From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 1 00:38:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:38:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4635D3DA.30704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 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: >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 partners >simultaneously and in the same manner >forgetting the system on their CC, there will >be MI, no damage. Richard Hills: No damage? Not necessarily so. In a 1980s Bridge World tournament report about a women's championship, written by Edgar Kaplan, he discussed a ruling about a player who "tried to be helpful, with the usual dire results". This player recognised that her partner had misbid. She then adopted the De Wael School policy of describing her partner's cards, rather than describing their mutual partnership agreement. Due to the nature of the event, which required advance submission of partnership system notes, her well-intentioned infraction was quickly discovered. Her opponents had indeed been damaged, since after a correct description of the mutual partnership agreement the opponents would have had the methods to reach their best contract. But, because she chose the illegal De Wael School description of her partner's cards, her opponents' methods were less effective, so they failed to reach their best contract. Herman De Wael: >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! Samuel Johnson (1709-1784): "Truth, Sir, is a cow, which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull." :-) 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 henk at amsterdamned.org Tue May 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 May 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 Tue May 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for April 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 74 hermandw (at) skynet.be 43 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 28 ehaa (at) starpower.net 25 twm (at) cix.co.uk 23 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 21 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 18 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 18 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 15 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 14 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 13 svenpran (at) online.no 8 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 7 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 6 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 6 geller (at) nifty.com 5 john (at) asimere.com 5 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 4 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 4 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 4 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 3 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 karel (at) esatclear.ie 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 tkooij (at) tiscali.nl 1 the (at) that 1 schoderb (at) msn.com 1 mustikka (at) charter.net 1 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 1 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 1 intermediate (at) upwards, 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 1 01:18:19 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:18:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4636793B.2080503@NTLworld.com> [nige1] Except that, in America, we are told that a principal function of a screener is to *discourage* appeals, even when they have merit (: [William Schoder's] This is just the kind of stuff that gets my ire up. "We are told" my butt. By whom, by what authority, by what records and statistics is this true? It is the equivalent of "they say" which means this is what I need to validate preconceptions and dumb conclusions -- need not be true, but it makes "me" look like I know what "I'm" talking about. Especially if it is followed by one of those holier-than-thou truths that are self-evident. It makes me sure that the poster has very limited knowledge of the subject, and relishes his biases above all else. [nige2] Kojaks's repeated slurs are offensive even when he admits that he is talking out of his butt. I would love to visit America but haven't yet done so. When I wrote "We are told" I meant just that: Richard Hills told BLML. In the recent thread "Honolulu casebook posted", Linda Trent and Richard also reported other seeming abuses of the ACBL screening director system. Kojak asks for evidence but he, himself, is ideally placed to provide relevant facts and statistics -- if there are any available, fit for general consumption :) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue May 1 20:13:58 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:13:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46361E9B.7080107@skynet.be> References: <200704301446.l3UEk772022765@cfa.harvard.edu> <46361E9B.7080107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070501111133.01ba3dd0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > Herman: >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? If you play a Butler, or Bastille with a Howell movement, it is possible for one pair to be the beneficiary of up to a couple of IMPs by this "non problem". Why not just stick to cross imps Tony (Sydney) >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 1 06:25:08 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 05:25:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <4636793B.2080503@NTLworld.com> References: <4636793B.2080503@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4636C124.4030108@NTLworld.com> Quotes from BLMLers about screening directors... [Eric Landau] They were supposed to briefly review the case and issue dire warnings about deposit losses and the other terrible things that can happen to those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective appelants with obviously meritless appeals, doing their utmost to convince them not to go forward. In practice, what they seem to do is briefly review the case and issue dire warnings about deposit losses and the other terrible things that can happen to those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective appelants regardless of the merits of their appeals, doing their utmost to convince them not to go forward. [Richard Hills] Given that Screening Directors are now "most competent directors" has ACBL management now explicitly authorised Screening Directors to be, in effect, de facto Chief Directors empowered to overrule table Directors? Or is there a credulous Easter Bunny belief that Screening Directors act within the limit of their mandate to merely offer an opinion? :-) [Linda Trent] Go back to the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny version In my 10+ years in the appeals business I would say around 20% of the floor rulings were changed. The "withdrawn appeal" file folder was usually quite fat and contained tons of adjustments to what the appealing side was asking for and since the other side didn't show up . . . well, you get the rest. A lot of these came from the dinner time screening session. It also contained several of the "just in case I don't win my match or make the cut" appeals. During a particular few years (no, I will never name names) the Screening Director just gave both sides what they wanted so appeals would go away. My complaints on that happening with a fair amount of regularity went nowhere. Unfortunately, the "Withdrawn" folder always went to Memphis never to be seen again. I tried to snag one once, but was unsuccessful. [nige1] Linda quotes approximate statistics (over a decade or so) and mentions bulky files of "withdrawn appeals" -- sources of factual evidence for Kojak to show that the role of the screening director is neutral and advisory. I would be happy if the Memphis files bear out Kojak's contention. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070501/328795b6/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 1 08:45:27 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:45:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070501111133.01ba3dd0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: >>And besides, there is an equal chance that the random >>imp lands in NS or EW, so what's the problem, really? Tony Musgrove asked: >If you play a Butler, or Bastille with a Howell movement, >it is possible for one pair to be the beneficiary of up >to a couple of IMPs by this "non problem". Why not just >stick to cross imps? Richard Hills asks: What about "penny wise, pound foolish"? Cross imps limits one "luck problem" of a single random imp landing NS or EW at the cost of a huge "luck problem" of double-digit imps due to the luck of sitting NS or EW when a ridiculous result happens at another table. Suppose the NS scores on one board in a seven-table Howell imp pairs are: +630 +630 +630 +630 +630 +630 -1700 (ridiculous result caused by South insisting on an esoteric convention and North having a memory lapse) At olympic-scored Butler-with-a-datum (top and bottom scores excluded before striking the datum), the EW players at the six normal tables get their fair result of a flat board. But with cross imps, the EW players at the six normal tables lose a zillion imps, and their matches, merely due to the random luck of the EW direction in which they sat. Aussie national champion and mathematician, Warren Lazer, has devised an olympic-scored cross imps method which fixes this problem. For each pair, their imps are crossed only against the middle four of the other six 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 1 09:59:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:59:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>Cuddlies in England are appointed from among senior >>players and others well versed in the subject of appeals. [snip] William Schoder: [snip] >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". [snip] George Bernard Shaw, The Doctor's Dilemma (1906): "All professions are conspiracies against the laity." Richard Hills: My experience is that Aussie experts often correctly advise less experienced players to eschew a frivolous appeal. For example, Southwest Pacific Teams 2007, Match 10, Board 6: Dlr: East JT8765 Vul: All J9 542 KQ KQ9 A42 Q865 AK74 T87 AKJ3 T97 43 3 T32 Q96 AJ8652 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- --- 1D 3C Pass Pass Dble Pass 3D(1) Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo The Director ruled that Pass was the non-suggested logical alternative to the demonstrably suggested 3H, so adjusted the score from 620 to 130. East-West, very talented (quarter-finalists this year) but inexperienced teenaged experts, asked other experts whether an appeal would be deemed frivolous, and were uniformly told that it would indeed frivol in a big way. Unlike in the ACBL, only a tiny proportion of Aussie experts play bridge as a "business", so the amateur experts are uninhibited in truth-telling. But perhaps there is another reason for an ABF expert to more objectively assess frivolity than an ACBL expert. In my opinion, the ACBL Appeal Without Merit Warning lacks teeth. Meanwhile the ABF system of imp and matchpoint fines for meritless appeals has real fangs. Therefore, it is not good "business" for an ABF professional to advise his sponsor partner to launch a meritless appeal, since the victory points lost might be significant, and therefore impinge upon the professional's "success bonus". Perhaps the ACBL could overcome its characteristic tendency towards Not Invented Here, and replace AWMWs with matchpoint and imp fines for appeals without merit? 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 May 1 10:52:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:52:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070501111133.01ba3dd0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <200704301446.l3UEk772022765@cfa.harvard.edu> <46361E9B.7080107@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20070501111133.01ba3dd0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4636FFD2.7060900@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > Herman: > > >> 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? > > If you play a Butler, or Bastille with a Howell movement, > it is possible for one pair to be the beneficiary of up > to a couple of IMPs by this "non problem". Why not > just stick to cross imps > For two reasons: - people prefer a system they know and can judge. comparing your result to an average that is shown makes a lot more sense than simply seeing a number of imps appear; - the "disadvantage" that you mention is not a disadvantage at all. The pairs are not the "beneficiary" of those imps, they have earned them from their actions at the table. They don't care how many imps are distributed in their direction or in the other one. They only watch their own result. And besides, if you really believe that this is such an enourmous problem, then I can easily create a third "bastille" system in which the problem does not exist, by defining the average as that number for which the total imps becomes zero. Which brings me to another difference between Bastille and Cross-IMPs. At Bastille, like in Butler, the average is calculated after dropping some scores at either end. This is of course the main reason why the total imps will not add to zero. If someone in your direction gets a windfall of +2800, this drags your score downwards, unless the Butler averaging is used. I think people like that. > Tony (Sydney) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 1 10:54:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:54:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200704301752.l3UHqcZU025087@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200704301752.l3UHqcZU025087@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46370028.1000101@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> 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. > > Not good enough. You get random IMPs depending on whether you are > seated NS or EW on a given board. This has nothing to do with > movements. Of course _on average_ the random IMPs are zero, but > they add noise. That's OK for a club game or something but not > for a serious event. Compare my analogy of rolling a die and > adding that many IMPs to your score. > Every method has noise. And don't say that the noise in this method is independent of the results, because that is simply not true. Anyway, this discussion is futile. > Cheers. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 1 10:59:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:59:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4637016C.2090607@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 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: > >> 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 partners >> simultaneously and in the same manner >> forgetting the system on their CC, there will >> be MI, no damage. > > Richard Hills: > > No damage? Not necessarily so. > Again, Richard, you counter my arguments with freak examples. I give you a reason why my methods are better, and that reason includes a phrase such as "in general, there will be no damage". "In general" already means that this is true only 99% (or even just 80%) of the time. And you think that citing one example from 1980 strengthens your argument? Rather, it strengthens mine. In 50 years of WC reporting, you find one example where it would have been better to follow your advice. I think that means that my advice is more effective, don't you? No, of course you don't, but then you're stubborn. Well, so am I. > In a 1980s Bridge World tournament report about I won't comment on the case that you don't even cite in full, apart from saying that I don't like the ruling one bit. If this is the best you can do to discredit the DeWael school, then I'm even more convinced that I am acting in a good manner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 1 14:37:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] I can make whatever ruling I want! In-Reply-To: <001801c78804$69626010$ed9b87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+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. It might be interesting were there any truth in the above assertions. The SO is responsible for the appointment of the TD but not for his control. The TD, while a representative of the SO (L81A), has a duty to uphold the laws (L81b/c). Even if the TD delegates some powers/duties to representatives of the SO he is not relieved of responsibility for the correct exercise of those powers (L81D). The liabilities of the SO for the actions of an aberrant TD are a matter for employment/contract law and well outside the scope of the laws of bridge. If it's a purely bridge matter (e.g. a ruling on a point of law) the SO lacks the authority to overturn the ruling but may refer it to the NA who have the necessary legal standing to overturn such a ruling. In the original example it would be perfectly legal for the TD to decide that she made an error in appointing herself a temporary substitute on the hand in question and provide remedy under L82c. Whether so doing might be considered "the right thing" is probably a function of the exact circumstances and is a judgement issue. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 1 14:37:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <000801c78b2d$a0ec0500$889087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ 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. There is nothing in OB8a2 which *precludes* the views of an advisor from being made known to the AC. While the AC is in no way bound to heed any such views neither are they entitled to refuse to even consider such views when presented as part of the evidence. For example I might be approached by a weak pair who are unhappy with a ruling but can't really say why (mostly they just don't understand the law and I can explain why the ruling was as it was and their desire to appeal will go away). But sometimes it will become clear to me that the TD missed a key point in making his decision (perhaps some abstruse inference of the opposing system of which I happen to be aware). If the point is sufficiently abstruse that I believe the weak pair may be unable even to articulate it to an AC I will provide a written commentary which they can choose to present to the AC if they think it necessary. The AC can, of course, investigate the evidence I have prepared and rule "Tim is obviously doolally and what's more he's not even an official advisor - it's your fault for consulting him and we consider the appeal frivolous". However, if the AC actually refuses to consider the additional evidence *at all* the matter should be referred to the NA on a point of principle. Tim From john at asimere.com Tue May 1 18:17:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:17:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? References: Message-ID: <002f01c78c0c$4177b990$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ 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. > > There is nothing in OB8a2 which *precludes* the views of an advisor from > being made known to the AC. While the AC is in no way bound to heed any > such views neither are they entitled to refuse to even consider such > views when presented as part of the evidence. > > For example I might be approached by a weak pair who are unhappy with a > ruling but can't really say why (mostly they just don't understand the > law and I can explain why the ruling was as it was and their desire to > appeal will go away). But sometimes it will become clear to me that the > TD missed a key point in making his decision (perhaps some abstruse > inference of the opposing system of which I happen to be aware). If the > point is sufficiently abstruse that I believe the weak pair may be > unable even to articulate it to an AC I will provide a written > commentary which they can choose to present to the AC if they think it > necessary. The AC can, of course, investigate the evidence I have > prepared and rule "Tim is obviously doolally and what's more he's not > even an official advisor - it's your fault for consulting him and we > consider the appeal frivolous". However, if the AC actually refuses to > consider the additional evidence *at all* the matter should be referred > to the NA on a point of principle. I concur with this point of view entirely. I pointed a player, inexperienced indeed, in Tim's direction for an appeal on BridgeClubLive! and added the substance of his opinion to the evidence to be presented to the AC. To do otherwise would not do credit to the appeals process. In part, as a result of his opinion, the appeal was partially successful and the deposit was never in doubt. john > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 1 19:13:15 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:13:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? In-Reply-To: <000801c78b2d$a0ec0500$889087d9@Hellen> References: <001501c78b1a$0f2c98e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000801c78b2d$a0ec0500$889087d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <4637752B.8010201@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ 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. [nige1] Why ever not? I agree with Tim West-Meads that additional knowledge and expertise cannot be a handicap to an appeals committee. IMO, the committee should be free to reject the screener's views (just as they are free to reject the views of anybody else whom they consult) ... *except* that the committee should not have the power to punish the appellants for an appeal without merit if the "screener" deems it to have merit. I like the Australian idea explained by Richard Hills: the penalty for a frivolous appeal is fairer if it is in terms of imps or vps or matchpoints rather than money. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed May 2 02:20:22 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:20:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? References: <001501c78b1a$0f2c98e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004701c78c4f$ad1c3340$6400a8c0@rota> I agree with Sven that the outcome is not the determining factor; however, I do believe it is a necessary condition. If the TD ruling is -200 to the appellants, and one member of the AC believes that the score should be -100 to the appellants, there should be no penalty for an appeal without merit, because the AC member who would rule -100 must have seen a merit in the claim. The converse is not true. If the entire AC believes that the ruling should be -200 (or worse), the appeal might or might not have merit; Nigel gave one type of example, and another situation might be that the committee, after complicated deliberation, determines that there was or was not an LA but that the players could not be expected to make that determination themselves. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:24 AM 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 -----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. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 2 09:26:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:26:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Must one call the TD if one suspects a fouled board? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4635BD47.6050908@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: No, "must" is not the word. See the explanation of Law 9 in The Scope. But if the word was "would", then of course I would call the TD. 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 Wed May 2 09:53:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:53:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] major or minor pc Message-ID: <46384386.2060303@skynet.be> Just to make certain: A defender, on lead, 1) drops the D9 while playing the D4: the D9 becomes a minor pc. 2) drops the D9 and D4: he can choose which he plays, the other becomes a minor pc 3) drops the D9 while playing the DT: the D9 becomes a minor pc. 4) drops the DT while playing the D9: the DT becomes a major pc. 5) drops the DT and D9: he can choose which he plays, if he chooses the DT, the D9 becomes a minor pc do we really need to investigate the intent, or is it simpler and we treat all two cards the same - neither is played voluntarily and the choice is always up to the player? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 2 10:40:55 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:40:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4637016C.2090607@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502103703.028415a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:59 1/05/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >And you think that citing one example from 1980 strengthens your >argument? Rather, it strengthens mine. In 50 years of WC reporting, >you find one example where it would have been better to follow your >advice. I think that means that my advice is more effective, don't >you? No, of course you don't, Herman, you should consider Einstein's view. After a whole book was written by about 100 pro-nazi scientists to falsify his Relativity Theory, he commented : "Well, that proves I'm right. Were I wrong, one profesor would have been quite enough". To be fair, it's the same wise man who once said "I learned many years ago not to waste time trying to convince my colleagues" ;-P Alain From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed May 2 11:52:04 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 10:52:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] major or minor pc Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D09A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> > 5) drops the DT and D9: he can choose which he plays, > if he chooses the DT, the D9 becomes a minor pc If he drops two cards this is Law 49 (cards exposed) not Law 58 (card played simultaneously). Both cards become (major) penalty cards and declarer gets to choose which is played (Law 51) Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 2 12:30:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:30:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] if or while ? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502122311.02845cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, While rereading TFLB for a response to Herman's last question, I came across L50B2b (if there is a PC, and partner comes in hand, declarer may let the PC stand). There seems to be one open question : if the partner of the penalized player comes to hand once again, does declarer have the choice, as expressed by L50B2 (a and b), once again ? Or is his choice of letting the PC stand binding ? Thank you for the advice Alain From geller at nifty.com Wed May 2 12:33:54 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 19:33:54 +0900 Subject: [blml] if or while ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502122311.02845cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502122311.02845cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200705021033.AA08682@geller204.nifty.com> Good question! It does appear from L50 that the choice is made once and for all, but it would be helpful if the law were reworded to make this clearer. -Bob Alain Gottcheiner ????????: >Dear blmlists, > >While rereading TFLB for a response to Herman's last question, I came >across L50B2b (if there is a PC, and partner comes in hand, declarer may >let the PC stand). > >There seems to be one open question : if the partner of the penalized >player comes to hand once again, does declarer have the choice, as >expressed by L50B2 (a and b), once again ? Or is his choice of letting the >PC stand binding ? > >Thank you for the advice > > Alain > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Wed May 2 13:42:53 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:42:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] if or while ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502122311.02845cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c78caf$05800570$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > While rereading TFLB for a response to Herman's last question, I came > across L50B2b (if there is a PC, and partner comes in hand, declarer may > let the PC stand). > > There seems to be one open question : if the partner of the penalized > player comes to hand once again, does declarer have the choice, as > expressed by L50B2 (a and b), once again ? Or is his choice of letting the > PC stand binding ? Declarer has complete choice of all options in Law 50D2 each and every time partner to a player with MPC has the lead (as long as the MPC is still a PC). Example: Declarer selects option L50D2(b) and the card led wins the trick so the same player has the lead to the next trick. If his partner still has a PC (the lead was in a suit different from the suit of the PC, or there was more than one PC), declarer is again free to choose between L50D2(a) and L50D2(b) and the player on the lead must not make any lead until Declarer has made his choice on this second lead. (And so on....) Regards Sven From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed May 2 11:36:31 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:36:31 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__major_or_minor_pc?= References: <46384386.2060303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46385B9D.000004.53417@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 02/05/2007 11:03:55 A : blml Sujet : [blml] major or minor pc A defender, on lead, 1) drops the D9 while playing the D4: the D9 becomes a minor pc. 2) drops the D9 and D4: he can choose which he plays, the other becomes a minor pc 3) drops the D9 while playing the DT: the D9 becomes a minor pc. 4) drops the DT while playing the D9: the DT becomes a major pc. 5) drops the DT and D9: he can choose which he plays, if he chooses the DT, the D9 becomes a minor pc AG : But if in (5) he chooses the D9, the 10 becomes a MPC. Would be silly in this case, but imagine he's playing 4th in hand and drops the D9 (high enough to win the trick) and the DA. It could be his interest to declare he plays the D9, and have the DA as a major penalty card ... which he will lead to the next trick. > do we really need to investigate the intent, or is it simpler and we treat all two cards the same - neither is played voluntarily and the choice is always up to the player? AG : I'd prefer to let him choose, in the spirit of L72A5. Now, what if you pull a card from your hand, begin mobing it towards the table, and another card drops ? If you're quick enough to stop moving before the card can be seen, you'd be allowed to declare the exposed card as "played", provided it is legally playable to this trick, of course. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070502/d56aea7a/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/20070502/d56aea7a/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/20070502/d56aea7a/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed May 2 14:03:25 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:03:25 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__major_or_minor_pc?= References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D09A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <46387E0C.00000D.53417@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Robin Barker Date : 02/05/2007 13:00:53 A : Herman De Wael; blml Sujet : Re: [blml] major or minor pc > 5) drops the DT and D9: he can choose which he plays, > if he chooses the DT, the D9 becomes a minor pc If he drops two cards this is Law 49 (cards exposed) not Law 58 (card played simultaneously). AG : indeed, if he drops two cards in the action of playing a third one. But if we see only the "dropped" cards, it's quite possible that one of those was the card to be played. Perhaps that's why Herman wanted us to debate about asking the player about his intent. Anyway, it would be very strange to penalize the player more harshly when two cards are apparent and partner doesn't know which one he wanted to play (two cards dropping simultaneously), that when partner does (one card played one dropped). