < +=+ Now this last is a statement that I question. Law 40A permits any call not based upon a partnership understanding without prior announcement. It also implies that there should be prior announcement of 'a partnership understanding'. However, there is evidently a distinction to be made between this and a 'special partnership understanding' to which 40B refers. To be 'special' an understanding has to be 'additional to what is normal and general' (CoP). I draw from all of this that whilst under 40A there should be prior disclosure of understandings that are not additional to what is normal and general - as much as is basic to and covered by the system named on the card - special understandings to which 40B refers are to be disclosed as the SO requires. The partnership may not be required by the SO's regulations to disclose some of these in advance but only by an alert/announcement when the call is made. Making a call without prior disclosure when this is required is an infraction. Misinformation (including failure to alert when required) is an infraction, whether prior disclosure was required or not. Damage may result from an infraction of either type. I have not been following the detail of this topic closely but possibly those who have will be able to determine from this what my position would be. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 23 15:19:05 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:19:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> Forwarded from Laval at his request; he is having server difficulties. >From: "Laval Dubreuil" > >Hi all: > >South has something like: >S K x x >H A x >D K J 10 x x >C J x > > N E S W >1NT 2D X 2H > P P 3NT > >1NT = 15-17 HPC >E was playing Capelletti-Hamilton, as written >on his CC. W forgot the alert (ACBL land). >With 5 Spades and 4 Hearts, E led H and the >contract is no more possible. On a S lead, N >has 9 tricks. > >South then called the TD and ask for a score >adjustment. He said, having been alerted, he >should have call 3NT instead of X. Then W should >P and E would make the "normal" S lead. > >Context: club level, 4 experienced players at >table, most players play "something" after 1NT >(Capp., Astro, DONT, etc...). > >Your ruling ? > >Same ruling in any context: N-S are beginners, > tournament, etc... ? > >Is there any "obligation" (in ACBL land or elsewhere) >for S to protect himself and ask about 2D if he knows >that most players play this as conventional ? > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 23 15:36:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:36:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003e01c78591$74e97ec0$d9c287d9@Hellen> References: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be><000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> <462C4FBD.5000600@skynet.be> <003e01c78591$74e97ec0$d9c287d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <462CB67B.5010503@skynet.be> Hello Grattan, nice to receive a reply so promptly. It appears you have not understood the precise question I was asking. Let me interject some comments: Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> The question that we were asking however, was if this infraction is a >> different one than a simple misexplanation. The laws seem to say that >> it is illegal to use an agreement without prior disclosure. > < > +=+ Now this last is a statement that I question. That is good to hear, I have also not interpreted it that way. > Law 40A permits > any call not based upon a partnership understanding without prior > announcement. It also implies that there should be prior announcement > of 'a partnership understanding'. However, there is evidently a distinction > to be made between this and a 'special partnership understanding' to > which 40B refers. To be 'special' an understanding has to be 'additional > to what is normal and general' (CoP). I draw from all of this that whilst > under 40A there should be prior disclosure of understandings that are > not additional to what is normal and general - as much as is basic to and > covered by the system named on the card - special understandings to > which 40B refers are to be disclosed as the SO requires. The partnership > may not be required by the SO's regulations to disclose some of these in > advance but only by an alert/announcement when the call is made. I don't think there is any difference between partnership understandings and "special" partnership understandings, but that is not the problem I am asking about. > Making a call without prior disclosure when this is required is an > infraction. OK so far. > Misinformation (including failure to alert when required) is an > infraction, whether prior disclosure was required or not. Also OK. > Damage may > result from an infraction of either type. Indeed. > I have not been following the > detail > of this topic closely but possibly those who have will be able to determine > from this what my position would be. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well, the question is simply : are these two infractions one and the same, or not. Some people seem to think that there are 2 different infractions: misinformation and illegal use of a non-pre-disclosed convention. If that is true, then the first would be penalized by an AS based on correct information, while the second would be adjusted based on the call not being made. I believe that interpretation is false, and there is only one infraction: that of misinformation. Damage from misinformation may come in two forms: either from being misinformed at the table, or from not having been able to agree on defences. But both kinds are treated in the same manner by the director, who gives an AS based on the call being made, but correctly understood by opponents. Please tell me, Grattan, if that interpretation conforms to your ideas. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 23 15:50:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:50:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <462C50D1.8090802@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423094513.02ad6300@pop.starpower.net> At 02:23 AM 4/23/07, Herman wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > > >>> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in > the CC, > >>> quite often in partnerships one player is The Master. The Master > issues > >>> the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". Then The > > Master > >>> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC. And meanwhile The Master's > partner > >>> has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, > which > >>> means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the > Hoffmeister > >>> 1NT. > > > > Herman De Wael: > > > >> exactly. > >> > >> Richard, almost a DwS type argument! > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > No, unless by "almost" you mean "totally different". Under the De Wael > > School, determining whether or not a _mutual_ partnership agreement > exists > > is solely dependent on what an _individual_ partner does. > >Yes, but both individuals together make up the partnership. So it is >the partnership's actions which are being checked: > > > (a) If it is The Master who is first to bid 1NT, holding cards > consistent > > with his Hoffmeister belief, Herman rules that both partners have a > mutual > > partnership agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. > >Indeed, an agreement which the slave has failed to misrepresent. I >rule MI. The explanation will not fit the hand. > > > (b) If it is The Master's partner who is first to bid 1NT, holding > cards > > consistent with her 16-18 hcp balanced belief, Herman rules that both > > partners have a mutual partnership agreement to play the strong 1NT. > >Indeed, and since the Master will explain it as Hoffmeister, the >explanation will again be wrong. I rule MI. > > > (c) Meanwhile, in both cases, a sensible Director assesses the self- > > incriminating statements by The Master and The Master's partner to rule > > under Law 85 that neither in case (a) nor in case (b) is there any > mutual > > partnership agreement. > >And rule MI. >So where is the DwS different from the sensible one? > >Not different at all! If there is damage from the MI, L12C2 requires the TD to ascertain what might have occured "had the irregularity not occurred". For Herman, that would mean had the opponents been correctly informed as to the nature of the 1NT opening. For Richard, that would mean had the opponents been correctly informed that there was no partnership agreement. ISTM that could lead to rulings that were very different indeed. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 23 16:48:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:48:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423094513.02ad6300@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423094513.02ad6300@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <462CC726.4090604@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:23 AM 4/23/07, Herman wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>>>> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in >> the CC, >>>>> quite often in partnerships one player is The Master. The Master >> issues >>>>> the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention". Then The >>> Master >>>>> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC. And meanwhile The Master's >> partner >>>>> has zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, >> which >>>>> means that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the >> Hoffmeister >>>>> 1NT. >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> exactly. >>>> >>>> Richard, almost a DwS type argument! >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> No, unless by "almost" you mean "totally different". Under the De Wael >>> School, determining whether or not a _mutual_ partnership agreement >> exists >>> is solely dependent on what an _individual_ partner does. >> Yes, but both individuals together make up the partnership. So it is >> the partnership's actions which are being checked: >> >>> (a) If it is The Master who is first to bid 1NT, holding cards >> consistent >>> with his Hoffmeister belief, Herman rules that both partners have a >> mutual >>> partnership agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT. >> Indeed, an agreement which the slave has failed to misrepresent. I >> rule MI. The explanation will not fit the hand. >> >>> (b) If it is The Master's partner who is first to bid 1NT, holding >> cards >>> consistent with her 16-18 hcp balanced belief, Herman rules that both >>> partners have a mutual partnership agreement to play the strong 1NT. >> Indeed, and since the Master will explain it as Hoffmeister, the >> explanation will again be wrong. I rule MI. >> >>> (c) Meanwhile, in both cases, a sensible Director assesses the self- >>> incriminating statements by The Master and The Master's partner to rule >>> under Law 85 that neither in case (a) nor in case (b) is there any >> mutual >>> partnership agreement. >> And rule MI. >> So where is the DwS different from the sensible one? >> >> Not different at all! > > If there is damage from the MI, L12C2 requires the TD to ascertain what > might have occured "had the irregularity not occurred". For Herman, > that would mean had the opponents been correctly informed as to the > nature of the 1NT opening. For Richard, that would mean had the > opponents been correctly informed that there was no partnership > agreement. ISTM that could lead to rulings that were very different > indeed. > OK, I grant you - that is different. However, Richard would have his players say something like "We have written down Hoffmeister, but my partner always forgets that" (or in the other direction "but I always forget that"). That, to me, is equivalent to saying "my partner has the natural meaning of 1NT in his hand". Which is the explanation I would be expecting and I would be ruling upon. So while the wording might be different, I believe the final ruling would be the same. Full information requires (IMO) that opponents be told as much as possible about the hand - within the bounds of reasonable system of course. Then, I don't care whether the explanation is "he always forgets the system" or "he has a natural 1NT". The two, ultimately, are the same, because if he has forgotten the system, the partner still knows more than the opponents about the alternative he has fallen back on, and that alternative has to be disclosed. So as soon as you refrain from ruling "misbid, because the CC confirms the explanation", you arrive at the same AS regardless of the way you want the real explanation to be expressed. IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 23 16:51:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:51:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <462CC804.8070107@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Same ruling in any context: N-S are beginners, >> tournament, etc... ? >> >> Is there any "obligation" (in ACBL land or elsewhere) >> for S to protect himself and ask about 2D if he knows >> that most players play this as conventional ? >> Yes, since this situation is not the same as the one we had recently. Here it is clear to the whole table (almost), that the missing alert is an irregularity. To believe that it is natural would be (depending on the persons involved) irrational. And yes, that ruling would be different when playing against people you do not know for certain to be playing "something". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 23 14:03:30 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:03:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be><000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> <462C4E35.2070204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c78610$17ac6040$f307e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> +=+ If the slave >> has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement >> that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave >> has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has >> committed himself to that partnership agreement. No >> matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of >> the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable >> for the consequences of his ignorance. > > And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and > misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find > this a misbid? I don't! > +=+ Cries of "convention disruption"! But really, Herman, I am a very old man and you must explain to me patiently why Law 75, footnote example 2, does not apply here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Apr 24 04:51:01 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:51:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Announcements Message-ID: <462D7095.206@NTLworld.com> The EBU's latest Orange book laid down new disclosure rules. For example... You announce the meaning of some bids when partner makes them e.g. [A] 1N opener: "12-14" then 2C "Stayman" 2D "Hearts" 2H "spades" [B] Natural two bids: "Strong forcing or nonforcing" or "intermediate" or weak. The alerting rules were change again... [C] Below 3N you alert doubles of a suit unless takeout; doubles of NT unless penalty. [D] Above 3N you alert only conventional opening bids, passes and doubles. We players often get rules [A] and [B] right (although sometimes we announce the strength of 1N overcalls and 2N openers; we also sometimes mistakenly announce transfers after 1N overcalls and when 1N is doubled). Rule [C] is less successful. For instance... [a] Many players agree that (1H)P(1N)X is for takeout but few alert it. [b] Many players agree that (1N)X(2H)X is for penalties but few alert it. IMO, there is a simple solution: Announce "takeout" if partner's double is mainly takeout. Announce "penalty" if partner's double is mainly penalty. If the double means something else, then alert. The most welcome innovation is rule [D]. Judging by the frequency of messy misunderstandings, it is also the most effective in reducing unauthorised information. Although players haven't yet learnt when to alert passes and doubles. Since [D] is so successful, law-makers should try the effect of going the whole hog -- completely eliminate alerts at all levels -- and substitute (optional) announcements (below 3N). i.e. [i] When partner makes a call that you would currently alert, announce it instead. [ii] Unless opponents ask you *not* to announce, in which case they can enjoy a speedy auction with reduced unauthorised information. As previously argued, if this were the default law in TFLB. the game would be simpler fairer and faster. (With screens the "announcements" would be with pencil and paper by both partners). From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 24 10:55:36 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:55:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070424104505.0221ad80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:19 23/04/2007 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Forwarded from Laval at his request; he is having server difficulties. > > >From: "Laval Dubreuil" > > > >Hi all: > > > >South has something like: > >S K x x > >H A x > >D K J 10 x x > >C J x > > > > N E S W > >1NT 2D X 2H > > P P 3NT > > > >1NT = 15-17 HPC > >E was playing Capelletti-Hamilton, as written > >on his CC. W forgot the alert (ACBL land). > >With 5 Spades and 4 Hearts, E led H and the > >contract is no more possible. On a S lead, N > >has 9 tricks. > > > >South then called the TD and ask for a score > >adjustment. He said, having been alerted, he > >should have call 3NT instead of X. Then W should > >P and E would make the "normal" S lead. > > >Is there any "obligation" (in ACBL land or elsewhere) > >for S to protect himself and ask about 2D if he knows > >that most players play this as conventional ? I've already told how bad I feel about this obligation. Asking about a non-alerted bid will always create UI that you suspect the bid of being artificial. "obligation to protect oneself" should be strictly restricted to cases where there was an alert and you didn't ask, or cases where you need a specific item of information and it was easy to get without delivering UI (as in e.g. they play lebensohl, but you need to know whether it's l-fast or l-slow). South's case is strong. Adjust, perhaps to 75% of the score for a spade lead and 25% of the score for a heart lead, depending East's holdings in the majors. Also note that there are conventional defenses against 1NT where 2D is natural nevertheless. One of them is Economical Asptro, based on an idea from Gary (?) Vrooman, where Double shows spades and another suit, and 2C shows hearts and another suit. There are variations, but in some of them, 2D is natural. (I play this with some partners) Therefore, the argument about conventional defenses doesn't hold. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 24 10:58:29 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:58:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML In-Reply-To: <462CC804.8070107@skynet.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070424105556.0221dea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:51 23/04/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Yes, since this situation is not the same as the one we had recently. >Here it is clear to the whole table (almost), that the missing alert >is an irregularity. To believe that it is natural would be (depending >on the persons involved) irrational. Don't agree. I'm gadgetopathic, you know that, but I play 2D as natural. If they enquired after the non-alert, I'd be prone to consider this irregular. Why is it irrational to think that there is one natural bid in opponents' system ? Especially as they didn't alert ... Regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 24 11:09:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:09:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c78610$17ac6040$f307e150@Mildred> References: <4629C1BB.5040206@skynet.be><000201c78539$e0f82f60$fdeb403e@Mildred> <462C4E35.2070204@skynet.be> <000401c78610$17ac6040$f307e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <462DC962.8080309@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Truth often suffers more by the > heat of its defenders than from the > arguments of its opposers." > ~ William Penn. > =============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:12 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Any redress or rub of > the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> +=+ If the slave >>> has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement >>> that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave >>> has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has >>> committed himself to that partnership agreement. No >>> matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of >>> the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable >>> for the consequences of his ignorance. >> And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and >> misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find >> this a misbid? I don't! >> > +=+ Cries of "convention disruption"! > But really, Herman, I am a very old man and you must > explain to me patiently why Law 75, footnote example 2, > does not apply here. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This is not really my argument, but Richard's. Basically Richard says that if a Master makes a convention card, but the Slave forgets to read it, then there is not agreement, despite what the CC says. The TD should look at all the evidence and the CC is only one of those. But I refer to Richard for the full explanation. I do agree with him, though. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 24 11:13:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:13:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070424105556.0221dea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070424105556.0221dea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <462DCA48.7050704@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 16:51 23/04/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Yes, since this situation is not the same as the one we had recently. >> Here it is clear to the whole table (almost), that the missing alert >> is an irregularity. To believe that it is natural would be (depending >> on the persons involved) irrational. > > Don't agree. I'm gadgetopathic, you know that, but I play 2D as natural. > If they enquired after the non-alert, I'd be prone to consider this > irregular. Why is it irrational to think that there is one natural bid > in opponents' system ? Especially as they didn't alert ... > That is not what was said in the original, where it was described that everybody plays "something". But yet again, this is not a case that is similar to the one recently described. By asking, one does not wake up opponents, nor does one give useful UI to partner - so why should one not ask? If the non-alertable meaning is the most unexpected one, then surely it can be no surprise to partner that one is surprised at the non-alert being true? Nor does it provide any more indication than if it had been alerted and asked? > Regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 24 11:32:54 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:32:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462DC962.8080309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c78653$892fb080$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > >>> +=+ If the slave > >>> has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement > >>> that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave > >>> has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has > >>> committed himself to that partnership agreement. No > >>> matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of > >>> the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable > >>> for the consequences of his ignorance. > >> And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and > >> misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find > >> this a misbid? I don't! > >> > > +=+ Cries of "convention disruption"! > > But really, Herman, I am a very old man and you must > > explain to me patiently why Law 75, footnote example 2, > > does not apply here. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > This is not really my argument, but Richard's. > > Basically Richard says that if a Master makes a convention card, but > the Slave forgets to read it, then there is not agreement, despite > what the CC says. The TD should look at all the evidence and the CC is > only one of those. But I refer to Richard for the full explanation. I > do agree with him, though. The CC is a written declaration on your system agreements. Do I understand your position correct that a player shall not be bound by what he has issued in writing to his opponents on the ground that he has not read it? A parallel situation would be that you deny being bound by a contract you have signed because you haven't really read it before signing? To me both positions sound ridiculous. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 24 13:05:29 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:05:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c78653$892fb080$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c78653$892fb080$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <462DE479.80609@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >>>>> +=+ If the slave >>>>> has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement >>>>> that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave >>>>> has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has >>>>> committed himself to that partnership agreement. No >>>>> matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of >>>>> the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable >>>>> for the consequences of his ignorance. >>>> And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and >>>> misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find >>>> this a misbid? I don't! >>>> >>> +=+ Cries of "convention disruption"! >>> But really, Herman, I am a very old man and you must >>> explain to me patiently why Law 75, footnote example 2, >>> does not apply here. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> This is not really my argument, but Richard's. >> >> Basically Richard says that if a Master makes a convention card, but >> the Slave forgets to read it, then there is not agreement, despite >> what the CC says. The TD should look at all the evidence and the CC is >> only one of those. But I refer to Richard for the full explanation. I >> do agree with him, though. > > The CC is a written declaration on your system agreements. Do I understand > your position correct that a player shall not be bound by what he has issued > in writing to his opponents on the ground that he has not read it? > > A parallel situation would be that you deny being bound by a contract you > have signed because you haven't really read it before signing? > > To me both positions sound ridiculous. Yes, they do. But the first is really not fair: You are using the "contract", that you haven't read, not as something you are bound by, but as something you defend yourself with! In fact what you are doing is this: you are misinforming opponents, and then you take a piece of paper and prove thereby that you have not been lying. When the piece of paper has never been read by the guy making the (supposedly wrong) bid. I don't feel good by that. And I'm looking for something to counter this with. Why are you against me for wanting to have more "honest" bridge being played? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 24 12:14:31 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:14:31 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fwd=3A_Transfer_to_BLML?= References: <462DCA48.7050704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <462DD886.000001.35899@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael That is not what was said in the original, where it was described that everybody plays "something". AG : and I repeat that there are pairs playing "something", yet playing 2D as natural. But yet again, this is not a case that is similar to the one recently described. By asking, one does not wake up opponents, nor does one give useful UI to partner - so why should one not ask? AG : because there is some jurisprudency that, by asking about a non-alerted call, one transmits the UI that one holds the suit. For example, the ruling made by an AC at the Bulo tournament (1999 ?), that included HdW and AG. Nor does it provide any more indication than if it had been alerted and asked? AG : unless there wasn't any reason to alert. Of course, you may have good reason, looking at your hand, that 2D was artificial, but that's precisely why you shouldn't ask : you tell partner you have good reason. Surely you wouldn't have asked if you held a small doubleton diamond. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070424/7534229b/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/20070424/7534229b/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070424/7534229b/attachment-0001.gif From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 24 14:10:00 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:10:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462DE479.80609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c78669$7bc785b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > > The CC is a written declaration on your system agreements. > > Do I understand your position correct that a player shall > > not be bound by what he has issued in writing to his > > opponents on the ground that he has not read it? > > > > A parallel situation would be that you deny being bound > > by a contract you have signed because you haven't really > > read it before signing? > > > > To me both positions sound ridiculous. > > Yes, they do. > But the first is really not fair: You are using the "contract", that > you haven't read, not as something you are bound by, but as something > you defend yourself with! > > In fact what you are doing is this: you are misinforming opponents, > and then you take a piece of paper and prove thereby that you have not > been lying. When the piece of paper has never been read by the guy > making the (supposedly wrong) bid. > > I don't feel good by that. And I'm looking for something to counter > this with. Why are you against me for wanting to have more "honest" > bridge being played? No, I am not against you on that desire. And as I have already stated before: If "overwhelming" evidence is provided to the effect that the CC is incorrect I shall also rule accordingly. (The most common situation I know for this to occur is when a partnership has changed an agreement but failed to correct their CC correspondingly). That much said I still consider the CC as the best evidence of the agreements whenever there is any doubt and I expect any partnership to treat their CC seriously. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 24 14:30:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:30:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c78669$7bc785b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c78669$7bc785b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <462DF84F.6040101@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ........... >>> The CC is a written declaration on your system agreements. >>> Do I understand your position correct that a player shall >>> not be bound by what he has issued in writing to his >>> opponents on the ground that he has not read it? >>> >>> A parallel situation would be that you deny being bound >>> by a contract you have signed because you haven't really >>> read it before signing? >>> >>> To me both positions sound ridiculous. >> Yes, they do. >> But the first is really not fair: You are using the "contract", that >> you haven't read, not as something you are bound by, but as something >> you defend yourself with! >> >> In fact what you are doing is this: you are misinforming opponents, >> and then you take a piece of paper and prove thereby that you have not >> been lying. When the piece of paper has never been read by the guy >> making the (supposedly wrong) bid. >> >> I don't feel good by that. And I'm looking for something to counter >> this with. Why are you against me for wanting to have more "honest" >> bridge being played? > > No, I am not against you on that desire. And as I have already stated > before: If "overwhelming" evidence is provided to the effect that the CC is > incorrect I shall also rule accordingly. (The most common situation I know > for this to occur is when a partnership has changed an agreement but failed > to correct their CC correspondingly). > There, you see? You will also occasionally rule against the CC being correct. OK? So stop criticizing me when I do the same. Or rather, Richard does. > That much said I still consider the CC as the best evidence of the > agreements whenever there is any doubt and I expect any partnership to treat > their CC seriously. > Of course, did we ever say anything else? I fear you have fallen for the same mistake that occurs often on blml, Sven. You have picked up on a later message in a thread and assumed people were talking generally, when in fact they were talking about a particular exceptional case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 24 15:13:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:13:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070424105556.0221dea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <462CC804.8070107@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070424090750.02ad1ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:58 AM 4/24/07, Alain wrote: >Don't agree. I'm gadgetopathic, you know that, but I play 2D as >natural. If >they enquired after the non-alert, I'd be prone to consider this >irregular. >Why is it irrational to think that there is one natural bid in opponents' >system ? Especially as they didn't alert ... In high-level competition against well-known experts not long ago: LHO: 1NT Pard: 2C Me: (silent) RHO: 15-second pause. Burst of laughter. In shocked tone of voice, "That's really NATURAL?" Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 25 01:43:05 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:43:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! Message-ID: So one local club owner/TD has told me - and so she can. But that doesn't necessarily make it legal. :-) Here's the deal: At one table in today's game (14 table skip mitchell, a two winner movement), a pair of good players were doing fairly well (estimated about a 60% game so far). Then one of the players disappeared for a time (I suspect it was a call of nature). TD sat in on the first hand of the round, "to keep the game moving". RHO opens 1H. Holding Kxx AQ9x J AQJxx, our TD flips a coin between pass and 2C, and decides to pass, hoping partner will protect with a double. Lo, the hand is passed out, the real North player returns, and the opponents make 1H (barely) for a top. They score it up and move on. So far, no problem. But... our TD is unhappy because she feels she's thrown a monkey wrench into her friends' good game. So she decides to adjust the score. She ends up letting the declaring side keep their top, and giving the defenders 6 matchpoints (of 11) for just over an average. In the end, the defenders ended up with a 50% game. TD felt better, having giving them something for her mistake. Did she do the right thing? NB: I was neither playing nor directing at this game - I was just visiting. The TD didn't ask me for my opinion, so I didn't offer one. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 25 02:47:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:47:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462DC962.8080309@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>And if he subsequently forgets the convention, and >>>misuses it, and the master "correctly" explains, you find >>>this a misbid? I don't! Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Cries of "convention disruption"! >> But really, Herman, I am a very old man and you must >>explain to me patiently why Law 75, footnote example 2, >>does not apply here. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael: >This is not really my argument, but Richard's. [snip] >But I refer to Richard for the full explanation. I do agree >with him, though. Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), during the Peninsular War, dispatch of 29 August 1810: "When I reflect upon the characters and attainments of some of the general officers of this army, and consider that these are the persons on whom I am to rely to lead columns against the French, I tremble; and as Lord Chesterfield said of the generals of his day, 'I only hope that when the enemy reads the list of their names, he trembles as I do.'" [Usually misquoted as, "I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."] Richard Hills: Indeed I tremble upon General De Wael agreeing with me. :-) However, it seems to me that Herman has slightly misquoted my argument by using the phrase "subsequently forgets", which implies "initially understood". One cannot forget an agreement one never learned in the first place. My argument is that the footnote example 2 of Law 75 should be read in conjunction with Law 75B. It is legal to forget or misuse an agreement if such forgetting or misuse is not habitual. But if one _habitually_ forgets or misuses a notional explicit agreement, then a new actual implicit agreement supersedes the previous agreement. Detailed advice on how habit creates superseding implicit agreements is in the WBF Code of Practice, pages 7 and 8. Some relevant quotes: "Where the same explanation of a call is given to both members of the opposing side, it being subsequently confirmed that both members of the side giving the explanation agree this is its correct meaning (and there is no conflict with information on the convention card), if the hand to which the explanation relates is materially different from the explanation the matter should be dealt with under the laws and regulations concerned with psychic action." "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or (c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or (d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic call." Richard Hills: So, in the stem case of this thread, a 3C overcall was described on the CC as a Ghestem two-suiter, but actually was a club one-suiter. Had habit caused an implicit two- way agreement of clubs or Ghestem to develop, or was the 3C overcall merely a misbid? In my opinion, the Director should have undertaken some detailed investigation pursuant to the Director's powers under Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts). In my opinion, it is highly plausible that a prior history of Ghestem forgetfulness created an implicit agreement under clause (a) and/or clause (b) above. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 25 03:13:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:13:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Then one of the players disappeared for a time (I suspect it >was a call of nature). > >TD sat in on the first hand of the round, "to keep the game >moving". 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.' Law 81C4: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to maintain discipline and to insure the orderly progress of the game." Richard Hills: So the TD created an ad hoc condition of play under Law 81C3 for a temporary substitution. And this Law 81C3 ruling was consistent with the Law 81C4 requirement to insure the orderly progress of the game. What's the problem? Ed Reppert: >a pair of good players were doing fairly well (estimated >about a 60% game so far). ... >But... our TD is unhappy because she feels she's thrown a >monkey wrench into her friends' good game. So she decides to >adjust the score. She ends up letting the declaring side >keep their top, and giving the defenders 6 matchpoints (of >11) for just over an average. ... >TD felt better, having giving them something for her >mistake. Did she do the right thing? Law 82C: "If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non- offending for that purpose." Richard Hills: So the TD discovered a flaw in her previous Law 81C3 / 81C4 ruling, since her ruling had placed too much emphasis on the orderly progress of the game and not enough emphasis on ensuring that the substitute was of a similar standard to the substituted player. And her new Law 82C ruling did treat both players as non-offending (note that Law 82C says "adjusted score", not "artificial adjusted score", so there is no requirement that both of the non-offending sides must get a score of at least 60%). What's the problem? Of course, if I had been Director, rather than create an ad hoc Law 81C3 regulation, I would have enforced Law 81C4 via the Law 81B2 power to postpone the play of a board until the end of the session. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Apr 25 04:16:32 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:16:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Filling in the movement References: Message-ID: <009501c786df$be7535d0$6400a8c0@rota> How would you rule in this situation? Players were seated for Flights A and B, hand records had come out, and the boards were being made in both flights. The TD discovered that both flights had a half table, and asked for a Flight B pair to volunteer to play in Flight A. One pair did so, but they were scheduled to play the two boards they had just made in the first round. The TD found a substitute pair, which played the two boards. How do you score the boards for the pair that moved up? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 25 06:43:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:43:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E156434-BC7A-4D94-8D91-E658A8A40181@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 24, 2007, at 9:13 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > What's the problem? I didn't say there is one. :-) She's "of a similar standard" in this case. I think she just had a "senior moment". :-) > Of course, if I had been Director, rather than create an ad > hoc Law 81C3 regulation, I would have enforced Law 81C4 via > the Law 81B2 power to postpone the play of a board until the > end of the session. Yeah, well, that happens about once every other blue moon around here. This TD in particular does not like having to deal with late plays. It is usual here for a TD to sit in for a player who needs to be away from the table for some reason. I've done it myself. It is not usual for the TD who does that to adjust the score upwards when she sits in for a friend of hers on a board and the table result is poor. That's what bothered me about it - I don't know that she did anything wrong, exactly, it's just that it doesn't feel right to me. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 25 09:47:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:47:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c78669$7bc785b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <462DF84F.6040101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <462F079A.3090404@skynet.be> Karel wrote: > I'll be honest guys - I think you are leaving yourself wide open and > also as a result of allowing the CC to be incorrect you now have to > deal with multiple side issues.... > > What is wrong with simply saying the CC is where the buck stops. I > simply cannot concieve of any reason why a CC should not at all times > be up to date. Even if this means scribbled out bits etc ... there is > simply no reason why it should not be 100% current. If players cant > get a CC right well maybe they shouldnt be playing !! > > Once you make take this extremely reasonable step, rulings are much > easier and I dare say will be more consistent. > I have some sympathy with Karel's proposal, but: > At some stage enough is enough, you can't keep molly cuddling the players. > This is totally wrong! We are not molly-coddling! We are ruling against them despite their explanation conforming to the CC. Please don't forget also, Karel, that while the lawbook says we should rule MI if the explanation does not conform to the CC, the lawbook is silent about the reverse. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 25 15:16:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:16:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green In-Reply-To: References: <462DC962.8080309@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070425090810.02ad1490@pop.starpower.net> At 08:47 PM 4/24/07, richard.hills wrote: >Detailed advice on how habit creates superseding implicit >agreements is in the WBF Code of Practice, pages 7 and 8. >Some relevant quotes: > >"Where the same explanation of a call is given to both >members of the opposing side, it being subsequently >confirmed that both members of the side giving the >explanation agree this is its correct meaning (and there is >no conflict with information on the convention card), if >the hand to which the explanation relates is materially >different from the explanation the matter should be dealt >with under the laws and regulations concerned with psychic >action." > >"A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly >agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist >because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number >of circumstances. To deem that such an implicit >understanding exists it must be determined that the partner >of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that >in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will >be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of >the following circumstances is established: [...] >(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the >partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, >that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such >psychic calls to occur; [...] I'm not sure how to interpret this. It seems to say that if one has gained a reputation for psyching frequently (of which one's partner is aware), any attempt to psych will be treated as the exercise of an implicit partnership understanding, even if the context for the psych is unprecedented. That would mean that a known frequent psycher may not -- indeed, presumptively can not -- psych ever, at least until his reputation for doing so frequently has been forgotten. 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 Apr 26 00:49:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:49:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20070425090810.02ad1490@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice: >>(c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the >>partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, >>that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such >>psychic calls to occur; Eric Landau: >I'm not sure how to interpret this. It seems to say that if >one has gained a reputation for psyching frequently (of >which one's partner is aware), any attempt to psych will be >treated as the exercise of an implicit partnership >understanding, even if the context for the psych is >unprecedented. That would mean that a known frequent >psycher may not -- indeed, presumptively can not -- psych >ever, at least until his reputation for doing so frequently >has been forgotten. Richard Hills: In my opinion Eric Landau has misinterpreted this clause of the WBF Code of Practice. It seems to me that Eric has read "partner is clearly aware of the tendency for psychic calls to occur" when the actual wording is "partner is clearly aware of the tendency for **such** psychic calls to occur". The word "such" makes a big difference in meaning. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "such, adj. Of the kind or degree indicated by context or circumstances" Richard Hills: For example, suppose the auction frequently and recently proceeded 3C - (Double) - 3H. And suppose that 3H was nationally natural with strong values, but was actually a "baby psyche" with short hearts and weak values. Then "such" an auction as 3D - (Double) - 3S, even if "such" an auction had never been previously "baby psyched", would be deemed to be an implicit agreement if it was baby psyched for the first time. But an entirely different style of psyche, for example a psyche where one chose to pass as dealer with a 4-7-2-0 shape and 17 hcp, would not be "such" a psyche as a "baby psyche", so would not be deemed an implicit agreement under clause (c) above merely because it was perpetrated by a known "baby psycher". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 26 01:01:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:01:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462F079A.3090404@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the >explanation does not conform to the CC... Richard Hills: My lawbook lacks that clause. It seems to me that Herman's personal copy of the Laws is riddled with typos, what with his previous announcements that misdescribing your agreements (or lack thereof) is not contrary to what is written in the Laws. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 26 05:31:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:31:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Filling in the movement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009501c786df$be7535d0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] >The TD found a substitute pair, which played the two boards. How do you >score the boards for the pair that moved up? Richard Hills: In normal circumstances Law 15 would apply, and the pair that moved up would keep their scores from when they first played the boards. In this case, however, the pair that moved up have transferred between two separate events, moving from a Flight B event to a Flight A event. So their Flight B scores are not relevant. Ergo, as Director I would rule that Law 16B2 applied, with the scores achieved by the substitute pair being the scores awarded to the pair that moved up. Note that under Law 16B2 the Director lacks the power to insert a substitute pair unless none of the four players objects. If any one of the players did object, then - since the Law 16B2 ruling was caused by the Director for organisational reasons - both pairs are non-offending, so both pairs are entitled to an Ave+ score under Law 16B3. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 26 06:07:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:07:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462CB67B.5010503@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: [snip] >Some people seem to think that there are 2 different infractions: >misinformation and illegal use of a non-pre-disclosed convention. > >If that is true, then the first would be penalized by an AS based >on correct information, while the second would be adjusted based >on the call not being made. > >I believe that interpretation is false, and there is only one >infraction: that of misinformation. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion there could be _three_ different informational infractions. (1) A sponsoring organisation could permit a particular convention to be used without prior disclosure, instead merely requiring contemporaneous disclosure via an alert (or an announcement). If such an alert was not made, and the lack of an alert caused damage to the non-offending side, then the score should be adjusted on the basis of the call being alerted (a Herman De Wael adjustment). (2) A sponsoring organisation could ban a particular convention under its Law 40D powers. If a pair used that banned convention it is not relevant whether they concealed or revealed their banned agreement - either way the score should be adjusted on the basis of the call not being made (a "some people" adjustment). (3) For the Aussie Interstate Teams, pairs are conditionally permitted to use Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) conventions, but provided that their opponents are given some weeks' notice of these HUM conventions. In that case, a pair who attempted to use a HUM convention without the required pre-disclosure are, in effect, playing a banned convention (since the HUM convention was merely conditionally declared legal for the event). Ergo, if the non- offending side was damaged, the score should be adjusted on the basis of the call not being made (another "some people" adjustment). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 26 10:01:46 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:01:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46305C6A.3000507@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> ...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the >> explanation does not conform to the CC... > > Richard Hills: > > My lawbook lacks that clause. Footnote to law 75, perhaps? Permit me to shorten a sentence that everyone on this list has read 1000 times already to one with the same meaning. Besided, were we not on the same side of this argument? Do you really have to react to every little message I post and try to find reason to discredit me? That way ahead lies madness. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 26 10:08:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46305DF5.1000404@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > > [snip] > >> Some people seem to think that there are 2 different infractions: >> misinformation and illegal use of a non-pre-disclosed convention. >> >> If that is true, then the first would be penalized by an AS based >> on correct information, while the second would be adjusted based >> on the call not being made. >> >> I believe that interpretation is false, and there is only one >> infraction: that of misinformation. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > In my opinion there could be _three_ different informational > infractions. > > (1) A sponsoring organisation could permit a particular convention > to be used without prior disclosure, instead merely requiring > contemporaneous disclosure via an alert (or an announcement). If > such an alert was not made, and the lack of an alert caused damage > to the non-offending side, then the score should be adjusted on the > basis of the call being alerted (a Herman De Wael adjustment). > > (2) A sponsoring organisation could ban a particular convention > under its Law 40D powers. If a pair used that banned convention it > is not relevant whether they concealed or revealed their banned > agreement - either way the score should be adjusted on the basis > of the call not being made (a "some people" adjustment). > > (3) For the Aussie Interstate Teams, pairs are conditionally > permitted to use Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) conventions, but > provided that their opponents are given some weeks' notice of these > HUM conventions. In that case, a pair who attempted to use a HUM > convention without the required pre-disclosure are, in effect, > playing a banned convention (since the HUM convention was merely > conditionally declared legal for the event). Ergo, if the non- > offending side was damaged, the score should be adjusted on the > basis of the call not being made (another "some people" adjustment). > Exactly Richard, but neither (2) nor (3) are infractions of misinformation. The second type of misinformation I was alluding to, and which I said did not exist, was the kind of ruling that goes like this: 1C - what is that? - 17+. Ah, but we did not know that in advance! TD! yes? These people are playing strong clubs but they did not say so at the start of the round. Did you? No, sorry, we always do it, but we forgot this time. So, are you damaged? Yes, I feel we are, because I have not yet had the chance to agree on a defence against strong clubs with this partner. OK, I shall therefore rule that 1Cl is an illegal use of non-prior disclosed convention, and I shall award 40/60, since without a 1Cl opening, I have no way of knowing where the contract will go. That is IMO not a correct ruling, I need to stress! Yet, in a literal reading of L40, it might well be. What I am concerned about is if some of our readers continue to believe that this is what L40 says. BTW, I'm pretty certain that you don'tt think so, Richard. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 24 18:00:32 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:00:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML References: <462CC804.8070107@skynet.be><5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net><5.2.0.9.2.20070423091648.02ad0610@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20070424090750.02ad1ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c787f8$656bef00$2fa487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "The searcher's eye not seldom finds more than he wished to find." G.E. Lessing (1779) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML > In high-level competition against well-known experts not long ago: > > LHO: 1NT > Pard: 2C > Me: (silent) > RHO: 15-second pause. Burst of laughter. In shocked tone of voice, > "That's really NATURAL?" > +=+ "Altogether unnatural. It shows clubs." ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 26 15:10:40 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:10:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! References: Message-ID: <001801c78804$69626010$ed9b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "The searcher's eye not seldom finds more than he wished to find." G.E. Lessing (1779) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:43 AM Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! > So one local club owner/TD has told me - and so > she can. But that doesn't necessarily make it legal. :-) > +=+An interesting point. The Director has to bear in mind that he/she is the agent of the SO (Law 81A) and the ultimate responsibility for anything the Director does lies upon the SO. It is for the SO to control its Directors. So wearing the soutane of the TD the lady passes on the responsibility for what she has done to herself wearing the purple biretta of the SO. It is with this terrible prospect in mind that so many NBOs are desperate to relay the liability of the SO to the club for club level tournaments. ;-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 27 05:32:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:32:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2E156434-BC7A-4D94-8D91-E658A8A40181@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >It is usual here for a TD to sit in for a player who needs to be >away from the table for some reason. I've done it myself. It is >not usual for the TD who does that to adjust the score upwards >when she sits in for a friend of hers on a board and the table >result is poor. That's what bothered me about it - I don't know >that she did anything wrong, exactly, it's just that it doesn't >feel right to me. ABDA: AUSTRALIAN BRIDGE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS & PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES FOR TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS (adopted at ABDA AGM, 21st January, 1998) http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html This "Code of Ethics and Procedural Principles" is intended as a guide for Tournament Directors - Club, Congress, State and National - with regard to both ethical and performance standards that the ABDA believes should be the goal of Directors in all types of duplicate bridge sessions and tournaments. * A Tournament Director should aim to achieve equity for all players at all times and in all situations. Justice should not only be done, but it should also be seen to be done. [big snip] * A Tournament Director should consistently promote the principle of Active Ethics. In particular, he should always be impartial and not exhibit favouritism towards any player or players. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 27 06:06:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:06:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46305DF5.1000404@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >The second type of misinformation I was alluding to, >and which I said did not exist, was the kind of >ruling that goes like this: > >1C - what is that? - 17+. Ah, but we did not know >that in advance! TD! yes? These people are playing >strong clubs but they did not say so at the start of >the round. Did you? No, sorry, we always do it, but >we forgot this time. So, are you damaged? Yes, I >feel we are, because I have not yet had the chance >to agree on a defence against strong clubs with this >partner. OK, I shall therefore rule that 1Cl is an >illegal use of non-prior disclosed convention, and I >shall award 40/60, since without a 1Cl opening, I >have no way of knowing where the contract will go. > >That is IMO not a correct ruling, I need to stress! >Yet, in a literal reading of L40, it might well be. >What I am concerned about is if some of our readers >continue to believe that this is what L40 says. > >BTW, I'm pretty certain that you don't think so, >Richard. Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994, Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None 4 AQT9632 T5 A53 QJ962 K853 J7 54 6 AQJ987 KT876 2 AT7 K8 K432 QJ94 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H 1NT 3NT 4S 5H Pass Pass Pass Result: 5H went down one, +50 for East-West. Facts: East-West were playing a convention (the 1NT overcall) not shown on the convention card. North- South had no opportunity to prepare a defense. The players assured the Director that careful explanations were given and referred to a different convention card for that purpose. Their approved convention card did not show their methods correctly. The card had been made out in a hurry by a third party. They found when they arrived at the tournament that the card sent by their National Bridge Organization had not been received. Director's Ruling: When the Director (Schoder) was called, he cancelled the result and awarded three IMPs to North-South. An earlier board against a different pair in the same match was identified during which the same unregistered convention was used. That board was also cancelled and three IMPs awarded. The Director asked the Appeals Committee to review the facts. Committee Decision: The Committee noted that the pair were extremely experienced and should have been expected to know their responsibilities. They should not have been excused for the grave breach of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the methods on the convention card officially registered. They were barred from playing in the final segment of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of three IMPs to North-South on each of the two boards was confirmed. Chairman: Jaime Ortiz-Patino Members present: Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandsmark Scribe: Grattan Endicott * * * Ton Kooijman (appeals casebook commentator): I do not agree with this decision at all. The question to be answered was whether North-South were damaged by the use of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it properly). Could and would North-South have done better knowing the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have changed the score. A procedural penalty was obvious and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have caused too much trouble with respect to their convention cards and systems. Michael Rosenberg (appeals casebook commentator): I don't like anything about this case. First, I believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation of the rules. Second, I think the East-West pair involved was unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was on a vendetta against them. Bobby Wolff (appeals casebook commentator): I concur with the ruling. I'm not privy to enough information to comment further. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Apr 27 09:06:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:06:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4631A0EF.4050707@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> That is IMO not a correct ruling, I need to stress! >> Yet, in a literal reading of L40, it might well be. >> What I am concerned about is if some of our readers >> continue to believe that this is what L40 says. >> >> BTW, I'm pretty certain that you don't think so, >> Richard. > > Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994, > Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None > what are you trying to prove, Richard? We know this case. We know that sometimes TDs get it wrong. Even good ones. We also see quite eminent people disagreeing with this ruling. So? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Apr 28 09:07:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:07:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46305C6A.3000507@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the >>>explanation does not conform to the CC... Richard Hills: >>My lawbook lacks that clause. Herman De Wael: >Footnote to law 75, perhaps? > >Permit me to shorten a sentence that everyone >on this list has read 1000 times already to >one with the same meaning. Richard Hills: If the CC is incorrectly completed, but the explanation is correct, and the opponents use the explanation to guide them (ignoring or not reading the CC), where is the MI? Even if Herman was intending a non-literal fuzzy paraphrase of the Law 75 footnote, then I still find his complete original statement perplexing: "...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the explanation does not conform to the CC, the lawbook is silent about the reverse." If the entire sentence above is read literally, then the first clause is false but the second clause is true. If the entire sentence above is read as a non-literal fuzzy paraphrase of the Law 75 footnote, then the first clause is true but the second clause is false. Herman De Wael: >Besides, were we not on the same side of this >argument? J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers: "I have not troubled about the Great Wars" said Treebeard, "they mostly concern Elves and Men. That is the business of Wizards: Wizards are always troubled about the future. I do not like worrying about the future. I am not altogether on anybody's _side_, because nobody is altogether on my _side_, if you understand me." Herman De Wael: >Do you really have to react to every little >message I post and try to find reason to >discredit me? > >That way ahead lies madness. Richard Hills: A false premise implies any conclusion. On some occasions Herman and I are on the same "side", standing shoulder to shoulder disputing the theories of Eric Landau or Sven Pran, so on those occasions I am not discrediting his theories. On the other hand, if Herman publishes a zillion posts on blml advocating the logically fallacious De Wael School, it seems to me to be a tad inconsistent that he objects to me publishing half-a-zillion posts discrediting the De Wael School and apparently suggesting that I should restrict myself to a mere quarter-a-zillion posts. Plus, whatever differences I have with the weirdly twisted logic of the De Wael School, I have repeatedly stated that I admire Herman's motives. If my attack on Herman's logic could be misinterpreted as an "ad hominem" attack on Herman himself, I unconditionally withdraw and apologise for any such carelessness in wording. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Apr 28 03:16:38 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:16:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4632A076.504@NTLworld.com> [Appeal quoted by Richard Hills] Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994, Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None 4 AQT9632 T5 A53 QJ962 K853 J7 54 6 AQJ987 KT876 2 AT7 K8 K432 QJ94 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H 1NT 3NT 4S 5H Pass Pass Pass Result: 5H went down one, +50 for East-West. Facts: East-West were playing a convention (the 1NT overcall) not shown on the convention card. North- South had no opportunity to prepare a defense. The players assured the Director that careful explanations were given and referred to a different convention card for that purpose. Their approved convention card did not show their methods correctly. The card had been made out in a hurry by a third party. They found when they arrived at the tournament that the card sent by their National Bridge Organization had not been received. Director's Ruling: When the Director (Schoder) was called, he cancelled the result and awarded three IMPs to North-South. An earlier board against a different pair in the same match was identified during which the same unregistered convention was used. That board was also cancelled and three IMPs awarded. The Director asked the Appeals Committee to review the facts. Committee Decision: The Committee noted that the pair were extremely experienced and should have been expected to know their responsibilities. They should not have been excused for the grave breach of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the methods on the convention card officially registered. They were barred from playing in the final segment of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of three IMPs to North-South on each of the two boards was confirmed. Chairman: Jaime Ortiz-Patino Members present: Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandsmark Scribe: Grattan Endicott * * * Ton Kooijman (appeals casebook commentator): I do not agree with this decision at all. The question to be answered was whether North-South were damaged by the use of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it properly). Could and would North-South have done better knowing the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have changed the score. A procedural penalty was obvious and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have caused too much trouble with respect to their convention cards and systems. Michael Rosenberg (appeals casebook commentator): I don't like anything about this case. First, I believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation of the rules. Second, I think the East-West pair involved was unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was on a vendetta against them. Bobby Wolff (appeals casebook commentator): I concur with the ruling. I'm not privy to enough information to comment further. [nige1] Obviously, I agree with the director and committee. IMO: [a] The director should void the actual result because he can't know what might have happened had North-South been given the opportunity to prepare a defence to the conventional notrump overcall. [b] The director acted correctly in trying to compensate previous victims. Two small quibbles with the ruling: [i] 3 Imps may be OK as redress but the direcotor should also consider a disciplinary penalty. [ii] The conventional meaning of the 1N overcall would have implications for other overcalls. Previous opponents may have suffered damage because they were unaware of those negative inferences; hence they, too, may deserve compensation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070428/3c1247e9/attachment.htm From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 28 16:53:05 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704231425.l3NEPU4J003156@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704231425.l3NEPU4J003156@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46335FD1.30701@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> Butler randomly adds and subtracts IMPs. ... The SW> capper is that you can _worsen_ your final result by doing _better_ on a SW> specific board. > From: Herman De Wael > Bastille solves that particular problem, as I have proven : > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/bastille.html For those who haven't looked up Herman's very nice page, Bastille is Butler with fractional IMPs. Yes, it solves the "worse result" problem but not the "random IMPs" problem. You can solve the "random IMPs" problem too while still scoring against a datum as in Butler, but the method is at least as complex as just using cross-IMPs. At the local club, anything the players like is just fine. Serious events are different. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 28 17:03:04 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:03:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Transfer to BLML In-Reply-To: <200704231457.l3NEvxdD010153@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704231457.l3NEvxdD010153@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46336228.40209@cfa.harvard.edu> [1NT opening, 2D overcall] > From: Herman De Wael > To believe that it is natural would be (depending > on the persons involved) irrational. Lots of people here (Boston area) play 2D as natural. If my opponents failed to alert an artificial 2D bid and my side was damaged, I'd expect an adjusted score. (The ACBL has no requirement that we familiarize ourselves with opponents' methods at the start of the round. Even in jurisdictions that do require it, are 1NT overcall methods normally included?) I suppose in areas where "everybody" plays 2D as artificial, the lack of an alert could be taken as the equivalent of an alert, and responder would be expected to ask. In that environment, asking should not normally create UI: responder should ask regardless of the hand he holds. Even then, a missing alert is MI, and the offending side should never be allowed to profit from the infraction. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 28 17:10:53 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:10:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704251424.l3PEOJUY016418@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704251424.l3PEOJUY016418@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <463363FD.8020402@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > It is usual here for a TD to sit in for a player who needs to be away > from the table for some reason. ... It is not usual > for the TD who does that to adjust the score upwards when she sits in > for a friend of hers on a board and the table result is poor. As Richard has explained, a good TD can justify almost any ruling by reading from the right page of TFLB. That doesn't make it fair. When a player is away, the options include appointing a substitute, cancelling the board, and allowing a late play. It seems to me that a wise director will pick one and stick with the decision unless there are extraordinary circumstances, and a blunder by a substitute player cannot be much of a surprise. If you have an unwise director, there's probably nothing to be done about past incidents, but you can let club management know your opinion and hope they will do something about the future. If they do nothing, you have to consider whether this is a club you wish to play at. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Apr 28 17:52:17 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:52:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704261428.l3QESBWm006300@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704261428.l3QESBWm006300@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46336DB1.8020903@cfa.harvard.edu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>In my opinion there could be _three_ different informational >>infractions. >> >>(1) A sponsoring organisation could permit a particular convention >>to be used without prior disclosure, instead merely requiring >>contemporaneous disclosure via an alert (or an announcement). If >>such an alert was not made, and the lack of an alert caused damage >>to the non-offending side, then the score should be adjusted on the >>basis of the call being alerted (a Herman De Wael adjustment). Ordinary MI. No disagreement that I know of. The same rule applies to calls that are not conventions. >>(2) A sponsoring organisation could ban a particular convention >>under its Law 40D powers. If a pair used that banned convention it >>is not relevant whether they concealed or revealed their banned >>agreement - either way the score should be adjusted on the basis >>of the call not being made (a "some people" adjustment). Illegal convention ("IC"). Also no disagreement that I know of, though different jurisdictions have different rules about exactly how to adjust. >>(3) For the Aussie Interstate Teams, pairs are conditionally >>permitted to use Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) conventions, but >>provided that their opponents are given some weeks' notice of these >>HUM conventions. In that case, a pair who attempted to use a HUM >>convention without the required pre-disclosure ... And this is the one we've been arguing about. Everybody agrees (3) is illegal, but the question is how to adjust. Is it MI, IC, or something else? > From: Herman De Wael > Exactly Richard, but neither (2) nor (3) are infractions of > misinformation. So Herman thinks (3) is another form of IC. (I happen to agree.) > The second type of misinformation I was alluding to, > and which I said did not exist, was the kind of ruling that goes like > this: > > 1C - what is that? - 17+. Ah, but we did not know that in advance! TD! > yes? These people are playing strong clubs but they did not say so at > the start of the round. But Herman thinks this one is MI, not IC. Why is there a difference whether the failure to give advance notice comes weeks prior to the event or at the start of the round? Either way, the ensuing damage has the same cause. If timing makes a difference, where's the dividing line, and what law or interpretation justifies it? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 29 06:27:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:27:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46336DB1.8020903@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>(3) For the Aussie Interstate Teams, pairs are conditionally >>>permitted to use Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) conventions, but >>>provided that their opponents are given some weeks' notice of these >>>HUM conventions. In that case, a pair who attempted to use a HUM >>>convention without the required pre-disclosure ... Steve Willner: >>And this is the one we've been arguing about. Everybody agrees (3) >>is illegal, but the question is how to adjust. Is it MI, IC, or >>something else? [IC = illegal convention. SAEUOA welcomes new members.] Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994, Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None Director's Ruling: "When the Director (Schoder) was called, he cancelled the result and awarded three IMPs to North-South....." Ton Kooijman (appeals casebook commentator): ".....The question to be answered was whether North-South were damaged by the use of this unknown convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it properly). Could and would North-South have done better knowing the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have changed the score....." Herman De Wael: >We know that sometimes TDs get it wrong. Even good ones. Richard Hills: Is Herman a good TD, thus sometimes getting it wrong? :-) Of course I agree with Herman's main point. Given that William Schoder (Kojak) was ruling illegal convention, while Ton Kooijman was instead ruling misinformation, at least one of these two great directors must have got it wrong. Committee Decision: ".....This pair had to play the methods on the convention card officially registered....." Steve Willner: >.....where's the dividing line, and what law or interpretation >justifies it? Richard Hills: It seems to me that this committee decision is the answer to Steve Willner's question. The dividing line is dependent on the Law 40D regulation created by the sponsoring organisation. If the sponsoring organisation states that a convention is always legal, but additionally requires a pre-alert, then failure to pre- alert creates an infraction of misinformation. If the sponsoring organisation states that a convention cannot be used unless it appears on a pre-registered system card, then the use of that unregistered convention creates an infraction of illegal convention. So, it seems to me, that the dividing line is between: (a) always legal agreements, and (b) usually illegal (but perhaps with specific and specified exemptions) agreements. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 [SAEUOA = Society Against Excessive Use Of Acronyms] Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 29 07:12:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:12:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4632A076.504@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Obviously, I agree with the director and committee. IMO: Richard Hills quibbles: Not-so-obviously, while I agree with the general thrust of the director's ruling, I have qualms about one aspect. Director's Ruling: [snip] >>An earlier board against a different pair in the same >>match was identified during which the same unregistered >>convention was used. That board was also cancelled and >>three IMPs awarded. [snip] Law 81C6: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Law 79C: "An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring organisation specifies a later time, this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection." Richard Hills quibbles: In the previous Rosenblum Cup of 1990, a different but controversial request for a score change was ruled to be non-compliant with Law 79C after the committee parsed an ambiguous regulation. Of course, my qualms would be resolved if the 1994 Rosenblum Cup regulations had been consequently updated, so unambiguously revealed that a later time was specified when an illegal convention was the infraction. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >[b] The director acted correctly in trying to compensate >previous victims. Richard Hills quibbles: The same victimised contestant was compensated twice. "Contestant - ..... in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates." Nigel Guthrie quibbles: >Two small quibbles with the ruling: >[i] 3 Imps may be OK as redress but the director should >also consider a disciplinary penalty. [snip] Richard Hills counter-quibbles: The Director, Kojak, used Law 81C9 to refer his ruling to the committee. And the committee did indeed impose a severe disciplinary penalty. They benched the infracting world-class pair for the final set of the semi-final, thus forcing the incompetent sponsor, Erwin Otvosi, to play (in partnership with his mediocre expert partner Marek Borewicz). What's the problem? Furthermore, in international teams competition, it is now a standard disciplinary penalty to bench a pair for one session to permit them to correct a mismarked system card. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 Sun Apr 29 08:20:54 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:20:54 +1200 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? Message-ID: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> What if any guidelines exist for determining whether or not an appeal is frivolous? Can disagreeing with the director on a matter of bridge judgement ever be frivolous? We had a case yesterday involving an agreed break in tempo. I was at the table but not the appellant and the director and the appeal committee in a break in tradition ruled in my favour. --- AKxxxx xxx AQJx All Vul 1NT 2H 2S 3H - Weak NT Pass 4H 4S Dbl* Pass 5H All Pass * agreed to be slow and after questions about the 1NT opening range The director adjusted the score to 4SX-2. The appeal committee chairman a statement to me that I found surprising. He said a matter of judgement can not be frivolous since it is the appeal committee's role to determine matters of judgement. Do you agree with this statement? If not would you think that an appeal of the given ruling is frivolous? If you do not think that it is frivolous how much would you have to change the above by to make the appeal frivolous? In case it is relevant 5H making was a top and 4SX-2 was a near top. The common result was 4S undoubled -2 and 5H usually drifted 2-off since the 1NT opening was slightly non-standard. A normal diamond lead after a 1D opening would defeat 5H (or 4H) but the leader (moi) guided only by the 1NT opening found the only lead to allow 5H to make. Thanks Wayne From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 29 11:49:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:49:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46335FD1.30701@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704231425.l3NEPU4J003156@cfa.harvard.edu> <46335FD1.30701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46346A10.9090207@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > SW> Butler randomly adds and subtracts IMPs. ... The > SW> capper is that you can _worsen_ your final result by doing _better_ > on a > SW> specific board. > >> From: Herman De Wael >> Bastille solves that particular problem, as I have proven : >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/bastille.html > > For those who haven't looked up Herman's very nice page, Bastille is > Butler with fractional IMPs. Yes, it solves the "worse result" problem > but not the "random IMPs" problem. You can solve the "random IMPs" > problem too while still scoring against a datum as in Butler, but the > method is at least as complex as just using cross-IMPs. > What is the "random IMPs" problem? Because if it is what I guess it is, then Bastille does solve it! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 29 12:01:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:01:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46346D11.8070602@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >>>> ...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the >>>> explanation does not conform to the CC... > > Richard Hills: > >>> My lawbook lacks that clause. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Footnote to law 75, perhaps? >> >> Permit me to shorten a sentence that everyone >> on this list has read 1000 times already to >> one with the same meaning. > > Richard Hills: > > If the CC is incorrectly completed, but the > explanation is correct, and the opponents use > the explanation to guide them (ignoring or not > reading the CC), where is the MI? > Ehm, Richard, please don't confuse issues. I was posting about something and said something in a shortcut. Your sentence above has absolutely no bearing on the original post, so please forgive me for not replying to it. You do say a few interesting things below, however: > Even if Herman was intending a non-literal > fuzzy paraphrase of the Law 75 footnote, then > I still find his complete original statement > perplexing: > > "...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the > explanation does not conform to the CC, the > lawbook is silent about the reverse." > Isn't that true? The footnote says that the TD should rule MI rather than misbid in the absence of evidence, OK? So, in all cases where a CC is present, there are only 2 possibilities: either the spoken explanation conforms to the CC, or it doesn't (of course the explanation does not conform to the hand, or we would not be having a rulling to make). Now, if the explanation does not fit the CC, there is surely no evidence present to make believe that the explanation was correct after all, was there? That is what I meant by "we should rule MI if the explanation does not conform to the CC". But if the explanation does conform to the CC, what does the lawbook say? Nothing! There is no written rule that says that the TD should rule misbid if there is evidence to support that. It may well be understood that in general this is the case, but it is not explicietly written. After all, absence of evidence is easy to describe - but presence of evidence is harder, because one should also add how strong the evidence should be. Is a mere word on a CC enough? That's up to the TD to decide. So. That was where I came into a thread that YOU had started, and in which YOU were the one advocating cases in which a TD should rule misinformation despite the information being present on the CC. IIRC it was Sven who said that you should rule misbid if the information was on the CC, and it was I who came to your defence by citing law references (I admit, in too few words) to support your examples. So please stop criticizing my sentences. > If the entire sentence above is read literally, > then the first clause is false but the second > clause is true. If the entire sentence above > is read as a non-literal fuzzy paraphrase of > the Law 75 footnote, then the first clause is > true but the second clause is false. > I have just explained how to interpret the sentence. > Herman De Wael: > >> Besides, were we not on the same side of this >> argument? > > J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers: > > "I have not troubled about the Great Wars" said > Treebeard, "they mostly concern Elves and Men. > That is the business of Wizards: Wizards are > always troubled about the future. I do not like > worrying about the future. I am not altogether > on anybody's _side_, because nobody is > altogether on my _side_, if you understand me." > > Herman De Wael: > >> Do you really have to react to every little >> message I post and try to find reason to >> discredit me? >> >> That way ahead lies madness. > > Richard Hills: > > A false premise implies any conclusion. On > some occasions Herman and I are on the same > "side", standing shoulder to shoulder disputing > the theories of Eric Landau or Sven Pran, so on > those occasions I am not discrediting his > theories. > Well, you have just spent 5 messages trying to argue against a sentence of mine which was written in support of a statement of yours. > On the other hand, if Herman publishes a > zillion posts on blml advocating the logically > fallacious De Wael School, it seems to me to be > a tad inconsistent that he objects to me > publishing half-a-zillion posts discrediting > the De Wael School and apparently suggesting > that I should restrict myself to a mere > quarter-a-zillion posts. > > Plus, whatever differences I have with the > weirdly twisted logic of the De Wael School, I > have repeatedly stated that I admire Herman's > motives. If my attack on Herman's logic could > be misinterpreted as an "ad hominem" attack on > Herman himself, I unconditionally withdraw and > apologise for any such carelessness in wording. > I have never felt any ad-hominem attacks from you per se. I do detect a willingness from many of you to argue against my posts simply because they come from me. That includes you Richard - as evidenced by this sub-thread. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 29 12:11:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:11:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4632A076.504@NTLworld.com> References: <4632A076.504@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46346F41.6070206@skynet.be> Nigel wrote: > [Appeal quoted by Richard Hills] > Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994, > Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None > > [nige1] > Obviously, I agree with the director and committee. IMO: > [a] The director should void the actual result because he can't know > what might have happened had North-South been given the opportunity to > prepare a defence to the conventional notrump overcall. Yes Nigel, but what the director and AC did was not void the actual result, they voided the whole deal. There is a subtle difference - which I was trying to point out in the post that prompted someone to drag up the Albuquerque case. If you void the deal, you state that the 1NT bid was illegal and should not have happened. If you only void the result, you state that the 1NT bid did happen, but you are unable to tell where the bidding and play might end if the opponents had had available to them the methods they had now been denied. Do you see the difference? With such a low-level call, the two methods will usually end up the same (40-60 seems a logical place to end up at), but if the misexlained call were to be far higher, the possible outcomes may well be more restricted, and one side or other might already have won the board. They should not be diminished to 60 or 40% for that. Example: NS bid blackwood, and EW bid 6Cl showing the king of hearts. NS feel damaged because they don't have a defence against that method, and the TD agrees with that damage. Now he can do a lot of things, but he cannot include in his adjustment any scores based on NS ending in 5He. So suppose NS bid 6He, and go one down, he can turn the score back to 6ClX-2, but not to 5He=. And if 6ClX-2 scores 35% on the board, then he cannot give A+ instead. Well, that is my interpretation. I was asking if anyone believed that the call of 6Cl could be deemed illegal and 5He= would be a possible adjustment. > [b] The director acted correctly in trying to compensate previous victims. > That is another kettle of fish entirely. > Two small quibbles with the ruling: > [i] 3 Imps may be OK as redress but the direcotor should also consider a > disciplinary penalty. > [ii] The conventional meaning of the 1N overcall would have implications > for other overcalls. Previous opponents may have suffered damage because > they were unaware of those negative inferences; hence they, too, may > deserve compensation. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 29 12:15:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:15:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46336DB1.8020903@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704261428.l3QESBWm006300@cfa.harvard.edu> <46336DB1.8020903@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4634704C.2090105@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> In my opinion there could be _three_ different informational >>> infractions. >>> >>> (1) A sponsoring organisation could permit a particular convention >>> to be used without prior disclosure, instead merely requiring >>> contemporaneous disclosure via an alert (or an announcement). If >>> such an alert was not made, and the lack of an alert caused damage >>> to the non-offending side, then the score should be adjusted on the >>> basis of the call being alerted (a Herman De Wael adjustment). > > Ordinary MI. No disagreement that I know of. The same rule applies to > calls that are not conventions. > >>> (2) A sponsoring organisation could ban a particular convention >>> under its Law 40D powers. If a pair used that banned convention it >>> is not relevant whether they concealed or revealed their banned >>> agreement - either way the score should be adjusted on the basis >>> of the call not being made (a "some people" adjustment). > > Illegal convention ("IC"). Also no disagreement that I know of, though > different jurisdictions have different rules about exactly how to adjust. > >>> (3) For the Aussie Interstate Teams, pairs are conditionally >>> permitted to use Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) conventions, but >>> provided that their opponents are given some weeks' notice of these >>> HUM conventions. In that case, a pair who attempted to use a HUM >>> convention without the required pre-disclosure ... > > And this is the one we've been arguing about. Everybody agrees (3) is > illegal, but the question is how to adjust. Is it MI, IC, or something > else? > >> From: Herman De Wael >> Exactly Richard, but neither (2) nor (3) are infractions of >> misinformation. > > So Herman thinks (3) is another form of IC. (I happen to agree.) > I admit that I was a bit baffled when re-reading this, but it is true. >> The second type of misinformation I was alluding to, >> and which I said did not exist, was the kind of ruling that goes like >> this: >> >> 1C - what is that? - 17+. Ah, but we did not know that in advance! TD! >> yes? These people are playing strong clubs but they did not say so at >> the start of the round. > > But Herman thinks this one is MI, not IC. Why is there a difference > whether the failure to give advance notice comes weeks prior to the > event or at the start of the round? Either way, the ensuing damage has > the same cause. If timing makes a difference, where's the dividing > line, and what law or interpretation justifies it? > The dividing line is that in the HUM case, the SO has issued a technical command before licensing the use of the system. If that condition is not met, the system remains just as illegal as it were if HUMs were not allowed. No technical command is given before playing strong clubs, so this should not apply. Of course the technical command to present a completed CC and inform the opponents at the start of the round is also not met ... Yes, there might be a problem with a borderline here. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Apr 29 12:28:55 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:28:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] What if any guidelines exist for determining whether or not an appeal is frivolous? [Nigel] My view is still that an appeal has merit if... [A] The director *recommends* or orders an appeal. [B] The rule (law or regulation) is ambiguous or directors interpret it inconsistently (for example "rule of x" regulations in the old EBU Orange book, interpreted literally by some directors, while others seemed to temper them with "judgement", especially where their own actions were affected). [C] The appellants submit the official appeals write-up to an official appeals advisor who judges it to have merit (perhaps after further questions). IMO this step should be compulsory -- although the appellants should be free to ignore that advice at their own risk. [D] The ruling involves substantial subjective judgement. [E] The case is difficult and complex. [F] The ruling is close (e.g. whether a call is a logical alternative). [G] The committee's ruling isn't unanimous. [H] The committee's ruling differs from the director's. (Unless, perhaps, the committee's ruling is substantially the same but harsher). Of course, I believe appeals are *good* for the game. Justice is usually done and seen to be done. Appeals also publicise and clarify the law and its interpretation for the benefit of players. Shortcomings in the rules are highlighted so that they can be urgently rectified (although they rarely are). Hence, IMO, guidelines (like those above) should be enshrined in the law-book. Some directors seem to regard an appeal as a personal slight. For them, few appeals should be judged to have merit. From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 29 12:49:00 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:49:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46346D11.8070602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c78a4b$ff018b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > IIRC it was Sven who said that you should rule misbid if the > information was on the CC, and it was I who came to your defence by > citing law references (I admit, in too few words) to support your > examples. As I am dragged into this please let me clarify that what I intended (and still intends) as my opinion: When an explanation does not conform to a call and there is (strong) evidence to support the explanation as being correct then a misbid ruling is in order. And when conflicting evidence on the actual agreement is presented then I generally consider (previously prepared) written evidence (e.g. CC) as the stronger. However, this must not be understood that I discard a verbally expressed agreement within the partnership that their CC has (accidentally) been incorrectly written on a particular point. Even then I shall in such cases rule misinformation if I judge that opponents have had satisfactory reason to trust that the CC reflected the actual agreement. I believe we all fully agree that when the Director cannot to his satisfaction establish precisely what is the agreement on a particular call then he shall rule misinformation rather than misbid (according to L75 footnote). Regards Sven From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Apr 29 22:48:31 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:48:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> Nigel writes: > [Wayne Burrows] > What if any guidelines exist for determining whether or not an appeal is > frivolous? > > [Nigel] > My view is still that an appeal has merit if... > > [A] The director *recommends* or orders an appeal. > [B] The rule (law or regulation) is ambiguous or directors interpret it > inconsistently (for example "rule of x" regulations in the old EBU > Orange book, interpreted literally by some directors, while others > seemed to temper them with "judgement", especially where their own > actions were affected). > [C] The appellants submit the official appeals write-up to an official > appeals advisor who judges it to have merit (perhaps after further > questions). IMO this step should be compulsory -- although the > appellants should be free to ignore that advice at their own risk. These three are clear. If a screener, with full knowledge of the facts, advises the players that the appeal has merit, the players should not pay a penalty for bringing the case to appeal. And if the TDs do not agree on the application of the laws, how are the players supposed to know? > [D] The ruling involves substantial subjective judgement. > [E] The case is difficult and complex. > [F] The ruling is close (e.g. whether a call is a logical alternative). The standard for these three rules should be whether the players, given their own level of experience, should have known how the ruling would go. If there has been a screener, the screener can advise less experienced players that they have no case. > [G] The committee's ruling isn't unanimous. > [H] The committee's ruling differs from the director's. (Unless, > perhaps, the committee's ruling is substantially the same but harsher). I would write G and H as, "no member of the committee recommended a ruling which was potentially better for the appellants than the director's ruling." If the director rules average-minus, and the committee unanimously rules that the score should be -100 for the appellants, the appeal has merit even if -100 turns out to be worse than average-minus. (The appellants' case might be that a ruling of average-minus is not allowed under the Laws, and they should get either +620 or -100.) Again, the "no member" ruling protects the players. If one member of a committee would have ruled in favor of a player, the player can hardly be expected to determine that he had no case. Note that procedural penalties imposed by the committee are independent of the merit of an appeal. If the committee imposes a penalty against the non-appealing side but lets the director's ruling stand, the appeal could still be without merit, as the committee is correcting an unrelated director's error. > Of course, I believe appeals are *good* for the game. Justice is usually > done and seen to be done. Appeals also publicise and clarify the law and > its interpretation for the benefit of players. Shortcomings in the rules > are highlighted so that they can be urgently rectified (although they > rarely are). > > Hence, IMO, guidelines (like those above) should be enshrined in the > law-book. > > Some directors seem to regard an appeal as a personal slight. For them, > few appeals should be judged to have merit. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 30 00:34:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:34:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com> <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <46351D62.8040609@NTLworld.com> [nige1] [D] The ruling involves substantial subjective judgement. [E] The case is difficult and complex. [F] The ruling is close (e.g. whether a call is a logical alternative). {David Grabiner] The standard for these three rules should be whether the players, given their own level of experience, should have known how the ruling would go. If there has been a screener, the screener can advise less experienced players that they have no case. [nige2] I agree with David, assuming that he is saying that we judge the appeal's merit by the typical player's standards -- unless the appellants could have consulted an experienced appeals adviser but elected not do so. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Apr 30 04:17:56 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:17:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com><002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> <46351D62.8040609@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004101c78acd$c7353430$6400a8c0@rota> > [nige1] > [D] The ruling involves substantial subjective judgement. > [E] The case is difficult and complex. > [F] The ruling is close (e.g. whether a call is a logical alternative). > > {David Grabiner] > The standard for these three rules should be whether the players, given their > own level of experience, should have known how the ruling would go. If there > has been a screener, the screener can advise less experienced players that > they > have no case. > > [nige2] > I agree with David, assuming that he is saying that we judge the appeal's > merit by the typical player's standards -- unless the appellants could > have > consulted an experienced appeals adviser but elected not do so. I would judge the appeal's merit by the appellant's standards. A Flight B player (not necessarily measured by masterpoints) who has not had the opportunity to speak to a screener should very rarely be penalized for an appeal without merit. If a Flight B player says, "I was always going to make that bid", and it is clear that there is a non-suggested LA but the bid would be resonable absent any UI, the AC should rule against him (because that is what the Law says) but not impose a penalty for an appeal without merit (because he was following what most Flight B players believe the Law says, ignoring the UI). An expert in the same situation should know better than to appeal. And I would apply these different standards even if the Flight B player and the expert are playing in the same event. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 08:24:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:24:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner: >If a screener, with full knowledge of the facts, advises >the players that the appeal has merit, the players should >not pay a penalty for bringing the case to appeal. [snip] EBU White Book, clause 92.2: [snip] "The Appeals Advisor only hears one side of a story, thus his advice should never be known to the Appeals Committee. For example he may say that an appeal is definitely not frivolous, but then the Appeals Committee having heard from everyone keeps the deposit. This does not imply a mistake by the Appeals Advisor: the story he heard may have been very different. Furthermore, the player is under no obligation to follow any advice given to him by an Appeals Advisor, and whether to appeal is solely a matter for him." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 30 09:14:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:14:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com> <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <46359760.4090200@skynet.be> David Grabiner wrote: > Nigel writes: > >> [G] The committee's ruling isn't unanimous. >> [H] The committee's ruling differs from the director's. (Unless, >> perhaps, the committee's ruling is substantially the same but harsher). > In EBL Appeal Committees, only one rule is "fixed". The money is returned as soon as one member believes it should be. Whether or not he ruled in their favor. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 10:08:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:08:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46346D11.8070602@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >>...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the >>explanation does not conform to the CC, the >>lawbook is silent about the reverse. Herman De Wael again asserted: >Isn't that true? >The footnote says that the TD should rule MI >rather than misbid in the absence of evidence, >OK? > >So, in all cases where a CC is present, there >are only 2 possibilities: either the spoken >explanation conforms to the CC, or it doesn't Richard Hills begs to differ: More possibilities than two. For example, both the CC and the spoken explanation could be wrong in different ways. Herman De Wael again asserted: >(of course the explanation does not conform to >the hand, or we would not be having a ruling >to make). Richard Hills begs to differ: No ruling? A De Wael School explanation which conforms to partner's hand could still be the infraction of misexplanation, if the explainer has illegally customised their explanation to conform with partner's misbid, rather than to describe mutual partnership agreement. Herman De Wael again asserted: >Now, if the explanation does not fit the CC, >there is surely no evidence present to make >believe that the explanation was correct after >all, was there? > >That is what I meant by "we should rule MI if >the explanation does not conform to the CC". Richard Hills begs to differ: We have had this debate before. In my opinion, verbal evidence is evidence. Self-serving contemporaneous verbal evidence may usually have less weight than pre-existing written evidence in the scales of justice, but it does not have _zero_ weight. And, in some cases, a TD may rightly judge that self-serving verbal evidence does indeed outweigh pre-existing written evidence in the scales of justice. On the other hand, the De Wael School chooses to interpret "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary" as meaning "in the absence of _written_ evidence to the contrary", which is consistent with the overall De Wael School preference that it is more correct to explain partner's cards than it is to explain mutual partnership agreements. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Apr 30 10:43:26 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:43:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Two "problems", one hypothetical, the other bizarre Message-ID: <4635AC2E.6050904@aol.com> Most honoured blmlers! Recently in tournaments I was called to tables for two (I think) interesting "problems. First the hypothetical one. (The hand was genuine but the "problem" didn't arise.) Following hand: A6 54 754 Q109872 743 QJ1092 AKJ106 Q9 A8632 QJ9 -- J43 K85 8732 K10 AK85 I was called to the table (contract was 3 hearts) because declarer had revoked. (He had won the revoke trick and numerous tricks after the revoke.) Her had made 10 tricks. I transferred two tricks to the defenders and, as is usual, told them that if they believed they could win 6 or more tricks without the revoke they should tell me. At the table I saw little possibility of this and the defenders did not see any. (Apparently, at least I never heard from them later.) This was a tournament with a field of only limited playing strength. A few strong pairs. very many of only discrete playing strength and a good many of less than discrete strength. Having time (no calls for TD) I studied the hand and found it quite interesting. With a spade lead and immediate ruff at the 3rd trick the declarer ought to make 10 tricks, but must be careful, and must find/guess the favourable diamond situation. He will probably be forced to ruff the 4th trick and thus shortened in trump. Then he must solve diamonds, draw trumps and not get blocked in the wrong hand in order to take the good spades or diamonds (throwing the blocking diamond on the third heart trick for the diamonds). But what about an immediate club lead? This make the hand more difficult and the result less certain. Still 10 tricks as I see it (double dummy) by going to the table with the heart Q, playing the diamond Q (South will probably cover but it is not important)), taking the diamond J, returning to hand with a trump, discarding the blocking diamond on the third trump, and there are 10 tricks (5 trumps, 5 diamonds). But how likely is it that declarer finds this line (no diamond finesse for the 10, only 1 trump trick before the diamonds, etc.)? And if there is a club lead and he misguesses diamonds the hand will collapse I think, since he will be too shortened in trumps. But how likely is a club lead? If you have to assign a mixed score; how likely are: 7 tricks, 8 tricks, 9 tricks and 10 tricks? When I checked the board later 10 tricks were made only a few times (one player made 11 tricks but don't ask me how; you don't really want to know) and even fewer made 7 tricks (only one or two), most declarers won 8 or 9 tricks. So if you have to give a mixed score; what % probability for 7, 8, 9 and 10 tricks? Now the bizarre case. I was called to the table by one pair but the other pair immediately started to "explain" what happened (not usual for the side calling the td to not explain). The explanation given was quite confusing, the player spread his hand and started reconstructing the play (first trick was so, second trick...). I interrupted him since imho it is the job of the TD to find out what the problem is, why he has been called. It appeared to me that probably there had been a claim so I asked if there had been one. One pair immediately answered affirmatively, the other just as immediately answered negatively! (The bizarre aspect. I have been directing for many years but cannot remember evere having such a disagreement as to if there had been a claim.) There were now about 40 cards on the table (were as I came and some were from closed hands, as yet unplayed) so a continuation of play was unlikely. Here was the position before I was called (and players started facing their hands): KJ AJ -- -- 63 Ax -- Qx -- -- 93 -- -- 10 xx 8 Diamonds were trumps and declarer (bottom hand) had already trumped spades so it was known that she had no more. Declarer was in her hand when West said, "I have no further trick" (or something similar). West was an experienced and strong player and an EBL td -- he knew the rules and a silly mistake was very unlikely. I tried to find out what had happened. West and East had heard declarer claim and thus West made his comment. East immediately disputed it. Normally play would thus have to be continued but this was no longer possible in the given situation since too many cards had been faced. As I mentioned, West was was a quite capable player and there is no way he (or anyone else for that matter) would suddenly say in the middle of play that he (not his side) had no further trick unless he had heard a claim (and thus assumed that declarer had the heart Q instead of the club). East disputed the concession immediately; he had also heard a claim. Declarer and partner insisted that no claim had been made (but admitted to having played extraordinarily slowly). What now? My decision was to award the defenders a trick and I think this is fairly normal. East sits behind the table, when declarer plays her two diamond tricks East can discard after the table, and West, knowing the declarer had no more spades and seeing KJ on the table would surely discard the two small spades. But the declaring side disputed this, sayin that West had said he had no further claim to a trick and thus had to discard the clubs. I dismissed this as humbug since his statement was based on the "claim". (And, of course, there was no way to determine if there had been a claim or not. It would seem quite unlikely that he, and his partner, heard a claim from another table. There might have been a component of linguistic misunderstanding: one pair was Austrian, the other Dutch.) Okay, any comments? Ciao, JE From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 30 11:56:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:56:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Must one call the TD if one suspects a fouled board? Message-ID: <4635BD47.6050908@skynet.be> Yesterday this happened: (brunch club tournament - very informal - 4 tables, Butler counting) I (North) am the first to play board 24. My opponents, beginners, stop in 2He and make 11 tricks (beginner thought xx KJxxxx AJT9x - was a weak two!). At the second table EW play 4H and make 11 tricks. At the third table NS (yes indeed) play 6H and make 12 tricks, despite ther being three aces out. At the fourth table NS play 4H and make 11 tricks. They notice that the bridgemate shows the scores of -200, -450 and +980. They ask how come the slam was made, and then question the apparent switch of the hand. We determine that at the first and second table, the two-suiter was in third position, while at the third and fourth, it was indeed in second position. It is clear the second table put the cards wrong in the board (or extremely unlikely they turned the board after taking out the cards at the third table). So the scores need to be treated as a fouled board. The fourth North is furious, since he is now being compared only to the 980 and not to the 200 any more, but I tell him the rules are the rules. But there is another nice problem: suppose that North at the second table notices the switch from the results in the bridgemate: if he says something, the hand is restored and his +980 has gone, while if he says nothing he will get a score for the comparison with the fourth table. Is a player legally required to call the director if he notices? And is the director authorized to cancel both scores if he determines that the player "could have known" that not looking or checking the scores might be to his advantage? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 30 00:25:56 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:25:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com> <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <46351B74.8050603@NTLworld.com> [nige1] [G] The committee's ruling isn't unanimous. [H] The committee's ruling differs from the director's. (Unless,perhaps, the committee's ruling is substantially the same but harsher). [David Grabiner] I would write G and H as, "no member of the committee recommended a ruling which was potentially better for the appellants than the director's ruling." If the director rules average-minus, and the committee unanimously rules that the score should be -100 for the appellants, the appeal has merit even if -100 turns out to be worse than average-minus. (The appellants' case might be that a ruling of average-minus is not allowed under the Laws, and they should get either +620 or -100.) Again, the "no member" ruling protects the players. If one member of a committee would have ruled in favor of a player, the player can hardly be expected to determine that he had no case. Note that procedural penalties imposed by the committee are independent of the merit of an appeal. If the committee imposes a penalty against the non-appealing side but lets the director's ruling stand, the appeal could still be without merit, as the committee is correcting an unrelated director's error. [nige1] It's encouraging to learn that there is a BLMLer who agrees with some of what I write. My quibble with David's rephrase is that sometimes the committee imposes a penalty as harsh or harsher than the director although they disagree with the director's reasons. In their ruling, the committee cite different rules or use a different line of reasoning. In such a case, IMO the appeal should be judged to have merit because the appellants seem to have successfully found issue with the basis of the original ruling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070429/120f4417/attachment.htm From schoderb at msn.com Mon Apr 30 01:24:00 2007 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:24:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com><002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> <46351D62.8040609@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Having extensive experience with the below reason for pursuing an appeal after good advice, I must say something. I have yet to find most professional players or revered partners who, when asked by a customer, have not recommended an appeal, NO MATTER HOW RIDICULOUS IT MAY BE. It's called "business". It costs them nothing, and makes them further respected by the customer. I do not dream this up, but have discussed it many times with the "professionals". I don't even know what the characteristics of an "EXPERIENCED APPEALS ADVISER" are. If that is not the screening TD or Chief TD I grieve for our game. I'm sure that it would not take a lot of effort to develop a list of those who class themselves as "experienced appeals advisers(sic). <<<<>>>> _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070429/5ab2582a/attachment.htm From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 30 11:35:24 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:35:24 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Any_redress_or_rub_of_t?= =?iso-8859-1?q?he_green____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <4635B85B.000001.85897@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- (Richard) We have had this debate before. In my opinion, verbal evidence is evidence. AG : Also, verbal evidence may come from other sources. If, for example, players A and B agreed to play the system or convention teached to them by player C, and if C doesn't know at present about the case, interviewing C about the meaning of the bids may constitute valuable and truthworthy evidence. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070430/0481f2c2/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/20070430/0481f2c2/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070430/0481f2c2/attachment-0001.gif From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 30 13:24:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:24:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <46351B74.8050603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001501c78b1a$0f2c98e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Frankly I resent the question on whether an appeal is frivolous to be determined from the outcome of the appeal. That question must be answered from a separate judgement on whether or not the appellant had sufficient reasons to request a second consideration of the case. Regards Sven -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Sent: 30. april 2007 00:26 To: BLML Subject: Re: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? [nige1][G] The committee's ruling isn't unanimous.[H] The committee's ruling differs from the director's. (Unless,perhaps, the committee's ruling is substantially the same but harsher). [David Grabiner]I would write G and H as, "no member of the committee recommended a ruling which was potentially better for the appellants than the director's ruling." If the director rules average-minus, and the committee unanimously rules that the score should be -100 for the appellants, the appeal has merit even if -100 turns out to be worse than average-minus. (The appellants' case might be that a ruling of average-minus is not allowed under the Laws, and they should get either +620 or -100.)Again, the "no member" ruling protects the players. If one member of a committee would have ruled in favor of a player, the player can hardly be expected to determine that he had no case.Note that procedural penalties imposed by the committee are independent of the merit of an appeal. If the committee imposes a penalty against the non-appealing side but lets the director's ruling stand, the appeal could still be without merit, as the committee is correcting an unrelated director's error. [nige1] It's encouraging to learn that there is a BLMLer who agrees with some of what I write. My quibble with David's rephrase is that sometimes the committee imposes a penalty as harsh or harsher than the director although they disagree with the director's reasons. In their ruling, the committee cite different rules or use a different line of reasoning. In such a case, IMO the appeal should be judged to have merit because the appellants seem to have successfully found issue with the basis of the original ruling. ? ? From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 30 13:32:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:32:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4635D3DA.30704@skynet.be> Richard is still being a bull with Herman as a red rag in front of his eyes. We are not in disagreement Richard - stop it! richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >>> ...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the >>> explanation does not conform to the CC, the >>> lawbook is silent about the reverse. > > Herman De Wael again asserted: > >> Isn't that true? >> The footnote says that the TD should rule MI >> rather than misbid in the absence of evidence, >> OK? >> >> So, in all cases where a CC is present, there >> are only 2 possibilities: either the spoken >> explanation conforms to the CC, or it doesn't > > Richard Hills begs to differ: > > More possibilities than two. "It is, or it isn't" - yet Richard finds a third option. Why? > For example, both > the CC and the spoken explanation could be > wrong in different ways. > which is in the second category of the explanation not conforming to the CC, isn't it? > Herman De Wael again asserted: > >> (of course the explanation does not conform to >> the hand, or we would not be having a ruling >> to make). > > Richard Hills begs to differ: > > No ruling? A De Wael School explanation which > conforms to partner's hand could still be the > infraction of misexplanation, if the explainer > has illegally customised their explanation to > conform with partner's misbid, rather than to > describe mutual partnership agreement. > If the explanation conforms to the hand, very seldom there will be a ruling. In the unlikely case of the TD being called and misinformation and misbid being both present (both partner simultaneously and in the same manner forgetting the system on their CC, there will be MI, no damage. > Herman De Wael again asserted: > >> Now, if the explanation does not fit the CC, >> there is surely no evidence present to make >> believe that the explanation was correct after >> all, was there? >> >> That is what I meant by "we should rule MI if >> the explanation does not conform to the CC". > > Richard Hills begs to differ: > > We have had this debate before. In my opinion, > verbal evidence is evidence. Self-serving > contemporaneous verbal evidence may usually > have less weight than pre-existing written > evidence in the scales of justice, but it does > not have _zero_ weight. And, in some cases, a > TD may rightly judge that self-serving verbal > evidence does indeed outweigh pre-existing > written evidence in the scales of justice. > Richard, once again you are merely stating in a different manner something which I wrote in your support! Yes, verbal evidence is evidence. But the laws do not say what one should do in the presence of evidence, only in the absence of evidence. We may disagree on the fact that absence of written evidence alone is enough to rule MI, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about cases where there is presence of written evidence! You and I are both in agreement that such presence is not enough to always rule misbid. > On the other hand, the De Wael School chooses > to interpret "the Director is to presume > Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, > in the absence of evidence to the contrary" as > meaning "in the absence of _written_ evidence > to the contrary", which is consistent with the > overall De Wael School preference that it is > more correct to explain partner's cards than it > is to explain mutual partnership agreements. > Yes indeed, I may well be a little more strict in the weighing of evidence. But again, that is not what this thread is about. This thread, which you started BTW, is about cases where we want to rule MI despite the CC confirming the spoken explanation. So please stop disagreeing with me when for once we are in agreement about some aspect of this debate. There is no use shouting again and again that Herman is wrong. People will start believing it. Or worse even, disbelieving it! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 30 15:42:15 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:42:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? References: <001501c78b1a$0f2c98e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c78b2d$a0ec0500$889087d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "The searcher's eye not seldom finds more than he wished to find." G.E. Lessing (1779) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? Frankly I resent the question on whether an appeal is frivolous to be determined from the outcome of the appeal. That question must be answered from a separate judgement on whether or not the appellant had sufficient reasons to request a second consideration of the case. Regards Sven < +=+ The views of an appeals advisor, consultant or 'cuddly' (see OB 8A2), should not be known to the AC. Indeed, there is no reason for an AC to know that any such advice has been made available to the appellant. I think the question of frivolity must have regard to the category/class of player. The cuddly can assist the player to consider what might render an appeal highly unlikely to succeed and to evaluate whether it raises a question of principle, an error in applying the law, a grossly inappropriate value judgement or the like, such as would give the AC no cause to dismiss it summarily. But this is only advice; the decision whether to appeal is for the appellant to make. He will be the one arguing that there is serious cause. He just needs to have in mind what that is. Cuddlies in England are appointed from among senior players and others well versed in the subject of appeals. At international level players are usually considered to be expert, but not always - some international competitions encourage the participation of players who take enjoyment of a lesser order. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 30 17:28:01 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:28:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4635D3DA.30704@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070430171427.02842a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:32 30/04/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Richard is still being a bull with Herman as a red rag in front of his >eyes. Please note that the red color of the rag doesn't make any difference. Bulls are nearly colorblind. The red color of the torero's scarf and girdle, however, seem to be reminiscent of the color of blood, as it might be shed when the bull temporarily wins. Apart from that, I'd like to clarify the fact that Herman's statement : "either the spoken explanation conforms to the CC, or it doesn't" isn't necessarily true. Obviously, TFLB allows us tu use fuzzy logic (where the truth value of a proposition may be any real number between 0 and 1 included). Weighted scores typically use statements like "it is 70% true that the lead would have been found, had complete explanations been given". So we're allowed to say that the spoken explanation partially conforms to the CC. And that's often the case when a problem arises. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 30 18:51:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:51:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704301446.l3UEk772022765@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704301446.l3UEk772022765@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46361E9B.7080107@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> What is the "random IMPs" problem? > > Hi, Herman. The problem is the NS and EW IMPs don't each separately > add to zero. I don't think Bastille solves this one; am I wrong? I > think the problem is inherent to the use of a datum with a non-linear > IMP scale. > Well, the NS and EW IMPS do add up to zero, all together (of course), so I don't see this particularly as a problem. If one uses a movement like a Howell, this is no problem. So it's a problem for movements, not Butler. And besides, there is an equal chance that the random imp lands in NS or EW, so what's the problem, really? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 30 19:03:18 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <46359760.4090200@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com> <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> <46359760.4090200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46362156.7040003@NTLworld.com> [Herman DE WAEL] In EBL Appeal Committees, only one rule is "fixed". The money is returned as soon as one member believes it should be. Whether or not he ruled in their favor. [nige1] Thank you Herman -- that is an excellent rule. But IMO it should be an *additional* one. I will add it as rule[I]. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Apr 30 22:19:23 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:19:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <46362156.7040003@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560704282320w3427bc70r44c40083a8eff9f@mail.gmail.com> <46347367.3040301@NTLworld.com> <002501c78a9f$bfb93e50$6400a8c0@rota> <46359760.4090200@skynet.be> <46362156.7040003@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Nigel wrote: > Thank you Herman -- that is an excellent rule. But IMO it should be an > *additional* one. I will add it as rule[I]. Heh. You gonna provide TDs with the trucks they're gonna need to haul around all these rules, Nigel? :-) From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 30 14:36:22 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:36:22 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Two_=22problems=22=2C_one_hyp?= =?iso-8859-1?q?othetical=2C_the_other_bizarre?= References: <4635AC2E.6050904@aol.com> Message-ID: <4635E2C4.000004.85897@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Jeff Easterson Date : 30/04/2007 11:15:02 A : blml at amsterdamned.org Sujet : [blml] Two "problems", one hypothetical, the other bizarre And if there is a club lead and he misguesses diamonds the hand will collapse I think, since he will be too shortened in trumps. But how likely is a club lead? If you have to assign a mixed score; how likely are: 7 tricks, 8 tricks, 9 tricks and 10 tricks? When I checked the board later 10 tricks were made only a few times (one player made 11 tricks but don't ask me how; you don't really want to know) and even fewer made 7 tricks (only one or two), most declarers won 8 or 9 tricks. So if you have to give a mixed score; what % probability for 7, 8, 9 and 10 tricks? AG : IS2M that TFLB doesn't make provision for mixing scores after a revoke. Perhaps we should have that possibility, in the form of either : a) a mix of (the score at the table - 2 tricks) and the score for (here) 7 tricks b) the worse of (the score at the table - 2 tricks) and (the normal mixed score) I'd prefer the latter. But IMHO this isn't allowed. But anyway, this wouldn't apply in this case, as the club lead didn't happen Only variants after the revoke could ever be taken into account. > Now the bizarre case. Bizarre indeed. The easiest (perhaps not the fairest) way to rule is that West conceded and East disputed, based on their mishearing, where "a player has no case when he acted based on his own misunderstanding" or words to that effect. But I'd be ready to hear at EW's claim (excuse the pun) that South mumbled or gestured something to the effect that he makes some number of tricks. Like saying 'yipes, I'll eventually make that silly contract'. First ask them (separately) what they heared that made them think there was a claim ; perhaps you'll be able to reconstruct the misunderstanding. Perhaps South instructed 'nehmen' and East heard 'negen' ? It's also possible that South be mistaken about what constitutes a claim. Just one tetratrichotomizing non-related question : does a Cooper echo constitute a claim ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070430/474f25c2/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/20070430/474f25c2/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070430/474f25c2/attachment-0001.gif