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070502/5715633b/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/20070502/5715633b/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/20070502/5715633b/attachment-0001.gif From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed May 2 16:01:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:01:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463899BE.8010007@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] ACBL screeners are not synonymous with EBU Appeals Advisers. The reason that the EBU has ruled that "cuddlies" views are not given to the EBU appeals committees is that the cuddlies only hear the potential appellant's version of the facts (which may be misconstrued or self-servingly distorted). On the other hand, ACBL screeners are supposed to interview the floor director who made the ruling. [Nige1] There are slightly different arrangements under different legislations but my aim was to define *general* guidelines for judging whether an appeal had merit. To *that* end, I suggested that... [A] *screener* be a portmanteau term for official appeals adviser, screening director, or whatever. [B} The screener should base his advice mainly on the *appeal form* (but be free to ask questions of whomever he feels like). I've just realised that this does assume that there *is* an appeal form. IMO the Director should make a *contemporaneous* note of basic facts, when he makes a ruling. If a pair tentatively decide to appeal, then both sides should immediately add their version of events (and their arguments if any) to the appeal form -- while it is all fresh in their minds. As far as I know, this sensible protocol is normal EBU practice. Now, the screener can rely mainly on the appeal form when giving advice. The screener should be wary of new disputed *facts*, freshly remembered by either side. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed May 2 17:42:32 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 16:42:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Could have known Message-ID: <000601c78cd0$7fc98d30$0200a8c0@david> West is declarer in a No Trump contract at matchpoints. At about T8 North leads a Spade. South produces a Diamond, promptly says sorry and plays a Spade. Director rules the D is a MPC - must be played at first legal opportunity etc. Declarer wins the trick and has now got a choice. With Axx of D in hand opposite Qx in dummy she can play play small to the Q making one more trick than the field if S holds the K. However if N holds the K he can win and hold the contract to one less than the field. (a) If declarer plays the D and N does win do you adjust on the basis that the expert S could have known the MPC could work to his advantage? (b) If declarer does not play the D and S does hold the K do you adjust on the basis that had Declarer been told of the possibility of an adjustment if the play had worked out badly, she would have risked it? (Director error?). Does it make any difference if you are convinced (know) that the original D play was completely innocent? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070502/042244d5/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 01/05/2007 14:57 From svenpran at online.no Wed May 2 21:51:56 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:51:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known In-Reply-To: <000601c78cd0$7fc98d30$0200a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001c01c78cf3$57e3b1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of David Barton West is declarer in a No Trump contract at matchpoints. At about T8 North leads a Spade. South produces a Diamond, promptly says sorry and plays a Spade. Director rules?the D is a MPC - must be played at first legal opportunity etc. Declarer wins the trick and has now got a choice. With Axx of D in hand opposite Qx in dummy she can play play small to the Q making one more trick than the field if S holds the K. However if N holds the K he can win and hold the contract to one less than the field. ? (a) If declarer plays the D and N does win do you adjust on the basis that ???? the expert S could have known the MPC could work to his advantage? ? (b) If declarer does not play the D and S does hold the K do you adjust on ???? the basis that had Declarer been told of the possibility of an adjustment ???? if the play had worked out badly, she would have risked it? ???? (Director error?). ? Does it make any difference if you are convinced (know) that the original D play was completely innocent? This last question illustrates a fact that for a long time has had me completely baffled: In Norway (and I believe equally much in our neighboring countries) we assume that the players do not cheat unless we are convinced that they do. Similarly we assume that infractions of law are accidental unless we are convinced that they are deliberate. After all we consider Bridge a game for Gentlemen (and ladies). The question seems to confirm an impression I have had several times that elsewhere in the world there is a common attitude to assume that players cheat and deliberately violate the laws whenever they have an opportunity if it may work to their advantage. That much said: To your question (b) I cannot see how the Director has made any error; he has correctly explained the consequences of South's irregularity and it is up to West to draw the inferences he may want from these consequences. West should know perfectly well that if he has been damaged from opponents' irregularities rather than from his own inferior or risky play he is likely to receive redress. So we are left with question (a): To rule on this alternative I shall need the complete layout of the cards and the proceedings of the tricks up to the irregularity. I shall further need information on what (if any) information the discard of a Diamond from South would convey to his partner (their signaling agreements). Regards Sven From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Wed May 2 22:37:10 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Steffens?=) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:37:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] major or minor pc In-Reply-To: <000001c78c98$59a4f910$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200705022037.l42KbBi0006760@smtp40.hccnet.nl> [Herman de Wael] Just to make certain: A defender, on lead, 1) drops the D9 while playing the D4: the D9 becomes a minor pc. 2) drops the D9 and D4: he can choose which he plays, the other becomes a minor pc 3) drops the D9 while playing the DT: the D9 becomes a minor pc. 4) drops the DT while playing the D9: the DT becomes a major pc. 5) drops the DT and D9: he can choose which he plays, if he chooses the DT, the D9 becomes a minor pc do we really need to investigate the intent, or is it simpler and we treat all two cards the same - neither is played voluntarily and the choice is always up to the player? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- [Andr? Steffens] I would like to rephrase the question. It helps me make up my mind. 1. A defender is on lead. 2a. As he wants to lead his singleton club he moves his diamonds to the other side of his spades thereby dropping two of them. -This a Law 49/51 case: two MPC's As the defender is on lead, declarer must now designate which of these cards will be played. 2b. Pulling a diamond from his hand with the intention to play it a second diamond somehow reaches the table with it. Do we leave it at that and apply Law 58 now? Or do we distinguish further between: 2b1. The player moved the two cards manually from his hand to the table (for instance because they were glued together): Law 58 2b2. The player put one card manually on the table, the other dropped. Law 49 for the dropped card. I would say for Mr de Wael's cases 2 and 5 Law 49/51 tells the TD how to rule. For the others it is Law 58, so I would elect not to make the distiction between 2b1 and 2b2. In the De Wael cases 3 and 4 there is no agreement about how to apply Law 58. Some of the contributors here think the TD should establish which card was the intended one, others say that the player may choose his card after both have hit the table. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 2 23:50:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Could have known In-Reply-To: <001c01c78cf3$57e3b1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > This last question illustrates a fact that for a long time has had me > completely baffled: In Norway (and I believe equally much in our > neighboring countries) we assume that the players do not cheat unless > we are convinced that they do. Similarly we assume that infractions of > law are accidental unless we are convinced that they are deliberate. > After all we consider Bridge a game for Gentlemen (and ladies). Of course - and the very essence of a gentleman is someone who would be horrified to gain from an innocent mistake which *resembles* a ploy a cheat might try deliberately. We have the "could have known" laws available to protect gentlemen against such occurrences and thus assume the mistake to be accidental and adjust the score. Personally I would only stop to consider motive if I basically *knew* the guy was a cheat (and even in Norway there will be some) and was prepared to issue a penalty. Tim From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu May 3 09:20:47 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:20:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] if or while ? In-Reply-To: <200705021033.AA08682@geller204.nifty.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502122311.02845cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200705021033.AA08682@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On 02/05/07, Robert Geller wrote: > Good question! It does appear from L50 that the choice is made > once and for all, but it would be helpful if the law were reworded to > make this clearer. > -Bob I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Law 50D2b is quite clear: It remains a penalty card if declarer doesn't demand or prohibit a lead in the suit. Thus, if partner leads some other suit, the PC remains a PC, and if partner regains the lead with the card unplayed, Law 50D2 applies. IMO it's impossible that this Law can mean anything else. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Alain Gottcheiner ????????: > >Dear blmlists, > > > >While rereading TFLB for a response to Herman's last question, I came > >across L50B2b (if there is a PC, and partner comes in hand, declarer may > >let the PC stand). > > > >There seems to be one open question : if the partner of the penalized > >player comes to hand once again, does declarer have the choice, as > >expressed by L50B2 (a and b), once again ? Or is his choice of letting the > >PC stand binding ? > > > >Thank you for the advice > > > > Alain > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml at amsterdamned.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 3 10:16:26 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 10:16:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known In-Reply-To: <000601c78cd0$7fc98d30$0200a8c0@david> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070503100729.028a2c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:42 2/05/2007 +0100, David Barton wrote: >West is declarer in a No Trump contract at matchpoints. >At about T8 North leads a Spade. >South produces a Diamond, promptly says sorry and plays a Spade. >Director rules the D is a MPC - must be played at first legal opportunity etc. >Declarer wins the trick and has now got a choice. >With Axx of D in hand opposite Qx in dummy she can play play small to the >Q making one more trick than the field if S holds the K. >However if N holds the K he can win and hold the contract to one less than >the field. > >(a) If declarer plays the D and N does win do you adjust on the basis that > the expert S could have known the MPC could work to his advantage? > >(b) If declarer does not play the D and S does hold the K do you adjust on > the basis that had Declarer been told of the possibility of an > adjustment > if the play had worked out badly, she would have risked it? > (Director error?). > >Does it make any difference if you are convinced (know) that the original >D play was completely innocent? Let's tackle the last part first. The answer is a loud and clear "no". "could have known" means that the intent doesn't make any difference ; only the possibility does ; ie if South is a beginner who can't imagine the position, he couldn't have known ; but his bona fide is irrelevant, and impossible to test BTW. Now for part (a) : I think it would be stretching a little to state that South could have foreseen that West would be prone to take that risk ; it's only a 50-50 proposition after all. Most Wests wouldn't like to gamble this. Ready to listen at arguments to the contrary. This solves part (b). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070503/f90673fb/attachment-0001.htm From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu May 3 11:18:53 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 10:18:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Could have known References: <001c01c78cf3$57e3b1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c78d64$11ab1820$0200a8c0@david> On Behalf Of David Barton West is declarer in a No Trump contract at matchpoints. At about T8 North leads a Spade. South produces a Diamond, promptly says sorry and plays a Spade. Director rules the D is a MPC - must be played at first legal opportunity etc. Declarer wins the trick and has now got a choice. With Axx of D in hand opposite Qx in dummy she can play play small to the Q making one more trick than the field if S holds the K. However if N holds the K he can win and hold the contract to one less than the field. (a) If declarer plays the D and N does win do you adjust on the basis that the expert S could have known the MPC could work to his advantage? (b) If declarer does not play the D and S does hold the K do you adjust on the basis that had Declarer been told of the possibility of an adjustment if the play had worked out badly, she would have risked it? (Director error?). Does it make any difference if you are convinced (know) that the original D play was completely innocent? Sven wrote:- This last question illustrates a fact that for a long time has had me completely baffled: In Norway (and I believe equally much in our neighboring countries) we assume that the players do not cheat unless we are convinced that they do. Similarly we assume that infractions of law are accidental unless we are convinced that they are deliberate. After all we consider Bridge a game for Gentlemen (and ladies). The question seems to confirm an impression I have had several times that elsewhere in the world there is a common attitude to assume that players cheat and deliberately violate the laws whenever they have an opportunity if it may work to their advantage. That much said: To your question (b) I cannot see how the Director has made any error; he has correctly explained the consequences of South's irregularity and it is up to West to draw the inferences he may want from these consequences. West should know perfectly well that if he has been damaged from opponents' irregularities rather than from his own inferior or risky play he is likely to receive redress. So we are left with question (a): To rule on this alternative I shall need the complete layout of the cards and the proceedings of the tricks up to the irregularity. I shall further need information on what (if any) information the discard of a Diamond from South would convey to his partner (their signaling agreements). Regards Sven The hand was something like:- Qxxxx Axxx Kx xx AK xx xxx KQ Axx Qxxx Jxxxx AKQxx J10xx Jxxx Jxxx x 1N (12-14) P 3N all pass North lead 4th highest spade. West won and cashed 5 clubs and then played a H. North won and continued a spade. South pulled the wrong card from his hand (a diamond) and corrected it to a spade. West saw the chance of a valuable overtrick (if S had DK) and continued with a small D. North took this and cashed 3 more spades for down one. At the point of the mispull S has a full count of the hand. In other words the "could have known" condition is satisfied. A villainous South could realise that the MPC might work to his advantage and was risk free. South did indeed gain from his infraction. As I read it, the intent of the particular South is NOT relevant. In fact since I was the perpetrator and TD, I know the action was innocent, but still believe that there is a strong arguement that I should rule against myself under L72B1. Further comments welcome. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 02/05/2007 14:16 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu May 3 11:29:08 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:29:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Movement balance Message-ID: <4639AB64.8070200@t-online.de> Hi all, yesterday play started half an hour earlier than usual. Of course some people hadn`t noticed, so we started with 6 tables ( 9 rounds, 27 boards). At the end of round 1 4 more pairs had appeared, so I split two tables to get them into the movement. No problem so far, the software can handle this. But I started to wonder... having 4 more stationary pairs does terrible things to the balance. This can of course be remedied by having the new stationary pairs switch direction in a couple of rounds, but when? Has anyone done any research on this? Splitting one or more tables in a Howell or Reduced Howell is a very rare situation, so the question is a bit academic, but I wondered whether there is some easy way to determine when to switch at what tables. The method would have to be pretty fast as it has to be implemented during the first round (no, I do not want to write new movements for all possible cases...) Best regards Matthias From svenpran at online.no Thu May 3 12:09:24 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:09:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Could have known In-Reply-To: <001101c78d64$11ab1820$0200a8c0@david> Message-ID: <002501c78d6b$20f14b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > > West is declarer in a No Trump contract at matchpoints. > At about T8 North leads a Spade. > South produces a Diamond, promptly says sorry and plays a Spade. > Director rules the D is a MPC - must be played at first legal opportunity > etc. > Declarer wins the trick and has now got a choice. > With Axx of D in hand opposite Qx in dummy she can play play small to the > Q making one more trick than the field if S holds the K. > However if N holds the K he can win and hold the contract to one less than > the field. > > (a) If declarer plays the D and N does win do you adjust on the basis that > the expert S could have known the MPC could work to his advantage? > > (b) If declarer does not play the D and S does hold the K do you adjust on > the basis that had Declarer been told of the possibility of an > adjustment > if the play had worked out badly, she would have risked it? > (Director error?). > > Does it make any difference if you are convinced (know) that the original > D play was completely innocent? > > Sven wrote:- > > This last question illustrates a fact that for a long time has had me > completely baffled: In Norway (and I believe equally much in our > neighboring > countries) we assume that the players do not cheat unless we are convinced > that they do. Similarly we assume that infractions of law are accidental > unless we are convinced that they are deliberate. After all we consider > Bridge a game for Gentlemen (and ladies). > > The question seems to confirm an impression I have had several times that > elsewhere in the world there is a common attitude to assume that players > cheat and deliberately violate the laws whenever they have an opportunity > if > it may work to their advantage. > > That much said: > > To your question (b) I cannot see how the Director has made any error; he > has correctly explained the consequences of South's irregularity and it is > up to West to draw the inferences he may want from these consequences. > West > should know perfectly well that if he has been damaged from opponents' > irregularities rather than from his own inferior or risky play he is > likely > to receive redress. > > So we are left with question (a): To rule on this alternative I shall need > the complete layout of the cards and the proceedings of the tricks up to > the > irregularity. I shall further need information on what (if any) > information > the discard of a Diamond from South would convey to his partner (their > signaling agreements). > > Regards Sven > > The hand was something like:- > > Qxxxx > Axxx > Kx > xx > > AK xx > xxx KQ > Axx Qxxx > Jxxxx AKQxx > > J10xx > Jxxx > Jxxx > x > 1N (12-14) P 3N all pass > > North lead 4th highest spade. > West won and cashed 5 clubs and then played a H. > North won and continued a spade. > South pulled the wrong card from his hand (a diamond) > and corrected it to a spade. > West saw the chance of a valuable overtrick (if S had DK) > and continued with a small D. > North took this and cashed 3 more spades for down one. > > At the point of the mispull S has a full count of the hand. > In other words the "could have known" condition is satisfied. > A villainous South could realise that the MPC might work > to his advantage and was risk free. > South did indeed gain from his infraction. > > As I read it, the intent of the particular South is NOT relevant. > In fact since I was the perpetrator and TD, I know the action > was innocent, but still believe that there is a strong arguement > that I should rule against myself under L72B1. > > Further comments welcome. What did South discard on the last four club tricks and what if anything did his discards (both his discards on the club tricks and also his "discard" with the Diamond) signal to North? Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu May 3 14:20:08 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 13:20:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Could have known References: <002501c78d6b$20f14b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c78d7d$638138f0$0200a8c0@david> >> On Behalf Of David Barton >> >> West is declarer in a No Trump contract at matchpoints. >> At about T8 North leads a Spade. >> South produces a Diamond, promptly says sorry and plays a Spade. >> Director rules the D is a MPC - must be played at first legal opportunity >> etc. >> Declarer wins the trick and has now got a choice. >> With Axx of D in hand opposite Qx in dummy she can play play small to the >> Q making one more trick than the field if S holds the K. >> However if N holds the K he can win and hold the contract to one less >> than >> the field. >> >> (a) If declarer plays the D and N does win do you adjust on the basis >> that >> the expert S could have known the MPC could work to his advantage? >> >> (b) If declarer does not play the D and S does hold the K do you adjust >> on >> the basis that had Declarer been told of the possibility of an >> adjustment >> if the play had worked out badly, she would have risked it? >> (Director error?). >> >> Does it make any difference if you are convinced (know) that the original >> D play was completely innocent? >> >> Sven wrote:- >> >> This last question illustrates a fact that for a long time has had me >> completely baffled: In Norway (and I believe equally much in our >> neighboring >> countries) we assume that the players do not cheat unless we are >> convinced >> that they do. Similarly we assume that infractions of law are accidental >> unless we are convinced that they are deliberate. After all we consider >> Bridge a game for Gentlemen (and ladies). >> >> The question seems to confirm an impression I have had several times that >> elsewhere in the world there is a common attitude to assume that players >> cheat and deliberately violate the laws whenever they have an opportunity >> if >> it may work to their advantage. >> >> That much said: >> >> To your question (b) I cannot see how the Director has made any error; he >> has correctly explained the consequences of South's irregularity and it >> is >> up to West to draw the inferences he may want from these consequences. >> West >> should know perfectly well that if he has been damaged from opponents' >> irregularities rather than from his own inferior or risky play he is >> likely >> to receive redress. >> >> So we are left with question (a): To rule on this alternative I shall >> need >> the complete layout of the cards and the proceedings of the tricks up to >> the >> irregularity. I shall further need information on what (if any) >> information >> the discard of a Diamond from South would convey to his partner (their >> signaling agreements). >> >> Regards Sven >> >> The hand was something like:- >> >> Qxxxx >> Axxx >> Kx >> xx >> >> AK xx >> xxx KQ >> Axx Qxxx >> Jxxxx AKQxx >> >> J10xx >> Jxxx >> Jxxx >> x >> 1N (12-14) P 3N all pass >> >> North lead 4th highest spade. >> West won and cashed 5 clubs and then played a H. >> North won and continued a spade. >> South pulled the wrong card from his hand (a diamond) >> and corrected it to a spade. >> West saw the chance of a valuable overtrick (if S had DK) >> and continued with a small D. >> North took this and cashed 3 more spades for down one. >> >> At the point of the mispull S has a full count of the hand. >> In other words the "could have known" condition is satisfied. >> A villainous South could realise that the MPC might work >> to his advantage and was risk free. >> South did indeed gain from his infraction. >> >> As I read it, the intent of the particular South is NOT relevant. >> In fact since I was the perpetrator and TD, I know the action >> was innocent, but still believe that there is a strong arguement >> that I should rule against myself under L72B1. >> >> Further comments welcome. > > What did South discard on the last four club tricks and what if anything > did > his discards (both his discards on the club tricks and also his "discard" > with the Diamond) signal to North? > > Sven Not sure where this is going but North had thrown his 3 small hearts while indicating he wanted spades South had thrown 2 diamonds 1heart and 1 spade while also indicating a spade continuation. There would be no specific meaning to a 5th "discard" of a diamond, but North also had a sufficient count to know to go in with the DK and cash his spade winners. I believe the discards would have been identical with the DK and DJ interchanged. What is the point? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 02/05/2007 14:16 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 3 14:51:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 13:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Could have known In-Reply-To: <001101c78d64$11ab1820$0200a8c0@david> Message-ID: David Wrote: > > As I read it, the intent of the particular South is NOT relevant. > In fact since I was the perpetrator and TD, I know the action > was innocent, but still believe that there is a strong arguement > that I should rule against myself under L72B1. Were I the TD I'd automatically rule against myself in this situation - it's the only option to protect my reputation. Of course that leads to the circular argument that since I know I'd rule against myself I know the irregularity can't work to my advantage and I shouldn't adjust and therefore...! Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 00:26:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:26:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Pass 2D Pass 5NT(1) Pass 7D(2) Pass Pass Pass (1) Old-fashioned Josephine (2) Two of the top three diamond honours You, South, hold: 873 J64 863 AQ76 What opening lead do you make? What other opening lead do you consider making? 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Fri May 4 00:48:22 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 18:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <27968990.1178232502351.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: May 3, 2007 6:26 PM >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Imps >Dlr: South >Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >1S Pass 2D Pass >5NT(1) Pass 7D(2) Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Old-fashioned Josephine >(2) Two of the top three diamond honours > >You, South, hold: > >873 >J64 >863 >AQ76 > >What opening lead do you make? >What other opening lead do you consider making? Club ace. Because West might bid this way with AKQ9842 -- AJ43 32. If this is the sort of west who would never do that, I would consider the book lead of a diamond. But I would only consider that if I were virtually certain W wouldn't be a trickster; looking at three small spades makes a legit beat of a properly bid grand really remote. --JRM From geller at nifty.com Fri May 4 01:42:51 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 08:42:51 +0900 Subject: [blml] if or while ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200705032342.AA08688@geller204.nifty.com> Harald_Skj?an ????????: >On 02/05/07, Robert Geller wrote: >> Good question! It does appear from L50 that the choice is made >> once and for all, but it would be helpful if the law were reworded to >> make this clearer. >> -Bob > >I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Law 50D2b is quite >clear: It remains a penalty card if declarer doesn't demand or >prohibit a lead in the suit. Thus, if partner leads some other suit, >the PC remains a PC, and if partner regains the lead with the card >unplayed, Law 50D2 applies. IMO it's impossible that this Law can mean >anything else. > >-- >Kind regards, >Harald Skj?ran L50D as it now stands is given in full below. I don't think Harald's view of what he thinks L50D should mean is unreasonable, but I do think it is ambiguously worded now and could be made clearer by the following changes: 1. In L50D itself: "...the offender whenever he is to play, the partner when he is to lead." --> "...the offender whenever he is to play, the partner WHENEVER he is to lead." In L50D2 "When a defender has the lead..." --> "WHENEVER a defender has the lead..." In L50D2b "...not to require or prohibit ... remains a penalty card." --> "...not to require or prohibit ... remains a penalty card. If this option is selected L50D continues to apply to later tricks." -Bob ********************************************************************* D. Disposition of Major Penalty Card When a defender has a major penalty card, both the offender and his partner may be subject to restriction, the offender whenever he is to play, the partner when he is to lead. 1. Offender to Play A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner). If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played. The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity. 2. Offender's Partner to Lead When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematurely, he is subject to penalty under Law 49). Declarer may choose: (a) Require or Forbid Lead of Suit to require the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card, or to prohibit him from leading that suit for as long as he retains the lead (for two or more penalty cards, see Law 51); if declarer exercises this option, the card is no longer a penalty card, and is picked up. (b) No Lead Restriction not to require or prohibit a lead, in which case the defender may lead any card; the penalty card remains a penalty card. > > >> >> Alain Gottcheiner ????????: >> >Dear blmlists, >> > >> >While rereading TFLB for a response to Herman's last question, I came >> >across L50B2b (if there is a PC, and partner comes in hand, declarer may >> >let the PC stand). >> > >> >There seems to be one open question : if the partner of the penalized >> >player comes to hand once again, does declarer have the choice, as >> >expressed by L50B2 (a and b), once again ? Or is his choice of letting the >> >PC stand binding ? >> > >> >Thank you for the advice >> > >> > Alain >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >blml mailing list >> >blml at amsterdamned.org >> >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri May 4 04:25:44 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 03:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463A99A8.5000102@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1S Pass 2D Pass > 5NT(1) Pass 7D(2) Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Old-fashioned Josephine > (2) Two of the top three diamond honours > > You, South, hold: > > 873 > J64 > 863 > AQ76 > > What opening lead do you make? > What other opening lead do you consider making? > [nige1] Assuming that Declarer is sane, this contract is likely to be cold, because it seems that there are no distributional shocks for declarer. Hence, IMO,,, S3 =10... Hoping that opponents have a ten card spade fit. CA = 8... Hoping that declarer has a club in with his spades. D3 = 5... Hoping that declarer is a wild optimist. H4 = 1... Abandoning hope. A hesitation by partner at his last pass might suggest a spade lead, so you should probably lead something else. ...A pity (: ...because partner was probably right to pass rather than Lighter double :) ...as 7S is likely to make against any defence :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 06:59:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:59:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502103703.028415a0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>And you think that citing one example from 1980 strengthens your >>argument? Rather, it strengthens mine. In 50 years of WC reporting, >>you find one example where it would have been better to follow your >>advice. I think that means that my advice is more effective, don't >>you? No, of course you don't, Alain Gottcheiner: >Herman, you should consider Einstein's view. >After a whole book was written by about 100 pro-nazi scientists to >falsify his Relativity Theory, he commented : >"Well, that proves I'm right. Were I wrong, one professor would have >been quite enough". > >To be fair, it's the same wise man who once said "I learned many >years ago not to waste time trying to convince my colleagues" Wikipedia, logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam": The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true instead. ..... Merely because the person making the argument cannot imagine how scenario "A" might have happened does not necessarily mean that the person's preferred conclusion (scenario "B") is correct. As with other forms of the argument from ignorance, the arguer in this instance has arrived at a conclusion without any evidence supporting the preferred hypothesis, merely for lack of being able to imagine the alternative. 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 May 4 08:07:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <462607CE.9060802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007: >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. Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm [snip] These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove the rule that all crows are black. [snip] It's not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn't follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted". Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says "Entry free today" leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days (unless it's a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that some stores have, but let's not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: "Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm", which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule. Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception..... 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 May 4 09:30:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:30:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463AE100.9090207@skynet.be> Richard, I really don't know what you are trying to do here. You are talking about exceptions to rules, and whether this proves or disproves the rules. But what we were talking about (and I forget about which thread you are talking about in this specific instance - it's not important) are not rules, but advice to players. Or actions of those players. Or things that will happen when the TD arrives at the table. No rules, no general statements. Just statements about what is likely to be happening. In cases like that, exceptions are expected. And we should look at the bigger picture, and make decisions about how many exceptions there will be when one statement is issued, and how many when some other statement is issued. So when I say that, in general, a certain way of ruling will be expected, there is no use in you telling us that once, in 1980, a different ruling was issued. Because my statement already admitted that there could be exceptions, and one exception in 25 years is hardly worth talking about - in fact, my words "in general" should be altered to "in an overwhelming majority of cases". So you may talk philosophy as much as you want, I will return to talking about bridge laws ... richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007: > >> 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. > > Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule: > [irrelevant and snipped] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 4 09:50:17 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:50:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502103703.028415a0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504094956.0217eda0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:59 4/05/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Wikipedia, logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam": > >The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from >personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an >assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or >unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or >alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true >instead. Sometimes, Richard, you're too serious. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 4 10:00:08 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 10:00:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <462607CE.9060802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504095056.02170e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:07 4/05/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007: > > >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. > >Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule: > >http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm > >[snip] > >These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an >inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the >existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule >applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, >notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the >logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a >rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the >old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove >the rule that all crows are black. I'm sorry, guys, you're discussing the wrong subject. "exception probat regulam" means "an exception puts the rule to the test", ie you'll often have to change or at least adapt your rule after discovering an exception. The latter part of the sentence is to be understood as "in such a way that even other cases will be affected by the change". "probare" bears the same double-entendre as "proof" (you wouldn't care about demonstrating a pudding, would you ?) Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 4 15:25:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504095056.02170e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > "exception probat regulam" means "an exception puts the rule to the > test", Basically I agree Alain, but I think it's a bit stronger than "test". A reasonable translation might be "An exception *disproves* a rule, even in cases which appear to conform." Or more colloquially "A single exception disproves a rule." Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat May 5 05:52:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 13:52:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504094956.0217eda0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Wikipedia, logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam": Alain Gottcheiner: >Sometimes, Richard, you're too serious. Richard Hills: Good point. Why should I ultra-seriously refute the logical fallacies of the De Wael School when I can quote Monty Python to satirise its logical fallacies instead? :-) Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Bedevere: Quiet, quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. ..... Bedevere: Tell me, what do you do with witches? Peasant #3: BURN! Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches? Peasant #1: MORE WITCHES! [Gets slapped] Peasant #3: Wood! Bedevere: So, why do witches burn? [pause] Peasant #3: ... 'Cause they're made of... wood? Bedevere: Good! So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood? Peasant #1: Build a bridge out of her! Bedevere: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone? Peasant #1: Oh yeah. Bedevere: Tell me, does wood sink in water? Peasant #2: No, no, it floats. Floats! Peasant #1: Throw her into the pond! Bedevere: No, no, no. What also floats in water? ..... King Arthur: [has been silent in the background] A duck. [pause] Bedevere: Exactly! So, logically...? Peasant #1: ...If she weighs the same as a duck... then she's made of wood. Bedevere: And therefore...? [pause] Peasant #3: A WITCH! 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 May 5 06:20:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 14:20:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <27968990.1178232502351.JavaMail.root@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John R. Mayne: >Club ace. Because West might bid this way with AKQ9842 -- AJ43 32. Richard Hills: A very good guess, with West actually holding AKJ965 --- AT92 K95. Only the club ace works, since East held Q4 AKQ8 KQJ8 J84. John R. Mayne: >If this is the sort of west who would never do that, I would >consider the book lead of a diamond. But I would only consider >that if I were virtually certain W wouldn't be a trickster; >looking at three small spades makes a legit beat of a properly bid >grand really remote. John Probst, "alertability" thread, 18th January 2007: >>I've had Paul Hackett (with punter) ask me how I was doing during >>a late round of a pairs competition. It seemed a reasonable and >>justifiable question to me and I answered it. He would know that >>I would not lie. The punter had no idea what was going on and >>assumed it was just polite conversation. When I then took a view >>on a hand, Paul knew exactly what was going on, and it would have >>been manifestly unfair to him if he'd not known where I thought I >>was in the field. I took Paul's question as a back-handed >>compliment. cheers john Richard Hills: I was West, playing in my local South Canberra Bridge club eclectic Butler pairs. Having played against me many times before, South had no hesitation in leading the ace of clubs. Nigel Guthrie: >Assuming that West is sane, this contract is likely to be cold, >because it seems that there are no distributional shocks for >declarer. >Hence, IMO,,, >S3 =10... Hoping that opponents have a ten card spade fit. [snip] Hamlet: "I am but mad north-north-west." Richard Hills: Should a nigellian visitor to South Canberra be advised, under the full disclosure rule of Law 75, that the bespectacled bearded gentleman sitting North, North or West is insane? :-) 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 Fri May 4 17:16:56 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:16:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463B4E68.207@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hilss Quotes Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule] http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm [snip] These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove the rule that all crows are black. [snip] It's not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn't follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted". Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says "Entry free today" leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days (unless it's a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that some stores have, but let's not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: "Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm", which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule. Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception..... {nige1] Excellent stuff, Richard :) The educational value of BLML is much enhanced by literary and philosophical quotations from Grattan Endicott, David Burn, yourself and others :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070504/3a7ea74a/attachment.htm From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat May 5 17:05:48 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 11:05:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200705041456.l44EuSq8006242@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200705041456.l44EuSq8006242@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <463C9D4C.6000901@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Wikipedia, logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam": Nicely put, Richard. Your failure to understand Herman's point doesn't mean he is wrong. (Nor does it mean he is right, of course.) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun May 6 00:21:32 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 23:21:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucy in the sky with diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463D036C.4040004@NTLworld.com> [John R. Mayne] Club ace. Because West might bid this way with AKQ9842 -- AJ43 32. [Richard Hills] A very good guess, with West actually holding AKJ965 --- AT92 K95. Only the club ace works, since East held Q4 AKQ8 KQJ8 J84. [nige1] Well done! Both of you! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 7 08:12:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:12:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <463C9D4C.6000901@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Nicely put, Richard. Your failure to understand Herman's >point doesn't mean he is wrong. (Nor does it mean he is >right, of course.) Richard Hills: I do understand that on one occasion Herman attempted to score a point with the classical Euclidean argument of "reductio ad absurdum" (proving the truth of a hypothesis by assuming that the opposite hypothesis is true, then demonstrating that the opposite hypothesis has an absurd consequence). G. H. Hardy (1877-1947): "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game." WBF Laws Committee minute, 24th August 1998: "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." Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007: >>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!" Cicero (106-43 BCE): "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it." Richard Hills: Herman's attempted "reductio ad absurdum" argument is itself absurd, degenerating into the "straw man" logical fallacy. It is true that a WBF LC minute which said, "any action not specifically authorised in the Lawbook is an infraction", would be absurd. But that "straw man" is not the WBF LC actually said. Rather, the WBF LC said: "may be deemed an infraction **if information deriving from it is used** in the auction or play." 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 May 7 10:03:24 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:03:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <463B4E68.207@NTLworld.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507095648.021865c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:16 4/05/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal >principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which >may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases >not excepted". > I'm sorry, Sir; this is simply not true. Check for example at : http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm http://seaflower.deviantart.com/ And you'll find the original sense, which dates back to Antiquity : "an exception tests the rule". A sort of pre-Popperian falsifiability principle, so to speak. What has been done of it thereafter is another story. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070507/d1ffb8fe/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 8 00:45:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:45:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507095648.021865c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Michael Quinion: >>The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal >>principle: >>exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be >>translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not >>excepted". Alain Gottcheiner: >I'm sorry, Sir; this is simply not true. Check for example at : > >http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm > >And you'll find the original sense, which dates back to Antiquity : >"an exception tests the rule". Practical Latin website: >>>exceptio probat regulam: "the exception establishes the rule." Alain Gottcheiner: >A sort of pre-Popperian falsifiability principle, so to speak. > >What has been done of it thereafter is another story. Michael Quinion: >>It has often been suggested in reference works that _prove_ here is >>really being used in the sense of "test" (as it does in terms like >>"proving ground" or "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or in >>the printer's proof, which is a test page run off to see that all is >>correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea behind >>the saying is that the presence of what looks like an exception tests >>whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can't reconcile the >>supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong >>with the rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that's >>not where it comes from or what it strictly means. Richard Hills: Qui nimium probat, nihil probat. :-) 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 Tue May 8 04:52:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 03:52:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507095648.021865c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507095648.021865c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <463FE600.1080302@NTLworld.com> [At 16:16 4/05/2007 +0100, Nigel (allegedly) wrote] > The true origin of the phrase > lies in a medieval Latin legal > principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which > may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases > not excepted". > ]Alain Gottcheiner] I'm sorry, Sir; this is simply not true. Check for example at : http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm http://seaflower.deviantart.com/ And you'll find the original sense, which dates back to Antiquity : "an exception tests the rule". A sort of pre-Popperian falsifiability principle, so to speak. What has been done of it thereafter is another story. Regards Alain [nigel] You flatter me Alain :) I didn't write that -- but it makes sense to me :) ...Richard Hills wrote that :) ......And he was quoting Michael Quinion :) .........Who, in turn, was quoting - inter alia - H W Fowler :) ............But even Alain's own source translates it as :) ...............The exception *confirms* the rule :) http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 8 09:37:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 17:37:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Lehrer: [snip] >Be prepared! And be careful not to do >Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. >If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, >And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, >Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. >Be prepared! Richard Hills: Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D 5S Pass ? You, North, hold: AJ752 A A32 KT72 Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall? What call do you make now? 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 Tue May 8 09:49:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 09:49:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507095648.021865c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070508093825.0217d650@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:45 8/05/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Practical Latin website: > > >>>exceptio probat regulam: "the exception establishes the rule." Yes, it's a very common error. About 90% of English-speaking Frenchmen translate "the proof of the pudding ..." as "la preuve du pudding...", which is ridiculous. Why would it be impossible that the same error be committed here ? (remark that "proof" is made on the same root as "probare". In English, "probare" gave both "probe" and " prove", but the substantive is the same. In French we have "?prouver" vs "prouver") > >>It has often been suggested in reference works that _prove_ here is > >>really being used in the sense of "test" (as it does in terms like > >>"proving ground" or "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or in > >>the printer's proof, which is a test page run off to see that all is > >>correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea behind > >>the saying is that the presence of what looks like an exception tests > >>whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can't reconcile the > >>supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong > >>with the rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that's > >>not where it comes from or what it strictly means. I'm an admirator of Quinion's work, but disagree with him on this point. The problem is, he considers the English translation "prove" as the basis of his argumentation (that the second sense is too uncommon), but the error was committed upstream, when translating from Latin. The translation shouldn't have been "prove" in the first place. Another well-known translation error from Latin has made Mary a virgin, when she only was a young lady (virgo). No need to invoke a double-entendre in the English word. Come to think of it, what does an exception do ? Reinforce the rule, or weaken it ? Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 8 12:37:46 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 11:37:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <464052FA.3020202@NTLworld.com> [Tom Lehrer] Be prepared! And be careful not to do Your good deeds when there's no one watching you. If you're looking for adventure of a new and different kind, And you come across a Girl Scout who is similarly inclined, Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. Be prepared! [Richard Hills] Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D 5S Pass ? You, North, hold: S:AJ752 H:A D:A32 C:KT72 Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall? What call do you make now? [nige1] IMO... Over 3D: 3S=10 3N=9 X=8 Over 5S: P=10 6S=6 6C=4 6N=2 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 8 09:59:12 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:59:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Could have known References: Message-ID: <000601c79162$5c7766e0$eea087d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > the very essence of a gentleman > +=+ "We must distinguish between a man of polite learning and a mere scholar: the first is a gentleman and what a gentleman should be, the last is a mere book-case, a bundle of letters, a head stuffed with the jargon of languages, a man that understands every body but is understood by no body." (Daniel Defoe) +=+ From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue May 8 13:25:55 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:25:55 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Be_prepared!____=5BSEC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <46405E42.000001.85071@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 08/05/2007 09:38:27 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D 5S Pass ? You, North, hold: AJ752 A A32 KT72 Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall? # AG : is the Pope Catholic ? What call do you make now? # AG : my hand bettered a little, but it's still a perfectly normal 3S overcall. Don't hang partner. Of course, 6S could work. Some might bid it, to be sure, but it's a gamble. Tempo case, I guess ? Of course, pass is a LA. To quote a Belgian expert, "'twould be like jumping from the 3rd stage of the Eifel tower with only an umbrella as a parachute ; except that in this particular case partner at least unfolded the unbrella" Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070508/9a14d5eb/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/20070508/9a14d5eb/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/20070508/9a14d5eb/attachment-0001.gif From john at asimere.com Tue May 8 21:37:24 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 20:37:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Be prepared! References: <46405E42.000001.85071@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <003301c791a8$4dbf89c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Cc: ; ; "S?bastien Louveaux" Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:25 PM Subject: [blml] R?f. : Re: Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 08/05/2007 09:38:27 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3D 3S 5D 5S Pass ? You, North, hold: AJ752 A A32 KT72 Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall? # AG : is the Pope Catholic ? What call do you make now? # AG : my hand bettered a little, but it's still a perfectly normal 3S overcall. Don't hang partner. Of course, 6S could work. Some might bid it, to be sure, but it's a gamble. Tempo case, I guess ? Of course, pass is a LA. MadDog: Wouldn't cross my mind to pass. 6D I think. John From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 9 00:42:09 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Be_prepared!?= References: <46405E42.000001.85071@CERAP-MATSH1> <003301c791a8$4dbf89c0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <002e01c791c2$3030b590$749287d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Be prepared! > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3D 3S 5D 5S > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > AJ752 > A > A32 > KT72 > > Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall? > > # AG : is the Pope Catholic ? > > What call do you make now? > > # AG : my hand bettered a little, but it's still a perfectly normal 3S > overcall. Don't hang partner. > Of course, 6S could work. Some might bid it, to be sure, but it's a > gamble. > > Tempo case, I guess ? Of course, pass is a LA. > > MadDog: Wouldn't cross my mind to pass. 6D I think. John > +=+ Lots of first round controls. Yes, I go on but I do not look for seven - in these preemptive situations distributional leaks are an increased risk - and I would prefer a diamond lead to many so I am not inclined to show the control. But I do think Pass is a LA. ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed May 9 06:32:21 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 05:32:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Be prepared! References: <46405E42.000001.85071@CERAP-MATSH1><003301c791a8$4dbf89c0$0701a8c0@john> <002e01c791c2$3030b590$749287d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <001701c791f3$09739a40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Be prepared! Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Be prepared! > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3D 3S 5D 5S > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > AJ752 > A > A32 > KT72 > > > MadDog: Wouldn't cross my mind to pass. 6D I think. John > +=+ Lots of first round controls. Yes, I go on but I do not look for seven - in these preemptive situations distributional leaks are an increased risk - and I would prefer a diamond lead to many so I am not inclined to show the control. But I do think Pass is a LA. ~ G ~ +=+ Fair enough Grattan. If partner has CQ and SK, 6S is a good contract. Make the CQ the CA and the grand will have play. In itself a slow 5S doesn't even tell me whether partner was thinking of bidding 5S; passing, doubling; or even potting the slam; but I'm enormous for a simple overcall now that the fit has come to light. Proddy'd shoot me if I passed this (though he doesn't create tempo problems). I just cannot buy a pass at all. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 9 08:49:19 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 08:49:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Be_prepared!?= In-Reply-To: <001701c791f3$09739a40$0701a8c0@john> References: <46405E42.000001.85071@CERAP-MATSH1> <003301c791a8$4dbf89c0$0701a8c0@john> <002e01c791c2$3030b590$749287d9@Hellen> <001701c791f3$09739a40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On 09/05/07, John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:42 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Be prepared! > > > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > "One writes only half the book, > the other half is with the reader." > ~ Joseph Conrad. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Probst" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Be prepared! > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 3D 3S 5D 5S > > Pass ? > > > > You, North, hold: > > > > AJ752 > > A > > A32 > > KT72 > > > > > > MadDog: Wouldn't cross my mind to pass. 6D I think. John > > > +=+ Lots of first round controls. Yes, I go on > but I do not look for seven - in these preemptive > situations distributional leaks are an increased > risk - and I would prefer a diamond lead to many > so I am not inclined to show the control. But I do > think Pass is a LA. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Fair enough Grattan. If partner has CQ and SK, 6S is a good contract. Make > the CQ the CA and the grand will have play. In itself a slow 5S doesn't even > tell me whether partner was thinking of bidding 5S; passing, doubling; or > even potting the slam; but I'm enormous for a simple overcall now that the > fit has come to light. Proddy'd shoot me if I passed this (though he doesn't > create tempo problems). I just cannot buy a pass at all. John > I agree with John that pass is no LA here. 6S rates to be good and 7S might easily be on. Partner won't be able to know that hte CQ is a huge card and the HK not. If I try for a grand he will often raise with the wrong hand. And the bidding suggest that nothing will be breaking. So I go with a mundane raise to 6S. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 9 10:40:10 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:40:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] RXf. : Re: Be prepared! In-Reply-To: <003301c791a8$4dbf89c0$0701a8c0@john> References: <46405E42.000001.85071@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070509103740.02180500@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:37 8/05/2007 +0100, John Probst wrote: >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >3D 3S 5D 5S >Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >AJ752 >A >A32 >KT72 >MadDog: Wouldn't cross my mind to pass. What on earth do you bid 3S on ? Is your partner allowed to hold Qxxxx - KQxx - void - xxxx ? Mine is. Regards Alain From Frances.Hinden at Shell.com Wed May 9 10:56:13 2007 From: Frances.Hinden at Shell.com (Frances.Hinden at Shell.com) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:56:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! Message-ID: <9E2D0237F735D64AA96C5AAC7597177503CA8DF1@lonsc-s-033.europe.shell.com> >Richard Hills: >Imps >Dlr: West >Vul: Nil >The bidding has gone: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >3D 3S 5D 5S >Pass ? >You, North, hold: >AJ752 >A >A32 >KT72 >Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall? Yes >What call do you make now? Pass. I don't understand those who say "pass is not a LA". It would not occur to me to bid on. Pre-empting what may not be the point of the hand at all, I don't think a slow 5S suggests any particular call. I've already said all this twice already: once when I chaired the appeal, and once when I subsequently commentated on it. It's reassuring to me that I haven't changed my mind! Frances Hinden 11 Williams Grove Long Ditton Surbiton Surrey KT6 5RN Work: +44 (0) 20 7934 5542 Home: +44 (0) 20 8224 1124 Email: Frances.Hinden at shell.com From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed May 9 11:23:56 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:23:56 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A___Be_prepared!?= References: <9E2D0237F735D64AA96C5AAC7597177503CA8DF1@lonsc-s-033.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <4641932B.000001.87991@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Frances.Hinden at Shell.com Date : 09/05/2007 10:56:46 A : blml at amsterdamned.org Sujet : [blml] Be prepared! Pass. I don't understand those who say "pass is not a LA". It would not occur to me to bid on. # AG : This isn't written anywhere, but IMHO the existence of numerous possible hands, coherent with the bidding so far, that would make option X a winner, automatically makes option X a LA, aven if very few would select it. Here are but a few, featuring the very probable diamond void, which would let partner bid 5S : KQxxx - Kxxx - void - xxxx Qxxxx - KQxx - void - Jxxx xxxx - Kxxxx - void - Axxx Frances : Pre-empting what may not be the point of the hand at all, I don't think a slow 5S suggests any particular call. # AG : some contributors have pointed, not far ago, that in such a situation an hesitation means "overvalue" more often than "undervalue", which means that 5S would indeed suggest going on. I don't agree with their view on other cases (like bidding 1S-2H-2S-...4H), but here, they might well be right. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070509/2e16d020/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/20070509/2e16d020/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/20070509/2e16d020/attachment-0001.gif From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 9 13:22:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Be prepared! In-Reply-To: <001701c791f3$09739a40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: I don't know how anybody else bids on these sort of hands but with Kxxx,KJxx,x,Qxxx I'd be bidding 5S over 5D (and my opps know enough about the game to bounce 5D on a 62/71 fit occasionally so the hand could even be Kxxx,KJxx,xx,Qxx). It's a guess as to whether 5S or 6S is the place to be and I'd suggest that, absent a tempo break, 6S is more likely to work. Tim From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu May 10 01:19:37 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 01:19:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Split score Message-ID: <46425709.3040202@cs.elte.hu> Hi, suppose after a long auction East-West reach 4S. During the bidding there was an agreed MI: East misinformed North about one of his partner's bid. The MI drives North to sacrifice 5H which is doubled and goes down 2, the 4S would have been down 2 as well. With correct information North would surely pass instead of sacrifice (and the 4S-2 is the very likely result). If you are the TD, you see North's hand and decides if the sacrifice is reasonable or clearly bad bridge with the received information. #1 If the sacrifice is reasonable. You adjust 4S-2. #2 If the sacrifice seems really bad with the MI as well, then result 5H*-2 stands and give a procedural penalty to the OS. #3 If the sacrifice is reasonable, but for example during the play the declarer goes down once more then he should have, you adjust a split score. Am I right? Is there any quite different situation when split score is adjusted? E.g. is it possible to adjust a split score in #2? cheers Laci From adam at irvine.com Thu May 10 00:40:31 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:40:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Split score In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 May 2007 01:19:37 +0200." <46425709.3040202@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <200705092234.PAA00417@mailhub.irvine.com> Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > Hi, suppose after a long auction East-West reach 4S. During the bidding > there was an agreed MI: East misinformed North about one of his > partner's bid. The MI drives North to sacrifice 5H which is doubled and > goes down 2, the 4S would have been down 2 as well. With correct > information North would surely pass instead of sacrifice (and the 4S-2 > is the very likely result). If you are the TD, you see North's hand and > decides if the sacrifice is reasonable or clearly bad bridge with the > received information. > > #1 If the sacrifice is reasonable. You adjust 4S-2. Yes. > #2 If the sacrifice seems really bad with the MI as well, then result > 5H*-2 stands and give a procedural penalty to the OS. In your part of the world, I believe this only applies if you can judge the 5H bid to be "wild, irrational, or gambling"; in that case, you can rule that the 5H bid was not caused by the misinformation and thus no adjustment is necessary. In the ACBL, the standard is a bit looser---the bid just has to be egregiously bad to break the causative link. As for a procedural penalty: I don't think this should be automatic. Sometimes just a warning is more appropriate. > #3 If the sacrifice is reasonable, but for example during the play the > declarer goes down once more then he should have, you adjust a split score. I think this is wrong. If the contract should have been at 4S, but the opponents bid 5H because of the misinformation, then you adjust to what the result would have been at 4S. You don't consider what actually happened at 5H---unless, of course, they made 5H, and then you let the NO's keep their good score. But even if they go down more than they should have, it doesn't matter. If the irregularity (the MI) had not occurred, the contract would have been 4S, and the result of 4S is what the NO's are entitled to, according to the Laws. This may not be a universal opinion. There's been debate on this subject on BLML in the past, and I think I used to be of the opinion that the NO's should suffer *some* punishment in their score for playing 5H really badly. But I've changed my mind. -- adam From svenpran at online.no Thu May 10 00:56:59 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 00:56:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Split score In-Reply-To: <46425709.3040202@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <000701c7928d$5a0f88c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Laszlo Hegedus > Hi, suppose after a long auction East-West reach 4S. During the bidding > there was an agreed MI: East misinformed North about one of his > partner's bid. The MI drives North to sacrifice 5H which is doubled and > goes down 2, the 4S would have been down 2 as well. With correct > information North would surely pass instead of sacrifice (and the 4S-2 > is the very likely result). If you are the TD, you see North's hand and > decides if the sacrifice is reasonable or clearly bad bridge with the > received information. > > #1 If the sacrifice is reasonable. You adjust 4S-2. > > #2 If the sacrifice seems really bad with the MI as well, then result > 5H*-2 stands and give a procedural penalty to the OS. > > #3 If the sacrifice is reasonable, but for example during the play the > declarer goes down once more then he should have, you adjust a split > score. > > Am I right? Is there any quite different situation when split score is > adjusted? E.g. is it possible to adjust a split score in #2? Sure, rather than giving a procedure penalty I would seriously consider letting the table result (5HX-2) stand for North/South and adjust to 4S-2 for East/West only. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 10 01:03:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:03:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Imps >Dlr: West >Vul: Nil > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >3D 3S 5D 5S >Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >AJ752 >A >A32 >KT72 > >Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall? Richard Hills: No. In my opinion to immediately overcall 3S is a slight underbid. My preference would be to double 3D, then rebid 3S after pard's likely 3H. In my style this two-step shows extra strength (plus it has the further advantage of possibly finding a cold 6C which might be impossible to reach after a mere overcall in spades). >What call do you make now? Richard Hills: After endplaying myself in the auction by my previous slight underbid, I have no choice but to pass now. From partner's point of view, pard correctly believes that after my strength-limiting mere overcall, pard is captain of the auction. Therefore, East may have all the outstanding values, 5D may be cold (due to East's spade void), and pard will not be impressed if his -300 save in 5Sx is unilaterally converted to a -500 oversave in 6Sx. John Probst: >I just cannot buy a pass at all. Harald Skj?ran: >I agree with John that pass is no LA here. WBF Code of Practice: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." Richard Hills: I am not in South's class of player, because I did not agree with South's 3S overcall. Therefore, my views on the logic of captaincy in this auction do not mean that the logical call of pass is a so-called "logical" alternative for South. Given the WBF CoP definition, "logical" is a misnomer. This thread started in July 2004, when blmlers were given the South cards and asked to "prepare" a call over 5D with: KQ3 KJT8742 85 A Two blmlers (Wayne Burrows and James Hudson) got their values off their chest by forcing to slam, willing to take the small risk of losing the first two diamond tricks. At the time I wrote, inter alia, "...The correct answer is to prepare your call by a thoughtful break in tempo. After that judicious pause, you then bid 5S. Pard will then know that: (a) Your 5S is not a sacrifice against an opposing cold 5D, and..." Frances Hinden: >I don't understand those who say "pass is not >a LA". It would not occur to me to bid on. > >Pre-empting what may not be the point of the >hand at all, I don't think a slow 5S suggests >any particular call. I've already said all this >twice already: once when I chaired the appeal, >and once when I subsequently commentated on it. >It's reassuring to me that I haven't changed my >mind! Richard Hills: Yes, the actual TD made a possibly erroneous judgement that Pass _was not_ a "logical" alternative for South. The actual AC made a possibly erroneous judgement that Pass _was_ a "logical" alternative for South. The actual AC majority made a possibly erroneous judgement that the slow 5S demonstrably suggested bidding slam. While subsequently Frances, in the actual AC minority, gained official support for her views. EBU Law and Ethics Committee: >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a >>logical alternative does not seem right, it >>would not have been surprising if the score had >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the >>successful action was not suggested by the >>unauthorised information. [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 hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu May 10 02:37:11 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 02:37:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Split score In-Reply-To: <200705092234.PAA00417@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200705092234.PAA00417@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <46426937.6050809@cs.elte.hu> Adam Beneschan wrote: >As for a procedural penalty: I don't think this should be automatic. >Sometimes just a warning is more appropriate. > > Well, "warning" is a kind of procedural penalty :) > > > >>#3 If the sacrifice is reasonable, but for example during the play the >>declarer goes down once more then he should have, you adjust a split score. >> >> > >I think this is wrong. If the contract should have been at 4S, but >the opponents bid 5H because of the misinformation, then you adjust to >what the result would have been at 4S. You don't consider what >actually happened at 5H---unless, of course, they made 5H, and then >you let the NO's keep their good score. But even if they go down more >than they should have, it doesn't matter. If the irregularity (the >MI) had not occurred, the contract would have been 4S, and the result >of 4S is what the NO's are entitled to, according to the Laws. > > Thanks your anwseres to my questions, but missed the most inportant, so I repeat: Is there any quite different situation when split score is adjusted? OK, I see you wold'nt adjust a split score in this #3 as well, but I think that's the classic example. >This may not be a universal opinion. There's been debate on this >subject on BLML in the past, and I think I used to be of the opinion >that the NO's should suffer *some* punishment in their score for >playing 5H really badly. But I've changed my mind. > > -- adam > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From adam at irvine.com Thu May 10 01:58:58 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 16:58:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] Split score In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 May 2007 02:37:11 +0200." <46426937.6050809@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <200705092353.QAA01071@mailhub.irvine.com> Laszlo rote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >I think this is wrong. If the contract should have been at 4S, but > >the opponents bid 5H because of the misinformation, then you adjust to > >what the result would have been at 4S. You don't consider what > >actually happened at 5H---unless, of course, they made 5H, and then > >you let the NO's keep their good score. But even if they go down more > >than they should have, it doesn't matter. If the irregularity (the > >MI) had not occurred, the contract would have been 4S, and the result > >of 4S is what the NO's are entitled to, according to the Laws. > > . . . . . > OK, I see you wold'nt adjust a split score in this #3 as well, but I > think that's the classic example. Not to me; I don't think this is the appropriate occasion for a split score. To me, a split score would be appropriate if we think that there was a 75% chance that the NO's would have bid 5H anyway, even with the correct information. Now, we might rule that the NO's get whatever score they get in 5H (since it's most probable that they would have bid it anyway), but the offenders get the score for 4S-2 (since there's enough of a chance that the NO's would have passed). This is when the Laws call for a split score. But in a case where there's a 0% chance that the NO's would have bid 5H if they had been given the correct information, I don't think that's a split-score situation (even if the NO's botched the play in 5H). I'm interested to hear what others say about this, though; is it the practice of TD's to give split scores in this sort of situation? -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 10 18:23:31 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:23:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Split score References: <200705092234.PAA00417@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <023b01c7931f$8e7bdd60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > In your part of the world, I believe this only applies if you can > judge the 5H bid to be "wild, irrational, or gambling"; in that case, > you can rule that the 5H bid was not caused by the misinformation and > thus no adjustment is necessary. In the ACBL, the standard is a bit > looser---the bid just has to be egregiously bad to break the causative > link. > The ACBL is supposed to adhere to the interpretations of the WBFLC, whose "wild, irrational, or gambling" interpretation at its Lille meeting applies to all members of the WBF. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 10 10:03:46 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:03:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070510095458.0291cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:03 10/05/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Richard Hills: > >I am not in South's class of player, because I >did not agree with South's 3S overcall. AG : the word "class", in TFLB, doesn't mean "school of thought" ; but rather "level", as is apparent in the footnote of L70. >Therefore, my views on the logic of captaincy >in this auction do not mean that the logical >call of pass is a so-called "logical" >alternative for South. Given the WBF CoP >definition, "logical" is a misnomer. AG : granted. What would logical alternatives be aftetr a sequence where former bids were ridiculous ? Remain ridicule ? NB : I would unquestionably have bid 6S on KQ3 KJT8742 85 A (with some partners, 5H would be FNJ). My partners' overcalls are quite sound unless short in their suit. More generally, I'd like to see something written to the point that, after making a NF bid and receiving lowest-level support, pass is always a LA. Best regards Alain Best regards Alain From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Thu May 10 10:17:55 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:17:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Split score References: <200705092234.PAA00417@mailhub.irvine.com> <46426937.6050809@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <00c601c792db$e09c47e0$3c493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> > > > >>#3 If the sacrifice is reasonable, but for example during the play the > >>declarer goes down once more then he should have, you adjust a split score. > >> > >> You could adjust both pairs to what the score would have been at 4S and lower the result of NS with the difference in mp or Imp between 5H doubled minus 2 and minus 3 being the own contribution to the bad score. Ben From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 10 11:57:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070510095458.0291cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > >I am not in South's class of player, because I > >did not agree with South's 3S overcall. > > AG : the word "class", in TFLB, doesn't mean "school of thought" ; > but rather "level", as is apparent in the footnote of L70. The word "class" is not used in reference to a definition of LAs (perhaps because TFLB doesn't define an LA!). However, most SOs use a definition involving "peers" - a "peer" is not just a player of similar level but also one of similar style and using a similar system. Thus we allow Richard to recuse himself as a "peer" in this instance because he would not bid 3S. I, OTOH, believe that direct action over a pre-empt should be fairly sound at IMPs and consider the marginal extra values as no more than sufficient compensation for the poor quality spade suit. NB, I would not expect my partner to bid 5S over 5D with the hand he actually held because he is simply too good for that action opposite a sound overcall. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 10 12:29:48 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:29:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Be_prepared!?= References: <46405E42.000001.85071@CERAP-MATSH1><003301c791a8$4dbf89c0$0701a8c0@john><002e01c791c2$3030b590$749287d9@Hellen><001701c791f3$09739a40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <004b01c792ee$56b34750$5bb787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Be prepared! > I agree with John that pass is no LA here. 6S rates to be good and 7S might easily be on. Partner won't be able to know that hte CQ is a huge card and the HK not. If I try for a grand he will often raise with the wrong hand. And the bidding suggest that nothing will be breaking. So I go with a mundane raise to 6S. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran +=+ That *we* would 'never' pass does not mean it is not an LA. There is evidence among the messages here to show that it is. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 10 12:38:12 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:38:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005401c792ef$6787f1b0$5bb787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv WBF Code of Practice: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it.". .............................................................. EBU Law and Ethics Committee: >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a >>logical alternative does not seem right, it >>would not have been surprising if the score had >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the >>successful action was not suggested by the >>unauthorised information. ............................................................ +=+ I do not have access to it for the moment but can someone research the (extended) CoP on the subject of 'hot seat auctions' ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu May 10 13:26:04 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:26:04 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Be_prepared!____=5BSEC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <005401c792ef$6787f1b0$5bb787d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <4643014B.000007.36543@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Grattan Endicott Date : 10/05/2007 12:40:50 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. I would have thought just opposite. When the level of the bidding is moderate, one often has stronger bids at one's disposal, e.g. 1S 1NT ? Here, a slow 3S might as well mean "I stretched it but think it's worth the risk" as "I neraly bid 4S but remembered about what 1NT means". But when the level is high, then you can't modulate your bids and having extra vaules is more common, as is the case here. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070510/468acd2c/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/20070510/468acd2c/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/20070510/468acd2c/attachment-0001.gif From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu May 10 13:24:05 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:24:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! In-Reply-To: <005401c792ef$6787f1b0$5bb787d9@Hellen> References: <005401c792ef$6787f1b0$5bb787d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <1Hm6kf-0teTgm0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > "One writes only half the book, > the other half is with the reader." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Joseph Conrad. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > WBF Code of Practice: > > "A 'logical alternative' is a different > action that, amongst the class of players in > question and using the methods of the > partnership, would be given serious > consideration by a significant proportion of > such players, of whom it is reasonable to > think some might adopt it.". > .............................................................. > EBU Law and Ethics Committee: > > >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many > >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest > >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. > >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid > >>conclusion of general application when a player > >>is under pressure at a high level. ?Accordingly, > >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a > >>logical alternative does not seem right, it > >>would not have been surprising if the score had > >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the > >>successful action was not suggested by the > >>unauthorised information. > ............................................................ > > +=+ I do not have access to it for the moment but > can someone research the (extended) CoP on the > subject of 'hot seat auctions' ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > sure, Peter Notes on Rulings ? 5 Hot Seat Rulings An ACBL appeals committee passed comments that fit well with WBF thinking in relation to what they called ?hot seat? auctions. It is desirable to exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a ?hesitation? when a player encounters an unprecedented situation in the auction. Thought was given to requiring a twenty second pause behind screens over a skip bid; there was also discussion of a possibility this might extend to abnormal situations encountered in the auction because of opponents? extraordinary agreements. These are questions that may arise again if we are unsuccessful in securing the desired irregularity of movement of the tray. An aspect that has special significance, when a player meets a quite unusual bidding situation and takes time to deliberate, is how clearly it is apparent to partner what is the nature of his problem. In such a situation a player may have to think from scratch what action is appropriate, and it is not altogether rare that he may have all three options ? pass, double (redouble), and bid, and a choice to make. If a Director is inclined to find that the partner?s subsequent bid is suggested by the breach of tempo, the first consideration is to judge whether it can truly be said that one action is suggested over another, or whether the message from the ?hesitation? is unclear. A sympathetic treatment of the law here should be an aim and it is an area in which regulating authorities may find it helpful to give guidance. From john at asimere.com Thu May 10 14:57:20 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:57:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! References: <005401c792ef$6787f1b0$5bb787d9@Hellen> <1Hm6kf-0teTgm0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <004b01c79302$beef7410$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Be prepared! > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > "One writes only half the book, > the other half is with the reader." > ~ Joseph Conrad. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > WBF Code of Practice: > > "A 'logical alternative' is a different > action that, amongst the class of players in > question and using the methods of the > partnership, would be given serious > consideration by a significant proportion of > such players, of whom it is reasonable to > think some might adopt it.". > .............................................................. snip> > +=+ I do not have access to it for the moment but > can someone research the (extended) CoP on the > subject of 'hot seat auctions' ? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I don't think the hot-seat applies here, but I do think the hesitation doesn't suggest whether bidding on, or passing is more likely to be successful. I'd actually rule "no use of UI" and result stands, whatever the outcome. The 6S call is based on lack of 1st round losers; I don't have to be anywhere near as control rich for my original action, and I'm clearly close to maximum for it. I'll apologise to pard when I'm wrong. John. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 10 16:04:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:04:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Split score In-Reply-To: <46425709.3040202@cs.elte.hu> References: <46425709.3040202@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <358AEF09-C9A0-4464-8BA8-24451D6652B9@starpower.net> On May 9, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > Hi, suppose after a long auction East-West reach 4S. During the > bidding > there was an agreed MI: East misinformed North about one of his > partner's bid. The MI drives North to sacrifice 5H which is doubled > and > goes down 2, the 4S would have been down 2 as well. With correct > information North would surely pass instead of sacrifice (and the 4S-2 > is the very likely result). If you are the TD, you see North's hand > and > decides if the sacrifice is reasonable or clearly bad bridge with the > received information. > > #1 If the sacrifice is reasonable. You adjust 4S-2. Yes. > #2 If the sacrifice seems really bad with the MI as well, then result > 5H*-2 stands and give a procedural penalty to the OS. No. First of all, the sacrifice must be a lot worse than just "really bad": an "egregious error" (ACBL) or "wild, irrational or gambling" (Europe). And if it is, the appropriate result is a split score (table result for the egregiously erroring NOS, 4S-2 for the OS). The OS should only be given a procedural penalty (in addition to the adjustment) only if their infraction was egregious, i.e. if one judges that it may have been an outright attempt to cheat. > #3 If the sacrifice is reasonable, but for example during the play the > declarer goes down once more then he should have, you adjust a > split score. No. Split scores are given when the NOS's error is "sufficiently egregious to break the connection between the infraction and the damage". The "connection" in this case is between the MI and the 5H bid; it is that connection that the "Kaplan doctrine" requires be broken. So it is the sacrifice that must be judged to have been the "egregious error". What happens subsequently should not affect the adjustment. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 10 16:33:25 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:33:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Split score In-Reply-To: <200705092234.PAA00417@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200705092234.PAA00417@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On May 9, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > >> #2 If the sacrifice seems really bad with the MI as well, then result >> 5H*-2 stands and give a procedural penalty to the OS. > > In your part of the world, I believe this only applies if you can > judge the 5H bid to be "wild, irrational, or gambling"; in that case, > you can rule that the 5H bid was not caused by the misinformation and > thus no adjustment is necessary. In the ACBL, the standard is a bit > looser---the bid just has to be egregiously bad to break the causative > link. It was Edgar Kaplan who introduced us to the concept of an "egregious error" that "breaks the causative link" between an infraction and subsequent damage. While I'm confident that Adam is correct in the context of current ACBL and European practice, if one actually reads Kaplan's original writings on the subject it is pretty clear that the standard he intended to set would have been a good deal tighter than the Europeans' "wild, irrational or gambling", more like just "irrational". The Europeans intended their standard to cover not only "egregious errors" but also obvious "double shots". Current American practice notwithstanding, that was never Mr. Kaplan's intention. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Thu May 10 17:18:37 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 08:18:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Split score In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 May 2007 09:23:31 PDT." <023b01c7931f$8e7bdd60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200705101512.IAA07827@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > In your part of the world, I believe this only applies if you > can > > judge the 5H bid to be "wild, irrational, or gambling"; in > that case, > > you can rule that the 5H bid was not caused by the > misinformation and > > thus no adjustment is necessary. In the ACBL, the standard is > a bit > > looser---the bid just has to be egregiously bad to break the > causative > > link. > > > The ACBL is supposed to adhere to the interpretations of the > WBFLC, whose "wild, irrational, or gambling" interpretation at > its Lille meeting applies to all members of the WBF. OK, I'm probably wrong. I thought there was an "official" ACBL interpretation that referred to "egregious errors". Maybe there was, maybe there still is, I'm not sure. Some director and committee rulings in the ACBL, however, seem to be based on a standard that's a lot looser even than that, in which a non-offender must play perfect bridge after an irregularity in order to get the benefit of an adjustment. That's just wrong. In any case, the original poster used the phrase "really bad", as in "don't give the non-offenders an adjustment if the 5H bid is really bad". But, as a player who has often misjudged when to save and when to defend and has made some really bad guesses in this matter, "really bad" doesn't sound bad enough to me to warrant refusing to adjust. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 10 18:56:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:56:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070510095458.0291cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070510095458.0291cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5AD75909-4AB1-44B2-B049-C3420BC921E5@starpower.net> On May 10, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:03 10/05/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Therefore, my views on the logic of captaincy >> in this auction do not mean that the logical >> call of pass is a so-called "logical" >> alternative for South. Given the WBF CoP >> definition, "logical" is a misnomer. > > AG : granted. What would logical alternatives be aftetr a sequence > where > former bids were ridiculous ? Remain ridicule ? In effect, yes. We should not allow a player to argue that some (less successful) alternative action in not an LA because it would be illogical at the crucial point for him not to compensate for his previous illogical actions. I don't see how it can be ruled "illogical" for a player to choose an alternative call that is more consistent than his actual one with his earlier calls in the auction, regardless of what we may think of the logic behind those earlier calls. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 11 00:14:04 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:14:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Thai braking In-Reply-To: <200705011500.l41F0lEO027688@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200705011500.l41F0lEO027688@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4643992C.2070305@cfa.harvard.edu> [getting back to this thread after long delay] > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Cross imps limits > one "luck problem" of a single random imp landing NS or EW > at the cost of a huge "luck problem" of double-digit imps > due to the luck of sitting NS or EW when a ridiculous > result happens at another table. Or when it happens at your own. Or facing opponents who have perfect methods for the deal. Or bad ones. There is inherent randomness in bridge. Why should the scoring system increase it? > Suppose... > -1700 (ridiculous result caused by South insisting on an > esoteric convention and North having a memory lapse) The scoring system doesn't know or care whether a result is ridiculous or comes from excellent play. If you want to take the _nature_ of the result into account, you will need human judges. (Sounds a bit like ski jumping, which combines an objective measure of distance with subjective "form points.") [flat board except for one wild result] > At olympic-scored Butler-with-a-datum (top and bottom > scores excluded before striking the datum), the EW players > at the six normal tables get their fair result of a flat > board. You left out "totally un-" just before "fair." If a player holding the same cards I do gets a worse result than mine, any objective scoring system will give me some IMPs. In your example, Butler deprives me of my due. In effect, Butler is giving the entire benefit of a ridiculous result to the single lucky pair who happen to be table opponents. Cross-IMP scoring spreads the benefit around more evenly. If you don't like large swings on a single deal, change the scoring system. For example, some IMP pair events truncate the IMP scale at 18. You could change the scale more drastically or use a different form of scoring altogether. But don't think using a datum solves the problem of deviant results. It just puts the problem in a different place. > Aussie national champion and mathematician, Warren Lazer, > has devised an olympic-scored cross imps method which > fixes this problem. For each pair, their imps are crossed > only against the middle four of the other six scores. Better than a datum but still unfair. If he's really a mathematician, either he hasn't thought things through or he is trying to accomplish something different than you suggest. From: Herman De Wael > I can easily create a third "bastille" system ... > by defining the average as that number for > which the total imps becomes zero. That would be fair. You will need different averages for NS and EW, but that's no problem. When you do the math, you'll find it differs very little from cross-IMPs. (The main difference will be larger swings on bimodal deals.) I personally like this system less than cross-IMPs, but that's a matter of taste, not right or wrong. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat May 12 12:56:43 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 22:56:43 +1200 Subject: [blml] What does this mean? Message-ID: <2a1c3a560705120356m28cc17c5hc0ed34f2088b5d8c@mail.gmail.com> L74 C. Violations of Procedure The following are considered violations of procedure: 1. using different designations for the same call. What is intended by this law? Yesterday we played against a pair who managed to catch me in 3HX 1H X 3H X All Pass Double was intended as penalties and passed by the takeout doubler with a stiff heart but the player concerned admit that she might double with 3=2=4=4 11 count hoping that partner would take it out. The takeout doubler admited they normally played takeout (responsive) doubles to 4S but she thought this was penalties. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sat May 12 15:08:08 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:08:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does this mean? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705120356m28cc17c5hc0ed34f2088b5d8c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c79496$96803ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > L74 > > C. Violations of Procedure > The following are considered violations of procedure: > 1. using different designations for the same call. > > What is intended by this law? Sometimes you say "PASS", sometimes you say "NO BID", sometimes you just wave your hand, sometimes you place a pass-card on the table and sometimes you just return your (previous) bid cards back into the box (if you are the last player to pass on that board). Sometimes you say "Hearts" (as your initial bid) and sometimes you say "one heart". Do I need to continue? Regards Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat May 12 16:37:11 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 10:37:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does this mean? Message-ID: <4645D117.5030501@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Wayne Burrows" > L74C: What is intended by this law? As Sven wrote. More relevant to this case: "double" for takeout, "I double" for penalty. > 1H X 3H X > All Pass > The takeout doubler admited they normally played takeout (responsive) > doubles to 4S but she thought this was penalties. Sounds to me as though there was some UI that you missed but intervenor caught. (The explanation is a lot like "Diamonds were breaking badly all week.") Very hard to get redress, but keep a close eye on this pair in the future. From mandache at free.fr Sat May 12 19:40:40 2007 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 19:40:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] establishing a revoke Message-ID: <1178991640.4645fc18355bc@imp.free.fr> Dear all, South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, East follows Sx, he plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer plays CA, West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played), then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the previous trick? I'm not void in Spades..." (my English is betraying me again, what is the right translation for "j'ai du pique"?) Is the revoke established? In other words, should "a defender's card [...] must be played" be read "a defender's card [...] is considered played" in L45B1? As I want to ask all my questions in one go, one of the following two parts will be meaningless (according to the answer to the first question). Part I - The revoke is established in the above situation. Now let us suppose that East has a MPC, the CK. At trick 4, declarer calls SK from dummy, East follows Sx, he plays Sx, and and West discards C4. Now declarer calls Cx from dummy and while North is placing the called card in played position (!), West says, "Wait, was it Spades the previous trick? J'ai du pique..." Is the revoke established too? Or is the "must" of L50D1 a softer one than the one of L45B1... Part II - just checking The revoke of trick 4 is not established, West corrects it and has now two MPC, the C4 and the C8 (I could have devised a more interesting example...) Declarer is allowed to withdraw his lead for trick 5 and play something else (L47D). Best regards, Manuela From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 12 20:20:56 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 14:20:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] establishing a revoke References: <1178991640.4645fc18355bc@imp.free.fr> Message-ID: <002101c794c2$499164a0$6400a8c0@rota> "Manuela Mandache" writes: > Dear all, > > South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, East follows Sx, > he > plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer plays CA, West pulls C8 from his > hand, > moves it towards the table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played), > then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the previous trick? I'm not > void in Spades..." (my English is betraying me again, what is the right > translation for "j'ai du pique"?) "I have some spades." > Is the revoke established? In other words, should "a defender's card [...] > must > be played" be read "a defender's card [...] is considered played" in L45B1? I would say yes. Once East saw West's card, it is considered played, and that applies to the normal sequence of play as well as to other rules such as establishing a revoke or leading out of turn. > As I want to ask all my questions in one go, one of the following two parts > will > be meaningless (according to the answer to the first question). > > Part I - The revoke is established in the above situation. > Now let us suppose that East has a MPC, the CK. At trick 4, declarer calls SK > from dummy, East follows Sx, he plays Sx, and and West discards C4. Now > declarer > calls Cx from dummy and while North is placing the called card in played > position (!), West says, "Wait, was it Spades the previous trick? J'ai du > pique..." > > Is the revoke established too? Or is the "must" of L50D1 a softer one than the > one of L45B1... This does not establish the revoke because East has not yet taken an action. This "must" establishes the penalty for a rule violation, but the play doesn't happen automatically. Players can do other things before taking required actions. For example, East could correct his own misexplanation of a call before playing his card, allowing dummy to make a different lead. He could also call the director because the lead was not in dummy (not the case here, but if South had played the SA and then led from the wrong hand, East could not be required to accept it). > Part II - just checking > The revoke of trick 4 is not established, West corrects it and has now two > MPC, > the C4 and the C8 (I could have devised a more interesting example...) > Declarer > is allowed to withdraw his lead for trick 5 and play something else (L47D). This is correct. From svenpran at online.no Sat May 12 20:41:09 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:41:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] establishing a revoke In-Reply-To: <1178991640.4645fc18355bc@imp.free.fr> Message-ID: <000101c794c5$1c11df70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache > Dear all, > > South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, East follows > Sx, he > plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer plays CA, West pulls C8 from his > hand, > moves it towards the table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually > played), > then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the previous trick? I'm > not > void in Spades..." (my English is betraying me again, what is the right > translation for "j'ai du pique"?) "I have a spade" or "I have spades" (You can also say "I do have ....") > > Is the revoke established? In other words, should "a defender's card [...] > must > be played" be read "a defender's card [...] is considered played" in > L45B1? No, the revoke is not established, the applicable law in this context is Law 45A: "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing (14) it on the table immediately before him" > > As I want to ask all my questions in one go, one of the following two > parts will > be meaningless (according to the answer to the first question). > > Part I - The revoke is established in the above situation. No > Part II - just checking > The revoke of trick 4 is not established, West corrects it and has now two > MPC, > the C4 and the C8 (I could have devised a more interesting example...) > Declarer > is allowed to withdraw his lead for trick 5 and play something else > (L47D). Correct. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun May 13 04:02:37 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 03:02:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] What does this mean? In-Reply-To: <4645D117.5030501@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4645D117.5030501@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <464671BD.9070207@NTLworld.com> [L74] C. Violations of Procedure The following are considered violations of procedure: 1. using different designations for the same call. [Wayne Burrows] What is intended by this law? Yesterday we played against a pair who managed to catch me in 3HX 1H X 3H X All Pass Double was intended as penalties and passed by the takeout doubler with a stiff heart but the player concerned admit that she might double with 3=2=4=4 11 count hoping that partner would take it out. The takeout doubler admited they normally played takeout (responsive) doubles to 4S but she thought this was penalties. [Sven Pran] Sometimes you say "PASS", sometimes you say "NO BID", sometimes you just wave your hand, sometimes you place a pass-card on the table and sometimes you just return your (previous) bid cards back into the box (if you are the last player to pass on that board). Sometimes you say "Hearts" (as your initial bid) and sometimes you say "one heart". Do I need to continue? {Steve Willner] As Sven wrote. More relevant to this case: "double" for takeout, "I double" for penalty. Sounds to me as though there was some UI that you missed but intervenor caught. (The explanation is a lot like "Diamonds were breaking badly all week.") Very hard to get redress, but keep a close eye on this pair in the future. [nige1] I agree with Steve. The law is does not prevent you ascribing two wildly different meanings to the same call. Some Internationals (including David Burn?) have formally agreed that some doubles are either penalty or takeout -- partner is meant to guess from opponents demeanour and his own hand. I agree with Steve Willner that if you play such methods you must lean over backward to avoid unauthorised information from partner. At the club, our bidding boxes are designed to remove such ambiguity :) There is a card with a capital "X" on it for a "Penalty" double :) Another card with a capital "D" on it for a "Competitive or takeout double" :) To ensure that partner recognises a purely "takeout" double, you can even try the "TD" card -- but then you have to make sure that opponents don't try to interpret it to mean something else :) Sven is right: the purpose of L74 is to ban such cunning ploys :( From svenpran at online.no Sun May 13 09:51:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 09:51:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does this mean? In-Reply-To: <464671BD.9070207@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c79533$8c454890$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel > [L74] > C. Violations of Procedure > The following are considered violations of procedure: > 1. using different designations for the same call. > > [Wayne Burrows] > What is intended by this law? .......... > Sven is right: the purpose of L74 is to ban such cunning ploys :( An amusing variation of this was developed within a certain region in Norway when STOP was introduced: Our STOP regulations originally included that STOP should be used with 1NT openings that could be weaker than 15 HCP. Pretty soon they began declaring their 1NT openings as 12-17; if they bid 1NT with STOP it was 12-14 and without STOP it was 15-17. As the Secretary General later told me: We had to remove that part of the STOP regulation because it was completely impossible to make those people understand that such an agreement is illegal! Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 15 09:41:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:41:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thai braking [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4643992C.2070305@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [very big snip] >>their fair result of a flat board. Steve Willner: >You left out "totally un-" just before "fair." [very big snip] Anatole France (1844-1924): "The majestic egalitarianism of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." :-) 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 May 15 10:00:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 18:00:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>I am not in South's class of player, because I did not agree with >>South's 3S overcall. Tim West-Meads: [snip] >Thus we allow Richard to recuse himself as a "peer" in this instance >because he would not bid 3S. I, OTOH, believe that direct action over >a pre-empt should be fairly sound at IMPs and consider the marginal >extra values as no more than sufficient compensation for the poor >quality spade suit. > >NB, I would not expect my partner to bid 5S over 5D with the hand he >actually held because he is simply too good for that action opposite a >sound overcall. Richard Hills: So Tim recuses himself as a peer of North, since he deems that North's competitive bid of a mere 5S is wimpy, wimpy, wimpy. If one makes the reasonable assumption (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that North and South are bridge partners because North and South are bridge peers, then (on the balance of probabilities) Tim is also not a peer of South. 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 May 16 09:29:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:29:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070510095458.0291cec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner suggested: [snip] >More generally, I'd like to see something written to the >point that, after making a NF bid and receiving lowest-level >support, pass is always a LA. Richard Hills quibbles: I agree 99.9% with Alain's suggestion, but "always" should instead be changed to "almost always". After a simple overcall, 1% of subsequent auctions will cause 1% of players to correctly re-evaluate their cards to realise that their boring non-forcing values have been improved by the auction to such an extent as to be worth a grand slam try. If a player deems their cards worth a grand slam try, then passing 5S is not logical (except for the special case of a "five or seven" deduction by that player, when choosing to place the contract in 6S is not logical). 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 May 16 09:48:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:48:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1Hm6kf-0teTgm0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, "Hot Seat Rulings": [snip] >An aspect that has special significance, >when a player meets a quite unusual >bidding situation and takes time to >deliberate, is how clearly it is apparent to >partner what is the nature of his problem. [snip] >A sympathetic treatment of the law here >should be an aim and it is an area in which >regulating authorities may find it helpful to >give guidance. Richard Hills: This WBF CoP advice carefully (and presumably deliberately) fails to grasp the nettle, instead devolving guidance to local regulating authorities. But it seems to me that when Law 73D1 mentions "steady tempo", the word "steady" may depend partly on context. That is, if a 20 second pause may be deemed to be so slow as to be a break in tempo in a routine auction, that same 20 second pause may instead be deemed to be "steady tempo" in a hot seat auction. Indeed, calling after a mere 10 seconds in a hot seat auction may well be deemed to be faster than "steady tempo", thus providing UI to pard that one's hot seat call was clearcut. 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 May 17 09:41:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:41:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Autodidact [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832): "All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education." Richard Hills: This bridge laws mailing list is a useful tool for any autodidacts who wish to educate themselves about the intended meanings of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but John Dryden (1631-1700): "Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." 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 Thu May 17 15:16:40 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:16:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000401c7988a$84c72160$dca387d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > This WBF CoP advice carefully (and presumably > deliberately) fails to grasp the nettle, > instead devolving guidance to local regulating > authorities. > +=+ The attitude of the WBFLC, supported in the CoP by the standing WBF Appeals Committee, is that what is appropriate for regulation should be left to the regulators. Being given the principles of the law it is the Directors (supported by and subject to the appeals structure) whose prerogative it is to make the bridge judgements in the application of the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 18 01:41:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:41:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Autodidact [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John Dryden (1631-1700): "Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." Richard Hills: When moving house last weekend, I unearthed a 1994 ACBL Appeals Casebook, and discovered that several of the then appeals committees and casebook commentators believed that a misbid was an "offence", and therefore it was legal to apply a Law 90 procedural penalty to a misbid. In more recent times David Stevenson opined on blml that while an infraction is an "offence" (since all infractions clearly fit the Law 90A definitional clause of "violates correct procedure"), an "offence" is not necessarily an infraction. However, this Stevensonian interpretation of "offence" is inconsistent with these WBF Code of Practice rules; page 6: "A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." and page 9: "A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated." And, of course, the footnote to Law 75 clearly states that a solitary misbid "is no infraction of Law". However, repeatedly and frequently carelessly misbidding may well transmogrify "no infraction of Law" into an infraction of Law 74B1: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game." This point is also noted in the WBF Code of Practice, page 9: "In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated." It seems to me that because distinguished ACBL Appeals Committees and a distinguished Director (David Stevenson) have committed "straw-like errors" in interpreting the Law 90 "offence", it would be useful if the "pearls below" were dredged to the surface in 2008. Grattan Endicott (blml 15th February 2007): [snip] >In a game where language is often a term of the >art, or jargon as you might say, it is desirable >to be as clear as possible about the meaning of >the language in which the rules are written. In >drafting the next code of laws considerable >attention has been given to this objective but, >despite much consultation, it would be rash in >the extreme to suggest that there will be no >problem of this category when it is activated. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 Fri May 18 02:27:41 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 01:27:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Towards more consistency In-Reply-To: <000401c7988a$84c72160$dca387d9@Hellen> References: <000401c7988a$84c72160$dca387d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <464CF2FD.3020603@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. +=+ The attitude of the WBFLC, supported in the CoP by the standing WBF Appeals Committee, is that what is appropriate for regulation should be left to the regulators. Being given the principles of the law it is the Directors (supported by and subject to the appeals structure) whose prerogative it is to make the bridge judgements in the application of the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ [Nigel] Lazy vague laws (that seek to devolve responsibility to local jurisdictions and to encourage subjective assessments by directors) result in inconsistent rulings :( Inconsistent rulings mean that justice is neither done nor seen to be done :( A modicum of subjectivity is unavoidable, so some inconsistent rulings are inevitable but it is a matter of regret that the WBFLC deliberately promote such unfairness as a matter of policy :( No law-makers and few directors seem to sympathise with this concern of players. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070518/3fb521e0/attachment.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri May 18 13:24:50 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:24:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Towards more consistency References: <000401c7988a$84c72160$dca387d9@Hellen> <464CF2FD.3020603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c7994a$d8c690f0$a4bf87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: Nigel To: BLML Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:27 AM Subject: [blml] Towards more consistency No law-makers and few directors seem to sympathise with this concern of players. < +=+ Nigel speaks for 'players'. Fair enough. But the overwhelming proportion of those administrators whose attitudes Nigel deprecates are elected representatives of bridge constituencies. They might think they speak for much greater numbers of players, among whom they include themselves, than does Nigel. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 18 15:25:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:25:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Towards more consistency In-Reply-To: <464CF2FD.3020603@NTLworld.com> References: <000401c7988a$84c72160$dca387d9@Hellen> <464CF2FD.3020603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On May 17, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Nigel wrote: > [Grattan Endicott] ********************** "One writes only half the > book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. +=+ The > attitude of the WBFLC, supported in the CoP by the standing WBF > Appeals Committee, is that what is appropriate for regulation > should be left to the regulators. Being given the principles of the > law it is the Directors (supported by and subject to the appeals > structure) whose prerogative it is to make the bridge judgements in > the application of the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ > [Nigel] Lazy vague laws (that seek to devolve responsibility to > local jurisdictions and to encourage subjective assessments by > directors) result in inconsistent rulings... In Grattan's defense, it is not lazy vague laws that devolve responsibility to local jurisdictions that produce subjective assessments by directors. It is lazy vague local jurisdictions that do that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri May 18 17:25:49 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:25:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Towards more consistency In-Reply-To: <000901c7994a$d8c690f0$a4bf87d9@Hellen> References: <000401c7988a$84c72160$dca387d9@Hellen> <464CF2FD.3020603@NTLworld.com> <000901c7994a$d8c690f0$a4bf87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <464DC57D.5060500@comcast.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > But the overwhelming proportion of those > administrators whose attitudes Nigel deprecates > are elected representatives of bridge constituencies. By what process are members of the WBFLC elected? I was under the impression they were appointed but admit never having researched the matter. Though iirc, the EBU's L&EC is elected while the ACBL's LC is entirely appointed. -Todd From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 20 01:03:12 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 00:03:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Towards more consistency References: <000401c7988a$84c72160$dca387d9@Hellen> <464CF2FD.3020603@NTLworld.com><000901c7994a$d8c690f0$a4bf87d9@Hellen> <464DC57D.5060500@comcast.net> Message-ID: <006101c79a69$f6346160$bd9887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Towards more consistency > Grattan Endicott wrote: >> But the overwhelming proportion of those >> administrators whose attitudes Nigel deprecates >> are elected representatives of bridge constituencies. > > By what process are members of the WBFLC elected? I was > under the impression they were appointed but admit never > having researched the matter. Though iirc, the EBU's L&EC > is elected while the ACBL's LC is entirely appointed. > > -Todd > +=+ I said 'the overwhelming proportion' advisedly. The members of the Executive Council are first elected (or in some cases possibly nominated?) by their Zones as representatives, and then elected by the representatives of the NBOs to the Executive Council (to which the WBFLC submits its decisions for ratification). Members of the WBFLC are appointed by the President, himself elected, as persons he judges fit for the task. The majority of them are representatives who have been elected variously as described, but indeed there are some who arrive there simply as appointees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 21 06:25:03 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:25:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Towards more consistency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <464CF2FD.3020603@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Inconsistent rulings mean that justice is neither >done nor seen to be done :( Richard Hills: On Monday night my team scores +110 NS and the opposing team scores +100 NS. The TD rules that my team gets a 100% score on the board. On Tuesday night my team scores +110 NS and the opposing team scores +100 NS. The TD rules that my team and the opposing team each get a 50% score on the board. Inconsistent rulings? Yes. Unjust rulings? No, since Monday night is point-a-board teams, and Tuesday night is imped teams. :-) 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 May 21 07:03:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:03:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU / WBU appeals casebooks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Copies of old EBU / WBU appeals casebooks are available at: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm A call for volunteers to be commentating panellists for the two new casebooks is attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch, DIAC 02 6223 9052 * * * People are invited as commentators for the appeals booklets of the EBU and WBU. The former will probably contain between twenty and thirty appeals, the latter two or three. We generally accept anyone who feels they have something to contribute, though the editor [David Stevenson] reserves the right to refuse someone without giving a reason. Sadly, the only thing on offer for doing this task is the heartfelt gratitude of the organisations concerned and the editor, since the booklets are not sold, only made available for free download on the internet. If anyone thinks the task a bit much, it is acceptable to only comment on some appeals. The set of appeals will be sent out to volunteers, and then they will have about five weeks to produce their comments. If anyone is interested please write to David Stevenson Thanks to Jeffrey and Mike who have already volunteered. -- Yours truly, David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Tel: +44 151 677 7412 Fax: +44 870 055 7697 Lawspage: http://blakjak.org/lws_menu.htm ******* Please use this address for EBU/WBU appeals ******* All my eddresses/URLs *.com will fail after 2007: switch to *.org Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/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 May 25 06:04:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:04:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5AD75909-4AB1-44B2-B049-C3420BC921E5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asked: >What would logical alternatives be after a sequence >where former bids were ridiculous? Remain ridicule? Richard Hills (reprint of 24th July 2004 posting): I have reconsidered my initial position upon the actual case at the stem of this thread. I now believe: (a) I was wrong, (b) The TD was wrong, (c) The AC majority was wrong, (d) The AC minority was *right*, and, (e) The EBU L&EC was wrong. EAST SOUTH WEST Bunny 3D 3S 5D 5S(1) (1) Hesitation I now agree with the AC minority that, when bidding for the first time at the five-level, 50% of the time a bunny will hesitate due to fear of making an overbid, and 50% of the time a bunny will hesitate due to fear of making an underbid. Director's statement of facts: >North asked the nature of the 5D bid and was told >that it was pre-emptive in nature ('to up the >ante'). He thought and then bid 5S. In my opinion, only a bunny would need to ask about the nature of the 5D bid. Therefore, I now join the AC minority in ruling that the bunny's hesitation did not demonstrably suggest anything in particular, so that South was free to guess to call *either* Pass *or* 6S, without South having their guess adjusted if South guessed lucky. However..... EBU Laws and Ethics Committee: >>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many >>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest >>extra values than that the bid is a stretch. >>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid >>conclusion of general application when a player >>is under pressure at a high level. Accordingly, >>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a >>logical alternative does not seem right, it >>would not have been surprising if the score had >>been allowed to stand on the basis that the >>successful action was not suggested by the >>unauthorised information. [snip] I still believe that the EBU L&EC was wrong, since (in my opinion) the EBU L&EC over-generalised. EAST SOUTH WEST Expert 3D 3S 5D 5S(1) (1) Hesitation In my opinion, experts freely overbid in tempo, but experts are much more worried about underbids, so experts are much more likely to break tempo when underbidding. Therefore, if an expert broke tempo in this auction, as the expert's partner I would assess that 75% of the time the expert was underbidding, and only 25% of the time the expert was overbidding. In my opinion, the score that experts hate above all others is +190. :-) 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 Fri May 25 07:45:20 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:45:20 +1200 Subject: [blml] Appeal Message-ID: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> Just a general question... What is the purpose of an appeal? My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower". Is this what we are doing when we go to an appeal committee? Depending on answers there might be some follow ups. Wayne From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 25 07:58:06 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 01:58:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <796C4D71-72E1-40AB-9130-08A855BF0437@rochester.rr.com> On May 25, 2007, at 1:45 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal > as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower". > > Is this what we are doing when we go to an appeal committee? Yes. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 25 09:23:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:23:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <796C4D71-72E1-40AB-9130-08A855BF0437@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asked: >>My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal >>as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower". >> >>Is this what we are doing when we go to an appeal committee? Ed Reppert replied: >Yes. Richard Hills quibbles: Yes and no. See Law 93B3. The appeals committee is the higher tribunal for decisions on facts or matters for judgement. The director is the higher tribunal for Law 91 disciplinary rulings, and also for interpretations of Law. But the lower tribunal of the appeals committee may humbly request the higher tribunal of the director to reconsider an interpretation of Law that the appeals committee deems to be an idiosyncratically illegal interpretation of Law and/or a De Wael School interpretation of Law. :-) 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 Fri May 25 12:09:56 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 22:09:56 +1200 Subject: [blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <796C4D71-72E1-40AB-9130-08A855BF0437@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560705250309v5ee81bf6w929859be100680a2@mail.gmail.com> On 25/05/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows asked: > > >>My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal > >>as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower". > >> > >>Is this what we are doing when we go to an appeal committee? > > Ed Reppert replied: > > >Yes. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Yes and no. See Law 93B3. > > The appeals committee is the higher tribunal for decisions on facts or > matters for judgement. > > The director is the higher tribunal for Law 91 disciplinary rulings, > and also for interpretations of Law. The laws (and regulations) themselves are a higher authority than the director. L81B2 "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." Who rules against the director when there has been a violation of L81B2? > > But the lower tribunal of the appeals committee may humbly request the > higher tribunal of the director to reconsider an interpretation of Law > that the appeals committee deems to be an idiosyncratically illegal > interpretation of Law and/or a De Wael School interpretation of Law. > Yes I understand this and one appeal that is now fading into the distant past where I appealed on a matter of law/regulation. From what I gather as it was not stated explicitly the appeal committee concurred with me but the director refused to accept the interpretation of the committee - in fact I don't believe it was an interpretation he refused to accept the words in the regulation. This matter then went to a higher authority and while I have not had an official communication I believe the higher appeal has been successful. I am deliberately being vague as I did not wish to discuss this matter here. Maybe when I do finally get a ruling I will discuss the particulars in another thread. I am more interested in what in general should happen as the result of an appeal. For simplicity assume the appeal is successful - which usually means that I was not the appellent - and further that if there was a matter of law that the director humbly agrees that his previous interpretation as wrong and concedes to the appeal committee's interpretation. There is a moot point when an appeal is taken further to the national authority. Is the director still the sole judge of law? Can that appeal committee still only recommend a change to the director? Further is the outcome from an ordinary appeal any different than what we should expect as the outcome of appeal to a National Authority. Again assume the appellent was successful and if necessary the director agreed to any recommendation from the appeal committee if necessary. I reiterate that my questions on this are not based on any particular case present or past. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Fri May 25 13:03:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:03:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705250309v5ee81bf6w929859be100680a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c79ebc$5436db70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > >>My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal > > >>as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower". > > >> > > >>Is this what we are doing when we go to an appeal committee? > > > > Ed Reppert replied: > > > > >Yes. > > > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > > > Yes and no. See Law 93B3. > > > > The appeals committee is the higher tribunal for decisions on facts or > > matters for judgement. > > > > The director is the higher tribunal for Law 91 disciplinary rulings, > > and also for interpretations of Law. The appeals committee is still the higher authority (I prefer this word rather than the word "tribunal"), but it is not empowered to try appeals related to disciplinary rulings and it is only empowered to recommend the Director to reconsider his rulings on questions of law, not to overrule him. > The laws (and regulations) themselves are a higher authority than the > director. L81B2 "The Director is bound by these Laws and by > supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." Can laws or regulations be termed "tribunals" (or "authorities")? Neither laws nor regulations can "make" any decision or ruling. > Who rules against the director when there has been a violation of L81B2? The appeals committee should recommend him to reconsider his ruling. If he maintains his ruling then an appeal to the national authority is the last action available. > > > > But the lower tribunal of the appeals committee may humbly request the > > higher tribunal of the director to reconsider an interpretation of Law > > that the appeals committee deems to be an idiosyncratically illegal > > interpretation of Law and/or a De Wael School interpretation of Law. > > The use of "lower" and "higher" here is rather meaningless. > Yes I understand this and one appeal that is now fading into the > distant past where I appealed on a matter of law/regulation. From > what I gather as it was not stated explicitly the appeal committee > concurred with me but the director refused to accept the > interpretation of the committee - in fact I don't believe it was an > interpretation he refused to accept the words in the regulation. This > matter then went to a higher authority and while I have not had an > official communication I believe the higher appeal has been > successful. > > I am deliberately being vague as I did not wish to discuss this matter > here. Maybe when I do finally get a ruling I will discuss the > particulars in another thread. > > I am more interested in what in general should happen as the result of > an appeal. For simplicity assume the appeal is successful - which > usually means that I was not the appellent - and further that if there > was a matter of law that the director humbly agrees that his previous > interpretation as wrong and concedes to the appeal committee's > interpretation. When the appeal committee issues its ruling everybody is bound by that ruling except that anybody involved in the appeal, including the Director, may thereafter take an appeal further to the national authority. > > There is a moot point when an appeal is taken further to the national > authority. Is the director still the sole judge of law? Certainly not. The national authority has of course full jurisdiction and may try all sides of a case (except that it should normally not try the facts of the case but rather accept facts as they have been determined by lower authorities). > Can that > appeal committee still only recommend a change to the director? Which appeal committee? The national authority is no appeal committee. > > Further is the outcome from an ordinary appeal any different than what > we should expect as the outcome of appeal to a National Authority. > Again assume the appellent was successful and if necessary the > director agreed to any recommendation from the appeal committee if > necessary. Sorry ????? A case is (usually) taken to the national authority with a claim that either the appeal committee or the Director (when his ruling was final) has made an incorrect ruling. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 25 13:17:17 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:17:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.co m> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070525130444.02802660@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:45 25/05/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal >as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower". AG : I agrre with these general terms. Longman gives the following definition : "to formally ask a higher law court to change the decision of a lower court", very similar to Oxford's. The higher tribunal's decision might differ because : a) they know better, in particular they may be selected according to specific skills, while the lower degree tribunal is made of "generalists" b) they can get more information, or better-suited information c) they have more time to decide In a sense, this is similar to visiting a specialist doctor. What about bridge appeals ? 1. Bridge appeals are akin to "medical appeals", because it's often the lower authority that alerts the higher, and it might happen that the lower authority doesn't decide at all, and lets the case to be decided by the higher. 2. c) above will be more frequent, contrary to law or medical appeals. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri May 25 15:03:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:03:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070525130444.02802660@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c79ecd$076851f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > 1. Bridge appeals are akin to "medical appeals", because it's often the > lower authority that alerts the higher, and it might happen that the lower > authority doesn't decide at all, and lets the case to be decided by the > higher. I don't know about other jurisdictions. In Norway we generally never accept that a Director avoids making a ruling but passes the case directly to an appeal committee. (That the director can suggest an appeal, or in very special cases even appeal his own ruling is a different matter.) > 2. c) above will be more frequent, contrary to law or medical appeals. That an AC has more time than the Director to reach a ruling is obvious. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri May 25 15:03:21 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:03:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070525130444.02802660@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070525130444.02802660@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4656DE99.5050309@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] 1. Bridge appeals are akin to "medical appeals", because it's often the lower authority that alerts the higher, and it might happen that the lower authority doesn't decide at all, and lets the case to be decided by the higher. [nige1] In a recent discussion in RGB, several correspondents, including David Stevenson, opine that there can't be a *bridge appeal without an earlier director ruling*. That makes sense to me. I was an appellant in a case where, initially, the CTD stated that his decision was a matter of law and so could not be appealed. Nevertheless, there was an appeal. Furthermore, the committee reversed the CTD's decision. When I've served on an appeal committee that has changed a director's decision, I've always insisted that the director confirm that the committee's decision is in accord with the law, before it is announced to the appellants. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070525/7671b6fc/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 25 22:05:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c79ebc$5436db70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > The appeals committee should recommend him to reconsider his ruling. > If he maintains his ruling then an appeal to the national authority > is the last action available. Not exactly. The final arbiter of any decision is the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Tim From mandache at free.fr Sat May 26 08:23:42 2007 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 08:23:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! Message-ID: <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> > South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, > East follows Sx, he plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer > plays CA, West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the > table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played), > then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the previous > trick? I have some Spades..." > > Is the revoke established? In other words, should "a defender's > card [...] must be played" be read "a defender's card [...] is > considered played" in L45B1? Sorry to annoy you with this question again, but as the answers have been split in two exact halves between "yes" and "no", I still don't know how to rule such a case... thank you. Best regards, Manuela From svenpran at online.no Sat May 26 09:24:13 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 09:24:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> Message-ID: <000001c79f66$dca83440$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache > > South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, > > East follows Sx, he plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer > > plays CA, West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the > > table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played), > > then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the previous > > trick? I have some Spades..." > > > > Is the revoke established? In other words, should "a defender's > > card [...] must be played" be read "a defender's card [...] is > > considered played" in L45B1? > > Sorry to annoy you with this question again, but as the answers > have been split in two exact halves between "yes" and "no", I still > don't know how to rule such a case... thank you. Why should "must be played" be synonymous with "has been played"? Law 45C1 doesn't say that a defender's card "has been played" when his partner could have seen it, it says that the card "must be played" (but see for instance Law 44C). West is just in time to avoid his revoke becoming established. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat May 26 09:32:40 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 03:32:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> References: <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> Message-ID: On May 26, 2007, at 2:23 AM, Manuela Mandache wrote: > Sorry to annoy you with this question again, but as the answers > have been split in two exact halves between "yes" and "no", I still > don't know how to rule such a case... thank you. In the similar case recently posted to IBLF, I said: Law 62: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. Law 63A1: A revoke becomes established: 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke). Law 45C1: A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick. That last law says the card must be played, not that it is played. So it isn't played. So 63A1 doesn't apply, and 62 does. West must correct his revoke. Then he must play the card he was waving around to the current trick. And later in the same thread: There is conflict between "the card must be played" in Law 45C1 and "the revoke must be corrected" in Law 62A. Until that conflict is resolved by higher authority, TDs are on their own in deciding how to resolve it. For myself, the fact that the revoke occurred prior to the exposure of the player's next card is sufficient reason to resolve the revoke first - after all, "must be played" or not, the card has not yet been played, and that sets the stage for Law 62A's requirement that the revoke be corrected. To judge that the first thing that must happen is that the player must place the card in the played position and treat it as a played card, thus establishing the revoke, is contrary to the provision of Law 62A that the revoke must be corrected if the player becomes aware of it before the revoke is established, which he did. Note that neither IBLF nor blml is the "higher authority" to which I refer above. That would be your NBO, a zonal authority, or the WBF, none of whom have, so far as I know, issued a resolution. So it's up to the TD whether to say "yes" or "no". I say yes, and I think my reasons for doing so are sound. The salient points above in your particular case are that the card has not yet been played (though it must be played), so the revoke has not been established, and so it (the revoke) must be corrected. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat May 26 09:36:41 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 03:36:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <000001c79f66$dca83440$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c79f66$dca83440$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <510AB876-2909-4529-A4EF-DCDEF52E9AF3@rochester.rr.com> On May 26, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Why should "must be played" be synonymous with "has been played"? It is not. However, playing Devil's Advocate here, since I agree the revoke hasn't been established and must be corrected, the argument is that "must be played" *is* perhaps not synonymous with, but equivalent to "must be played immediately". I disagree with that - among other reasons, if the lawmakers had intended that, it would have been a simple matter to include the one additional word. From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sat May 26 19:30:15 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:30:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <000001c79f72$4344f7f0$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> I crossposted this question to the dutch forum because it (surprisingly) elicited so little responses here and on the IBLF (DWS did not seem to agree with Ed's point of view, but the discussion died there too). The almost unanimous opinion on the dutch forum was that as there is a new current trick, West must contribute the card that his partner could have seen, thereby establishing the revoke. To me this seems most practical, because IMHO Law 45C in the mind of most TDs will mean that a card of a defender that could have been seen by his partner IS played, not MUST BE played. From andre.kriner at gmail.com Sat May 26 20:12:40 2007 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:12:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> References: <000001c79f72$4344f7f0$0210a8c0@FK27.local> <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: Hi all! >The almost unanimous opinion on the dutch forum was that as there is a new >current trick, West must contribute the card that his partner could have >seen, thereby establishing the revoke. To me this seems most practical, >because IMHO Law 45C in the mind of most TDs will mean that a card of a >defender that could have been seen by his partner IS played, not MUST BE >played. Today I posed that question to one of the leading German TDs and he argued, that the revoke is indeed established. Greetings, Andre From twm at cix.co.uk Sat May 26 20:58:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: Andre wrote: > because IMHO Law 45C in the mind of most TDs will mean that a card of > a defender that could have been seen by his partner IS played, not MUST > BE played. Then the minds of most TDs need adjusting. The distinction in law is clear and a card which "must be played" is different. *Played* cards are clearly defined by L45A. The revoke is corrected. The C4 becomes a penalty card and must be played under the CA (unless declarer chooses to withdraw that trick). The C8 becomes a fifth card played to the trick and is a penalty card. Had the lawmakers *wished* to have revokes established by "cards which must be played" rather than "cards played or led" they could have worded L63a1 differently. If anyone doubts the primacy between correction of revoke and the immediacy of "must be played" I'd suggest a look at: L44 C. Requirement to Follow Suit In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. (and yes, I know the previous trick is over but it's somewhere to start). Tim From svenpran at online.no Sat May 26 21:30:31 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 21:30:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c79fcc$529d6520$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Andre Kriner > >The almost unanimous opinion on the dutch forum was that as > >there is a new current trick, West must contribute the card > >that his partner could have seen, thereby establishing the > >revoke. To me this seems most practical, because IMHO Law 45C > >in the mind of most TDs will mean that a card of a defender > >that could have been seen by his partner IS played, not > >MUST BE played. > > Today I posed that question to one of the leading German TDs > and he argued, that the revoke is indeed established. I am astonished; the above is NOT the law. It is not even practical; look at the consequences: a): Declarer revokes and his LHO wins the trick. LHO now leads a card in a suit where Dummy has a singleton. This singleton MUST be played, but this doesn't mean that declarer already has played it from Dummy preventing him from correcting his revoke? b): Declarer wins a trick in which either defender revokes. LHO has a major penalty card and Declarer now leads a card in the suit of this penalty card. The penalty card MUST be played but this doesn't mean that already the lead by Declarer prevents the revoking defender from correcting his revoke? c): A defender who has a major penalty card revokes and wins a trick. He MUST now lead his penalty card but this doesn't mean that his penalty card has already been played preventing him from (immediately) correcting his revoke? The laws say in so many words that certain cards MUST be played, but until the laws are changed to the effect that a card that must be played shall be considered as already played the playing of a card is still a separate activity. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat May 26 23:44:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:44:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> References: <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: On May 26, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Andre Steffens wrote: > To me this seems most practical, because IMHO Law 45C in the mind > of most TDs will mean that a card of a > defender that could have been seen by his partner IS played, not > MUST BE played. Which is not what the law actually says. I had a similar problem with a player the other day (my partner, in fact). She kept trying to "rule" on the basis of her (mistaken) idea of what the law says, instead of calling the director. I would have been severely unhappy if the director had then agreed with her mistaken ideas. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat May 26 23:45:22 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:45:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: References: <000001c79f72$4344f7f0$0210a8c0@FK27.local> <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <0CD02036-57CB-47B7-BBC6-98AEDF069B10@rochester.rr.com> On May 26, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Andre Kriner wrote: > Today I posed that question to one of the leading German TDs and he > argued, that the revoke is indeed established. On what basis? From andre.kriner at gmail.com Sun May 27 01:46:13 2007 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 01:46:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <0CD02036-57CB-47B7-BBC6-98AEDF069B10@rochester.rr.com> References: <000001c79f72$4344f7f0$0210a8c0@FK27.local> <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> <0CD02036-57CB-47B7-BBC6-98AEDF069B10@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >> Today I posed that question to one of the leading German TDs and he >> argued, that the revoke is indeed established. > >On what basis? we had just a short discussion: he said that the card was played since partner could have seen it, hence the revoke is established. Andre From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun May 27 04:27:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:27:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c79f66$dca83440$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Manuela Mandache asked: >>South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, >>East follows Sx, he plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer >>plays CA, West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the >>table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played), >>then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the >>previous trick? I have some Spades..." >> >>Is the revoke established? Sven Pran replied: >West is just in time to avoid his revoke becoming established. Richard Hills refutes: I disagree. While Sven Pran and Ed Reppert are correct in asserting that the revoke has not yet been established under the criterion of Law 63A1 (Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick), which criterion requires a "played card", not merely a "_must be_ played card", what about Law 63A2? Law 63A2 (A Member of Offending Side Indicates a Lead or Play): "A revoke becomes established: when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick." Richard Hills: In my opinion, a defender waving a card around so that their partner can see it would fit the criterion of "otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick". 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 May 27 06:21:00 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 16:21:00 +1200 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> On 25/05/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Just a general question... > > What is the purpose of an appeal? > > My dictionary (Concise Oxford happened to be closest) defines appeal > as "Call to (higher tribunal) for deliverance from decision of lower". > > Is this what we are doing when we go to an appeal committee? > > Depending on answers there might be some follow ups. > > Wayne > Thanks all for the responses. What then do you think of a regulation that says an appeal even if it "...is successful, will not alter the result of the event."? This is a regulation that applies to any appeal to the relevant national organization. Wayne From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun May 27 06:28:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 00:28:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: References: <000001c79f72$4344f7f0$0210a8c0@FK27.local> <200705261730.l4QHUG3l023183@smtp50.hccnet.nl> <0CD02036-57CB-47B7-BBC6-98AEDF069B10@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <7E90480A-6549-472D-9CFB-FFDF55722B1A@rochester.rr.com> On May 26, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Andre Kriner wrote: > we had just a short discussion: he said that the card was played > since partner could have seen it, hence the revoke is established. I think he should go back and carefully read the relevant laws (45C1, 63A1, 62A). In particular, 45C1 says the card "must be played", which is not the same as saying it is played. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun May 27 06:40:21 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 00:40:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 27, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > What then do you think of a regulation that says an appeal even if it > "...is successful, will not alter the result of the event."? > > This is a regulation that applies to any appeal to the relevant > national organization. I like to win. If I don't win because of an erroneous ruling by a TD or AC, and the NA later confirms they were wrong, but says I *still* don't win, I'm going to be rather annoyed. I suppose this may be considered less important for events below national level, but it's still wrong. The contestant in an event (other than an individual) is either a pair or a team, so I would have to consult with my partner or teammates, but if I were to win through this kind of crap, I'd want to give the award back. I would rather see a regulation (or a law) requiring the NA to make their ruling in a timely manner - some (hopefully short) specified period after they receive the appeal. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun May 27 06:43:35 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 00:43:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 26, 2007, at 10:27 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills refutes: > > I disagree. While Sven Pran and Ed Reppert are correct in > asserting that the revoke has not yet been established under > the criterion of Law 63A1 (Offending Side Leads or Plays to > Next Trick), which criterion requires a "played card", not > merely a "_must be_ played card", what about Law 63A2? > > Law 63A2 (A Member of Offending Side Indicates a Lead or Play): > > "A revoke becomes established: when the offender or his partner > names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the > following trick." > > In my opinion, a defender waving a card around so that their > partner can see it would fit the criterion of "otherwise > designates a card to be played to the following trick". > Hm. Let me think about it. :-) From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun May 27 11:11:02 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:11:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com><2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c7a03e$f2ab7d50$0200a8c0@david> > > On May 27, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> What then do you think of a regulation that says an appeal even if it >> "...is successful, will not alter the result of the event."? >> >> This is a regulation that applies to any appeal to the relevant >> national organization. Ed wrote > I like to win. If I don't win because of an erroneous ruling by a TD > or AC, and the NA later confirms they were wrong, but says I *still* > don't win, I'm going to be rather annoyed. > > I suppose this may be considered less important for events below > national level, but it's still wrong. > > The contestant in an event (other than an individual) is either a > pair or a team, so I would have to consult with my partner or > teammates, but if I were to win through this kind of crap, I'd want > to give the award back. > > I would rather see a regulation (or a law) requiring the NA to make > their ruling in a timely manner - some (hopefully short) specified > period after they receive the appeal. > Well I can understand WHY such a rule exists. Consider a weekend event being run on a knockout basis. In an early round a team loses an appeal and is eliminated. Without such a rule what should the organisers do when the team indicates it wishes to appeal to the NA? The show must go on. Whether such a regulation SHOULD apply in other situations is then a matter of choice rather than legality. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/819 - Release Date: 26/05/2007 10:47 From john at asimere.com Sun May 27 19:03:19 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 18:03:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001e01c7a080$ed5c84b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Manuela Mandache asked: > >>>South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, >>>East follows Sx, he plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer >>>plays CA, West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the >>>table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played), >>>then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the >>>previous trick? I have some Spades..." Duh, a card IS played by placing it face up in front of you. Never mind what the laws say, this is what they mean. So, while you're waving cards around you're creating penalty cards for sure, but you haven't played them yet. How do we play bridge? john >>> >>>Is the revoke established? > > Sven Pran replied: > >>West is just in time to avoid his revoke becoming established. > > Richard Hills refutes: > > I disagree. While Sven Pran and Ed Reppert are correct in > asserting that the revoke has not yet been established under > the criterion of Law 63A1 (Offending Side Leads or Plays to > Next Trick), which criterion requires a "played card", not > merely a "_must be_ played card", what about Law 63A2? > > Law 63A2 (A Member of Offending Side Indicates a Lead or Play): > > "A revoke becomes established: when the offender or his partner > names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the > following trick." > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, a defender waving a card around so that their > partner can see it would fit the criterion of "otherwise > designates a card to be played to the following trick". > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 28 05:35:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 13:35:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c7a080$ed5c84b0$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Manuela Mandache asked: >>South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy, >>East follows Sx, he plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer >>plays CA, West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the >>table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played), >>then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the >>previous trick? I have some Spades..." >> >>Is the revoke established? John Probst duh: >Duh, a card IS played by placing it face up in front of you. >Never mind what the laws say, this is what they mean. So, >while you're waving cards around you're creating penalty >cards for sure, but you haven't played them yet. How do we >play bridge? john Richard Hills un-duh: "Never mind what the laws say, this is what they mean"??? A Director should not give a ruling according to what that Director thinks the Laws _should_ say which is contrary to what the Laws actually _do_ say. :-( On the other hand, the Laws do clearly say that a penalty card is not yet a played card. Law 45C1 uses the future tense of "must be played to the current trick", not the present tense of "plays" nor the past tense of "has been played". Ergo, John's main point is correct. Law 63A1 uses the present tense "plays", so Law 63A1 is not relevant to Manuela's problem. However, John used the phrase "haven't played them yet", and John's "yet" is a future tense word. Law 63A2 (A Member of Offending Side Indicates a Lead or Play): "A revoke becomes established: when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick." Richard Hills un-duh: It seems to me that since Law 63A2 uses the future tense "to be played" this Law is relevant to Manuela's problem. That is, even though a card may not "yet" (future tense) have been played, the naming or designation of that card _to be played_ establishes a revoke. 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 Mon May 28 06:53:14 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 00:53:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <797B9969-E6A8-43E2-BCDD-CE2910C1E4CD@rochester.rr.com> On May 27, 2007, at 11:35 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > It seems to me that since Law 63A2 uses the future tense "to > be played" this Law is relevant to Manuela's problem. That is, > even though a card may not "yet" (future tense) have been > played, the naming or designation of that card _to be played_ > establishes a revoke. Okay, I've thought about it. If 63A2 did not exist, I would stand by my previous statement - that because Law 63A1 does not say "is played", the card is not played and the revoke is not established. But 63A2 does exist, and whatever 63A1 says, 63A2 says the revoke is established. But not, as many seem to think, because the card being waved around "is played". From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon May 28 07:33:33 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:33:33 +1200 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <000301c7a03e$f2ab7d50$0200a8c0@david> References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7a03e$f2ab7d50$0200a8c0@david> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560705272233t51471b04k36e8dd60d04c8c54@mail.gmail.com> On 27/05/07, David Barton wrote: > > > > > > > On May 27, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >> What then do you think of a regulation that says an appeal even if it > >> "...is successful, will not alter the result of the event."? > >> > >> This is a regulation that applies to any appeal to the relevant > >> national organization. > > Ed wrote > > I like to win. If I don't win because of an erroneous ruling by a TD > > or AC, and the NA later confirms they were wrong, but says I *still* > > don't win, I'm going to be rather annoyed. > > > > I suppose this may be considered less important for events below > > national level, but it's still wrong. > > > > The contestant in an event (other than an individual) is either a > > pair or a team, so I would have to consult with my partner or > > teammates, but if I were to win through this kind of crap, I'd want > > to give the award back. > > > > I would rather see a regulation (or a law) requiring the NA to make > > their ruling in a timely manner - some (hopefully short) specified > > period after they receive the appeal. > > > > Well I can understand WHY such a rule exists. > Consider a weekend event being run on a knockout basis. > In an early round a team loses an appeal and is eliminated. Without such > a rule what should the organisers do when the team indicates it wishes to > appeal to the NA? > > The show must go on. > > Whether such a regulation SHOULD apply in other situations is then a matter > of choice rather than legality. Clearly there are problems with a knockout event. However in some but not all situations it would be possible to convene an appeal between sessions. Why would one choose to not alter the result if it was possible to do so. For me the entire purpose of an appeal is to overturn the result. Imagine finishing second in a national championship because of a dodgy appeal committee ruling that was subsequently overturned. Doesn't it seem fair that you were awarded that title. And as Ed pointed out wouldn't you be entirely unhappy with your victory if you only beat a lower placed pair or team because of a dodgy decision that was subsequently overturned. The laws provide the right of appeal. An appeal is simply to challenge the validity of the original ruling and overturn it if successful. If the result is not overturned then what is the outcome of a successful appeal? An apology? Sorry you would have won the world/national/district championships or whatever or qualified for the next stage of an event. Such an apology would be hollow to me. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 28 19:17:25 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 13:17:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeal In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9C499ABC-E18F-44DC-9BBD-62B89A58830F@starpower.net> On May 27, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Thanks all for the responses. > > What then do you think of a regulation that says an appeal even if it > "...is successful, will not alter the result of the event."? > > This is a regulation that applies to any appeal to the relevant > national organization. I think it's routine, just as one would expect. It happens all the time in organized sports at all levels; examples from professional American football or baseball are commonplace. Bad calls get appealed to the national level, reviewed, and overturned. Officials get educated (in the NFL for example, referees get not only a record of the decision, but a copy of the evidentiary videotape). If a team suffered actual damage -- i.e. lost a game they otherwise would have won -- they get an official apology from the League, but no actually achieved scores or outcomes are ever changed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 29 05:04:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:04:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <465698AE.6050508@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>But the lower tribunal of the appeals committee may humbly request >>the higher tribunal of the director to reconsider an interpretation >>of Law that the appeals committee deems to be an idiosyncratically >>illegal interpretation of Law and/or a De Wael School interpretation >>of Law. >> >>:-) Herman De Wael: >smiley noted, Richard, but: > >there is NO such thing as a De Wael School interpretation of Law. >When I give advice to my players to do something, I do not believe >they are doing nothing wrong. You may believe they are doing more >wrong than when doing the alternative, but we are fully in agreement >about what they are doing wrong, and what the redress for that >wrongdoing shall be. > >I thought it needed to be said. > >Of course, I am only talking about the real "deWaelschool problem", >not any other disagreement we might have about interpretations. >From Patrick O'Brian, "The Fortune of War," the sixth novel in the "Master and Commander" series: >>>Two weevils crept from the crumbs. "You see those weevils, >>>Stephen?" said Jack solemnly. >>> >>>"I do." >>> >>>"Which would you choose?' >>> >>>"There is not a scrap of difference. Arcades ambo. They are the >>>same species of curculio, and there is nothing to choose >>>between them"' >>> >>>"But suppose you had to choose?" >>> >>>"Then I should choose the right-hand weevil; it has a >>>perceptible advantage in both length and breadth." >>> >>>"There I have you," cried Jack. "You are bit -- you are >>>completely dished. Don't you know that in the Navy you must >>>always choose the lesser of two weevils? Oh ha, ha, ha, ha!" Richard Hills: Unless I have again misunderstood the De Wael School, it seems to me that Herman believes that in the situation where there is an apparent inconsistency between Law 75C and Law 75D2, a player has zero legal actions to choose, so that player must therefore choose an illegal action which is the lesser of two weevils. :-) 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 May 29 09:48:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:48:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <465BDAB1.2040102@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Unless I have again misunderstood the De Wael School, it seems to me > that Herman believes that in the situation where there is an > apparent inconsistency between Law 75C and Law 75D2, a player has > zero legal actions to choose, so that player must therefore choose > an illegal action which is the lesser of two weevils. > > :-) > > You have understood completely, Richard, but your choice of language troubles me: "apparent": the problem between L75C and L75D2 is not apparent, it is very real. If you believe that a player faced with the situation we are talking of, and choosing your alternative, is not breaking L75D2, then you are delusional. You may well believe that this is the lesser of two weevils, but not that one is not breaking L75D2. "inconsistency": this is not a mere inconsistency, this is simply the WBF not realizing that there are stupid people like 99% of those on this list who do not realize that there is no inconsistency at all. L75D2 is worded very strongly, yet apparently not strong enough. Until that is resolved, there is a lacune, not an inconsistency. "zero legal actions": you write this as if it is unthinkable that the WBF would allow suc a situation. Well, sadly, it has. But that is only because you believe there is a law which says "thou shalt not misinform the opponents". There is no such law. In fact, there is a law which expressly orders people to allow misinformation to continue to exist: L75D2. If you get rid of your misconception that L73 tels people what to do, then you see there is a legal action. The one I propose. "therefore choose an illegal action" Of course. This follows from your previous sentence, and repeating it so that it seems as if I am the one ordering someone to break a law is an ad hominem argument. If what you say is true, and there is no legal action, then it's the laws which force the player to do something illegal. But it's not me. "the lesser of two weevils". Of course. But it's the player who must choose. I give advice. I believe my actions constitute the lesser of two weevils, both in the sense that it is better for the player himself, and in the sense that it is better for the game as a whole. After all, the misinformation which is given is mostly irrelevant and rarely damaging, while the UI that you give is huge and gives rise to adjusted scores and misgivings all around. But I grant you that you, as player, are allowed to do what you think the laws dictate. I have told you that you are wrong, my actions are also acceptable, but if you prefer to give UI, go right ahead. Only don't come running to me if at the table next to you a player does something more sensible and ends up with a better final score than you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 29 10:01:24 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:01:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: References: <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070529095520.02808400@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:32 26/05/2007 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >That last law says the card must be played, not that it is played. So >it isn't played. So 63A1 doesn't apply, and 62 does. Even more so : "must be played", as an action, is placed in the future of another, related, action (symmetrical to a Present-Perfect ; linguists call this an Inceptive). This perforce means it hasn't been played yet. >West must >correct his revoke. Then he must play the card he was waving around >to the current trick. Nope. He must play C4, as it has become a penalty card at the moment the revoke was established. The C8 wans't played as "failure to play a penalty card" because the "must be played" bit is second to penalty-card laws (you may not force a player to act contrary to any law). But you might rule the C8 is a penalty card itself thereafter. Best regards Alain From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue May 29 12:13:27 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 06:13:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <465BDAB1.2040102@skynet.be> References: <465BDAB1.2040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <465BFCC7.8070401@meadows.pair.com> On 05/29/2007 03:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: <...> > "inconsistency": this is not a mere inconsistency, this is simply the > WBF not realizing that there are stupid people like 99% of those on > this list who do not realize that there is no inconsistency at all. Well, I suppose it makes a change from "The lurkers all support me". Brian. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 29 12:41:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <797B9969-E6A8-43E2-BCDD-CE2910C1E4CD@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > Okay, I've thought about it. If 63A2 did not exist, I would stand by > my previous statement - that because Law 63A1 does not say "is > played", the card is not played and the revoke is not established. I'm lost. L63a2 says "when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates". There was no indication in the original post of either member of OS naming or designating the C8 as "a card to be played to the following trick". > But 63A2 does exist, and whatever 63A1 says, 63A2 says the revoke is > established. But not, as many seem to think, because the card being > waved around "is played". Then why? The mere act of exposing/naming a card does not meet the requirements of 63a2 (for example saying "hang on, I have the S4" would be an attempt at correcting the revoke not naming the S4 as a card to be played to the next trick). Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 29 16:57:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:57:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: References: <465BDAB1.2040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <465C3F67.30002@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote something that prompted me to alter the title of this thread. > > Herman, > > Exceptional eloquence. Plain talk is refreshing. Unfortunately , > I don't feel myself literate in the dWS to suggest that I have an > opinion as to whether it is the right target. That is strange Roger. You seem like someone who knows their laws. It should be possible to form an opinion on this one. > Of one strong opinion I do > have is that [a] the LC has got it wrong [particularly in the way you > assert] The WBF LC have never tackled this problem (to my knowledge). > and [b] they intend to not correct it [I expect the LC to change > it, but not correct it] as evidenced by the LC's mission [write the law > so that all the Zones agree to them] specified by Wignall five years ago > as well as by Adam's recent assessment that the Laws merely be tweaked > and Kojak's assertion that they work fine. > I also believe the laws work just fine. I do not think that there is a dilemma here, and I have no qualms, as a player, of acting in the manner I suggest. I will not rule specifically against players who take the opposite route, but I believe that the normal UI ruling they will receive is so severe that they will learn to act differently in future. As to the WBFLC altering the laws (presumably away from the dWS interpretation), I would advise them not to do so. I have formulated four different reasons why it would be a mistake to write the anti-DWS into regulations. Permit me to make this post much too long by enumerating them: 1) such a regulation would not be consistent with the previous decision that a player should remain quiet when his partner misexplains; 2) such a regulation would not solve the problem of a player who hears his partner explain different than what he intended, and who now has no clue as to what his system really is; 3) such a regulation would require the TD to become a mind-reader, since a player could simply state that he became certain that his partner was right, so he continued the (wrong) explanation; 4) such a regulation would be impossible to give an adjustment under: what do you award to a pair who have refused to give UI, proving along the way that the correct action was taken without UI? Do you say to them "you should have given UI, so we shall now rule that with the UI your partner would not have taken the action that was suggested by UI that he never received" (and if you think that sentence is too long, try rephrasing it yourself and see what unbelievable tangles such a regulation would create) > regards > roger pewick > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 29 18:11:33 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 17:11:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002201c7a21e$97eda140$36c587d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal > What then do you think of a regulation that says > an appeal even if it "...is successful, will not alter > the result of the event."? > +=+ I tend to prefer the EBU regulation: ""The outcome of an appeal to the National Authority, or some other intervention by the Laws and Ethics Committee, will affect the result of a match in a knock-out competition only if the decision is made in time for the result to be included in the draw for the next round without undue disruption to the progress of the competition. The same principle applies, with any necessary modifications, to any competition which involves qualification for a subsequent round or stage of the competition."" Of appeals in general the Law Book says that "Zonal organizations may establish differing conditions of appeals for special contests." In relation to appeals to the National Authority Law 93 establishes the right of appeal to the national authority but it places no requirement upon that body as to how it will deal with such an appeal. This, I think, is open to regulation and, if the regulation contains the statement Wayne quotes, it is not under bridge law that a question can be put; it is rather a matter of morality or, as it may be, national law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Chambers Dictionary: - 'appeal' = (verb) to demand another judgement by a higher court; to call on a higher court to review a caes, conviction, etc.; (noun) a process by which a party may have a decision reviewed by a higher court or authority. ] From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue May 29 21:05:28 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:05:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com><2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com> <002201c7a21e$97eda140$36c587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000301c7a224$52235c80$0200a8c0@david> Grattan wrote > Of appeals in general the Law Book says that > "Zonal organizations may establish differing conditions > of appeals for special contests." In relation to appeals > to the National Authority Law 93 establishes the > right of appeal to the national authority but it places no > requirement upon that body as to how it will deal with > such an appeal. This, I think, is open to regulation and, > if the regulation contains the statement Wayne quotes, > it is not under bridge law that a question can be put; it > is rather a matter of morality or, as it may be, national > law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Can such a regulation include a provision that a decision is not subject to appeal, or would such a provision be contrary to L80F? A particular case I have in mind is the sponsoring organisition establishing a regulation to determine a "winner" of a knockout match not played by an end of round date. The regulation including a provision that the decision is not subject to appeal. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.1/822 - Release Date: 28/05/2007 11:40 From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed May 30 01:27:58 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:27:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure Message-ID: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> 20 Board Match - National Trial System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the first day. Board One 1C (1S*) ? * Either diamonds or both majors This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor any verbal mention made of this defense. Do you ... 1. Allow this method 2. Disallow this method? Assume you allow the method ... Do you ... 1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense 2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare 3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is considered playing time 4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side that did not disclose 5. Something else that I have not thought of. Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to prepare a defense against this method (or a different method if that is part of your circumstances). Thanks Wayne From geller at nifty.com Wed May 30 01:49:55 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:49:55 +0900 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200705292349.AA09101@geller204.nifty.com> This isn't a laws question, but rather the answer is governed by the regulations set up by the tourney organizer. Here in Japan we divide conventions into list A,B,C which are allowed in all ordinary tourneys, list D (stuff like Multi 2D, other two suit openings at the two level, etc), list E (the 1S overcall below falls into that category) and list F (ferts, hum). Use of List E is only allowed in a few events (the national trial is one such) but only if this treatment was disclosed in advance on the pre-submitted WBF convention cards. So in the JCBL it would be clear that the use of this convention would be disallowed. I suppose the non-offending side should get AVE+ (3 imps). But how this would/should be dealt with in Oz depends on the system/convention/disclosure regulations set up by the organizers. Hopefully they did have SOME regulations in place. -Bob Wayne Burrows ????????: >20 Board Match - National Trial >System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an >opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play >began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the >first day. > >Board One > >1C (1S*) ? > >* Either diamonds or both majors > >This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor >any verbal mention made of this defense. > >Do you ... > >1. Allow this method > >2. Disallow this method? > >Assume you allow the method ... > >Do you ... > >1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense > >2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare > >3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is >considered playing time > >4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side >that did not disclose > >5. Something else that I have not thought of. > >Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable >to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to >prepare a defense against this method (or a different method if that >is part of your circumstances). > > >Thanks > >Wayne > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed May 30 03:26:07 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 02:26:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <465CD2AF.4010709@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] 20 Board Match - National Trial System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the first day. Board One 1C (1S*) ? * Either diamonds or both majors This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor any verbal mention made of this defence. [A] Do you ... 1. Allow this method 2. Disallow this method? Assume you allow the method ... Do you ... 1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defence 2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare 3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defence but any time taken is considered playing time 4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side that did not disclose 5. Something else that I have not thought of. [B] Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to prepare a defence against this method (or a different method if that is part of your circumstances). [nige1] IMO, [A.1] The director should ban the method. [A.2.4.a] The director might allow the method... (a) If all competitors are familiar with it or (b) If another competing pair had described and registered the same method or (c) If, from any source, there were available a sound written defence to the method that all pairs were happy to consult and adopt. (d) The non-offending pair judged the method to be disaster-prone and welcomed the chance to play against it. If (for any reason) the director does allow the method then he should charge an initial time over-run only to the non-disclosers. This is likely to cause trouble. The non-offenders pair are unlikely to quickly devise a good defence and the offending pair will suspect them of deliberate time-wasting. However, an old-fashioned director who cared about "protecting on the field" *still* might ban the method if he deemed it likely to randomise results. Assuming that such reactionary ideas of simple justice are still tolerated by law-makers. [B] The offending pair are billionaires, friends and godfathers of the director:) From tstrongbridge at iprimus.com.au Wed May 30 03:44:33 2007 From: tstrongbridge at iprimus.com.au (tom strong) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:44:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000e01c7a25c$129e3e80$6401a8c0@user> ok- I'll bite even though i am merely a clubdirector. i have played in trials for an interstate team so have some knowledge. Assuming that there are no clear cut regulations-not allowed . Assuming the regulations allow for it. then opponents must have time to prepare a defense. time to be charged to the non-disclosing side only. I would not expect players who are trialling for an international team to take a long time for this. 10minutes probably. I suppose the question came up because they were allowed to use it with no time to prepare a defense. I would also investigate previous matches and rescore them if opponents were disadvantaged by the undisclosed systemic understanding. I know that no one can anticipate all the problems that can come up but I feel that this one should have been foreseen. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure > 20 Board Match - National Trial > System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an > opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play > began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the > first day. > > Board One > > 1C (1S*) ? > > * Either diamonds or both majors > > This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor > any verbal mention made of this defense. > > Do you ... > > 1. Allow this method > > 2. Disallow this method? > > Assume you allow the method ... > > Do you ... > > 1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense > > 2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare > > 3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is > considered playing time > > 4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side > that did not disclose > > 5. Something else that I have not thought of. > > Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable > to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to > prepare a defense against this method (or a different method if that > is part of your circumstances). > > > Thanks > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 30 03:52:50 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:52:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070529095520.02808400@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20070529095520.02808400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <53A0908A-9E64-4E9E-8504-094F4BEC88E1@rochester.rr.com> On May 29, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 03:32 26/05/2007 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> That last law says the card must be played, not that it is played. So >> it isn't played. So 63A1 doesn't apply, and 62 does. > > Even more so : "must be played", as an action, is placed in the > future of > another, related, action (symmetrical to a Present-Perfect ; > linguists call > this an Inceptive). This perforce means it hasn't been played yet. > >> West must >> correct his revoke. Then he must play the card he was waving around >> to the current trick. > > Nope. He must play C4, as it has become a penalty card at the > moment the > revoke was established. The C8 wans't played as "failure to play a > penalty > card" because the "must be played" bit is second to penalty-card > laws (you > may not force a player to act contrary to any law). But you might > rule the > C8 is a penalty card itself thereafter. It turns out that this whole argument is flawed, as it misses Law 62A2 which, as Richard Hills correctly pointed out, says that notwithstanding the provision of Law 62A1, the revoke is established when the player's partner designates a card to be played to the next trick - and waving it about as the card he intends to play, where his partner could have seen its face, is certainly so designating it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 30 03:58:45 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:58:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <914B6154-BE87-4F57-9FB0-929B4EAD2E97@rochester.rr.com> On May 29, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Then why? The mere act of exposing/naming a card does not meet the > requirements of 63a2 (for example saying "hang on, I have the S4" > would > be an attempt at correcting the revoke not naming the S4 as a card > to be > played to the next trick). The player pulled a card from his hand, and waved it about in such a way that he clearly intended to play it. If you ask him, he'll tell you he intended to play it. Then he realized he'd revoked earlier. Before I posted my agreement with Richard, I had a little sojourn with my dictionary's definition of the verb "to designate". It fits. From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed May 30 04:21:29 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:21:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0705291921u18b36ce9u8f10f999c40d61a9@mail.gmail.com> Hi Wayne: I think that Robert has already introduced the most important point: This is a matter of interpreting local regulations rather than a question of law. I tried to skim the local regulations in New Zealand, but didn't make much headway. Most of the examples seemed to deal with opening bids rather than overcalls. I did, however, find this little gem under the section entitled "Alerting" If you are playing a complex system (permitted only in "A" point Pairs or Teams events) then a system card highlighting and advising the opponents that the system is unusual is (and always has been) compulsory and a verbal emphasis of this fact at the start of the round or match is also required. Most of the the examples of non-complex systems appear to "Green" systems like Acol or Standard American. I believe that the normal conditions of contest would require an explict pre-alert of these methods. In addition, while I am not familiar with the NZCBA convention card, I understand that a WBF card is considered to be an acceptable substitute. This type of overcall absolutely needs to be disclosed on a WBF type card. Here's my take on the "appropriate" way to handle this situation. I can't swear that this is necessarily legal, but it smells right 1. Cancel this board and award an adjusted score 2. Require the offending side to switch over to a simple system for the remainder of the session 3. At such a time that the offending side is able to appropriately document their agreements, they will be permitted to start playing their original methods On 5/29/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > 20 Board Match - National Trial > System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an > opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play > began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the > first day. > > Board One > > 1C (1S*) ? > > * Either diamonds or both majors > > This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor > any verbal mention made of this defense. > > Do you ... > > 1. Allow this method > > 2. Disallow this method? > > Assume you allow the method ... > > Do you ... > > 1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense > > 2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare > > 3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is > considered playing time > > 4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side > that did not disclose > > 5. Something else that I have not thought of. > > Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable > to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to > prepare a defense against this method (or a different method if that > is part of your circumstances). > > > Thanks > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed May 30 05:19:23 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:19:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0705291921u18b36ce9u8f10f999c40d61a9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0705291921u18b36ce9u8f10f999c40d61a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560705292019g65b9bc5ehc7032204f598b4a8@mail.gmail.com> On 30/05/07, richard willey wrote: > Hi Wayne: > > I think that Robert has already introduced the most important point: > This is a matter of interpreting local regulations rather than a > question of law. > > I tried to skim the local regulations in New Zealand, but didn't make > much headway. Most of the examples seemed to deal with opening bids > rather than overcalls. I did, however, find this little gem under the > section entitled "Alerting" > > If you are playing a complex system (permitted only in "A" point Pairs > or Teams events) then a system card highlighting and advising the > opponents that the system is unusual is (and always has been) > compulsory and a verbal emphasis of this fact at the start of the > round or match is also required. > > Most of the the examples of non-complex systems appear to "Green" > systems like Acol or Standard American. I believe that the normal > conditions of contest would require an explict pre-alert of these > methods. In addition, while I am not familiar with the NZCBA > convention card, I understand that a WBF card is considered to be an > acceptable substitute. This type of overcall absolutely needs to be > disclosed on a WBF type card. > > Here's my take on the "appropriate" way to handle this situation. I > can't swear that this is necessarily legal, but it smells right > > 1. Cancel this board and award an adjusted score > 2. Require the offending side to switch over to a simple system for > the remainder of the session > 3. At such a time that the offending side is able to appropriately > document their agreements, they will be permitted to start playing > their original methods > I think this is a matter of law. The regulations may allow or not a particular method but that is not the issue that I have here. The problem is that players are supposed to disclose their methods (L40B). This prior disclosure especially in a trial or important long match allows their opponent's to prepare an appropriate defense. Turning up at the table and finding out the opponents play a convention not previously disclosed is IMO a violation of L40B. So the problem is how do deal with the problem. On the actual hand what happened was probably not ideal. The first board was actually completed without any problem and the director was called at the end of the hand to establish whether this method would be allowed (not based on system regulations but on lack of prior disclosure - there was some regulation saying that a pair may not change their system from simplex to complex but it was not clear if this applied) and much more importantly from my perspective to allow my partner and I an opportunity to discuss a counter measure to this unusual defensive system. The opponents were allowed to play the method and we were denied any time to prepare a defense. Wayne Burrows > On 5/29/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > 20 Board Match - National Trial > > System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an > > opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play > > began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the > > first day. > > > > Board One > > > > 1C (1S*) ? > > > > * Either diamonds or both majors > > > > This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor > > any verbal mention made of this defense. > > > > Do you ... > > > > 1. Allow this method > > > > 2. Disallow this method? > > > > Assume you allow the method ... > > > > Do you ... > > > > 1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense > > > > 2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare > > > > 3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is > > considered playing time > > > > 4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side > > that did not disclose > > > > 5. Something else that I have not thought of. > > > > Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable > > to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to > > prepare a defense against this method (or a different method if that > > is part of your circumstances). > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 30 08:51:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:51:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <465C3F67.30002@skynet.be> References: <465BDAB1.2040102@skynet.be> <465C3F67.30002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <465D1ED8.50103@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > > As to the WBFLC altering the laws (presumably away from the dWS > interpretation), I would advise them not to do so. I have formulated > four different reasons why it would be a mistake to write the anti-DWS > into regulations. Permit me to make this post much too long by > enumerating them: > While writing this, I knew I had five reasons, but when enumerating, I forgot the fifth, so I changed the sentence above. Here's the fifth one, and it's a good one: 5) Such a regulation would favor lazy opponents. Consider this example: a player bids 4NT, intending it to be for the minors. But his partner explains it as Blackwood and responds 5Di. There are now several types of opponents: - the ethical opponent does not need to know how many aces there are and will only inquire about this if and when it is his turn to lead; - the prepared opponent already knows the style of Blackwood; - the active opponent looks at the convention card; - the passive opponent asks "how many aces?". Now if that passive opponent is playing against me, he will receive a bland reply "1", and have exactly the same information as the other three. But if he's playing against anyone else, he will be given far more information than the others, including a piece of information that is simply wrong (diamond preference) and including a piece of information he is not entitled to (we are having a misunderstanding). This gives an unfair advantage to lazy bridgers and that cannot be what we want. Furthermore, if a regulation is written that forces players to reveal the misunderstanding, when asked, you will quickly see appear a fifth kind of opponent: - the clever opponent will always ask at every turn, hoping to catch out misunderstandings and trying to get people to exchange UI. Surely that is not the way we want bridge to be played. Really, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that I am right, even if I'm the only one saying so. I would very much like to hear an encouraging word once in a while. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From sarahamos at onetel.net Wed May 30 09:41:30 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:41:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com><2da24b8e0705291921u18b36ce9u8f10f999c40d61a9@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560705292019g65b9bc5ehc7032204f598b4a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001601c7a28d$f021bda0$8a429058@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nondisclosure > On 30/05/07, richard willey wrote: >> Hi Wayne: >> >> I think that Robert has already introduced the most important point: >> This is a matter of interpreting local regulations rather than a >> question of law. >> >> I tried to skim the local regulations in New Zealand, but didn't make >> much headway. Most of the examples seemed to deal with opening bids >> rather than overcalls. I did, however, find this little gem under the >> section entitled "Alerting" >> >> If you are playing a complex system (permitted only in "A" point Pairs >> or Teams events) then a system card highlighting and advising the >> opponents that the system is unusual is (and always has been) >> compulsory and a verbal emphasis of this fact at the start of the >> round or match is also required. >> >> Most of the the examples of non-complex systems appear to "Green" >> systems like Acol or Standard American. I believe that the normal >> conditions of contest would require an explict pre-alert of these >> methods. In addition, while I am not familiar with the NZCBA >> convention card, I understand that a WBF card is considered to be an >> acceptable substitute. This type of overcall absolutely needs to be >> disclosed on a WBF type card. >> >> Here's my take on the "appropriate" way to handle this situation. I >> can't swear that this is necessarily legal, but it smells right >> >> 1. Cancel this board and award an adjusted score >> 2. Require the offending side to switch over to a simple system for >> the remainder of the session >> 3. At such a time that the offending side is able to appropriately >> document their agreements, they will be permitted to start playing >> their original methods >> > > I think this is a matter of law. The regulations may allow or not a > particular method but that is not the issue that I have here. The > problem is that players are supposed to disclose their methods (L40B). > This prior disclosure especially in a trial or important long match > allows their opponent's to prepare an appropriate defense. Turning up > at the table and finding out the opponents play a convention not > previously disclosed is IMO a violation of L40B. So the problem is > how do deal with the problem. > > On the actual hand what happened was probably not ideal. The first > board was actually completed without any problem and the director was > called at the end of the hand to establish whether this method would > be allowed (not based on system regulations but on lack of prior > disclosure - there was some regulation saying that a pair may not > change their system from simplex to complex but it was not clear if > this applied) and much more importantly from my perspective to allow > my partner and I an opportunity to discuss a counter measure to this > unusual defensive system. > > The opponents were allowed to play the method and we were denied any > time to prepare a defense. > > Wayne Burrows > >> On 5/29/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> > 20 Board Match - National Trial >> > System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an >> > opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play >> > began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the >> > first day. >> > >> > Board One >> > >> > 1C (1S*) ? >> > >> > * Either diamonds or both majors >> > >> > This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor >> > any verbal mention made of this defense. >> > >> > Do you ... >> > >> > 1. Allow this method >> > >> > 2. Disallow this method? >> > >> > Assume you allow the method ... >> > >> > Do you ... >> > >> > 1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense >> > >> > 2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare >> > >> > 3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is >> > considered playing time >> > >> > 4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the side >> > that did not disclose >> > >> > 5. Something else that I have not thought of. >> > >> > Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be reasonable >> > to allow the method and not let their opponents have any time to >> > prepare a defense against this method (or a different method if that >> > is part of your circumstances). >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Wayne I personally don't think I would have allowed such a system to be used. I often direct trials in England . Fortunately the National Authority takes care to provide appropriate regulation. The guiding principle for triaals is that the Conditions (with a Large C and a small c) should be the same or as nearly as possible the same as for the event that the trial is held for. If it is a trial for the Olympiad which is played over 16 board sets with screens and WBF system policy then these conditions and Conditions should apply. So the simple sentence, "WBF Systems Policy will apply." should have been part of the Cs of C. I understand that this was not the case. A sight of the Regulations for the event would help. This method is "Brown Sticker" according to WBF regulation and in order to be played requires a written defence to be supplied to opponents. The regulations did seem to require advance notification of system so clearly it was the regulation writers' intention to demand disclosure. No one can deny that this is "complex", and I would expect international trialists to understand their obligations. English regulations sometimes demand 14 days notice. I notice that the Gold Cup regulations allow 7 days So I would rule that this was "more complex" than the system disclosed and I would not allow it. If later stages of the trials were some way off I would consider allowing it provided that written defences and some notice was given. I could ask the sponsoring organisation for guidance - 48 or even 24 hours might be appropriate in some circumstances. I would invite the pair concerned to appeal. It really pisses me off when I'm the CTD for an event and the Regulations are useless. If a suitable Appeals Committee ruled that the system was allowed I'd accept their advice but suggest that a new CTD was found (in the next ten minutes :)) Mike Amos From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 30 10:25:52 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:25:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <53A0908A-9E64-4E9E-8504-094F4BEC88E1@rochester.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070529095520.02808400@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20070529095520.02808400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070530102247.028080b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:52 29/05/2007 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: and waving it about as the card he intends to play, where his >partner could have seen its face, is certainly so designating it. AG : sorry, Sir, this is not what the word "designate" means. According to Lognman, for example, it is "to point out, or call by a special name".Neither has been done. Regards alain From svenpran at online.no Wed May 30 10:18:23 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:18:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <53A0908A-9E64-4E9E-8504-094F4BEC88E1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c7a293$173aa500$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............... > It turns out that this whole argument is flawed, as it misses Law > 62A2 which, as Richard Hills correctly pointed out, says that > notwithstanding the provision of Law 62A1, the revoke is established > when the player's partner designates a card to be played to the next > trick - and waving it about as the card he intends to play, where his > partner could have seen its face, is certainly so designating it. As I remember the original posting "waving it about" is a big exaggeration, he was about to play the card when he suddenly realized the possibility that he had revoked on the previous trick. So the key question seems to be: Exactly what actions are included in the term "designate a card"? To me it is obvious that "designating a card" includes such actions as naming a card, pointing to a card that lies visible (like in dummy) or joyfully waving a card for the apparent purpose of showing that the player can play this card. However, is a card "(otherwise) designated" at any time during the normal process of detaching it from a hand until first it becomes visible to the other players and then eventually it actually becomes played on the table? This sounds artificial and rather inventive, and I very much doubt that so can have been the intention with Law 63A2. Even more, such understanding of Law 63A2 would always make Law 63A1 redundant! Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 30 12:30:00 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 30 May 2007 12:30:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure Message-ID: <20070530103000.6DF182BD895@poczta.interia.pl> Wayne, In Poland there is no obligation to pre-alert. So if the CoC don't ban a method and you have a properly filled CC (especially the section about special agreements that may require defense) then you are allowed to play your toy. You simply put your CC on the table and it is their job to look. If they are not interested - it is their problem. This approach makes sense to me. These were the trials and in Poland the systems & conventions allowed in any trials are the very same ones that are allowed in the event for which the trials are organized (European Championships, European Pairs Championship, Bonn CUP... whatever). So whether this method would be allowed in the trials depends on whether it would be allowed in the "target" event. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Czy nadajesz sie na (p)osla? >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1a86 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 30 12:46:25 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:46:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com><2da24b8e0705291921u18b36ce9u8f10f999c40d61a9@mail.gmail.com><2a1c3a560705292019g65b9bc5ehc7032204f598b4a8@mail.gmail.com> <001601c7a28d$f021bda0$8a429058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <000e01c7a2ac$3ec9ddc0$abb887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Do I have it right that 1. Systems Cards were sent by the pair at fault 14 days before the trial - required by regulation; 2. There was a meeting at which changes should be disclosed before the first match; 3. Changes to conventions of high complexity were not allowed, by regulation; 4. The first time Wayne became aware of the use of this BS convention was when he met the pair at the table ? If so, then on what basis could the pair be allowed to play the convention? The law requires disclosure "in accordance with the regulations" The regulations seem sound enough so I would think it a Director's error on a massive scale to permit its use. I take it an appeal went to the national authority. Is Wayne asking us to condemn a decision of a national authority? If so, have we had warning of this and have we been told the grounds for its decision? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Amos" To: "Wayne Burrows" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nondisclosure +=+ Wayne Burrows said: >> The opponents were allowed to play the method and >> we were denied any time to prepare a defense. >> and: >>> > 20 Board Match - National Trial >>> > System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. >>> > There was an opportunity to register changes at a >>> >meeting immediately before play began in the first >>> > match. This is match three on the evening of the >>> > first day. >>> > >>> > Mike Amos commented: > I would invite the pair concerned to appeal. It really > p***es me off when I'm the CTD for an event and the > Regulations are useless. If a suitable Appeals Committee > ruled that the system was allowed I'd accept their advice > but suggest that a new CTD was found (in the next ten > minutes :)) > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 30 13:16:18 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:16:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal References: <2a1c3a560705242245h1823c45bm37b2f2ba459911fb@mail.gmail.com><2a1c3a560705262121m3963becjdf39e8deb57804eb@mail.gmail.com><002201c7a21e$97eda140$36c587d9@Hellen> <000301c7a224$52235c80$0200a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000f01c7a2ac$3fd27420$abb887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "One writes only half the book, the other half is with the reader." ~ Joseph Conrad. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal > > Grattan wrote >> Of appeals in general the Law Book says that >> "Zonal organizations may establish differing conditions >> of appeals for special contests." In relation to appeals >> to the National Authority Law 93 establishes the >> right of appeal to the national authority but it places no >> requirement upon that body as to how it will deal with >> such an appeal. This, I think, is open to regulation and, >> if the regulation contains the statement Wayne quotes, >> it is not under bridge law that a question can be put; it >> is rather a matter of morality or, as it may be, national >> law. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > A particular case I have in mind is the sponsoring organisition > establishing a regulation to determine a "winner" of a knockout > match not played by an end of round date. The regulation > including a provision that the decision is not subject to appeal. +=+ The circumstances cited are not (92A) a "ruling made at his table by the Director". So the question is whether the regulation is lawful under Law 80. Any appeal would be an appeal as to the lawfulness of the regulation in respect of the 'not subject to appeal' condition. (It is probably a condition of entry - Law 80D.) Is provision made for such appeals? If not there is no way forward, except perhaps to go through channels to argue the desirability of establishing a procedure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed May 30 14:22:03 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:22:03 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Nondisclosure?= References: <20070530103000.6DF182BD895@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <465D6C6A.000001.92795@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Konrad Ciborowski Date : 30/05/2007 12:49:36 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Nondisclosure > In Poland there is no obligation to pre-alert. BTA if there exists a specific procedure for advance communication, as was the case here, logic has it that non-pre-transmitted conventions won't be allowed, else the procedure would lose all sense. In Belgium, red / brown conventions are allowed in T4 championships (depending on level) if and only if they were pre-transmitted. Perhaps this explains why Polish players were surprised, in a major competition, to see their artificial 1NT conventional banned because of non-pre-transmission. NB : the comment about "I'd like them to be allowed to play that, because I think it'll cost them" is very valuable. Even when you aren't that sure, you get the upper edge. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070530/fcb4efbf/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/20070530/fcb4efbf/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/20070530/fcb4efbf/attachment-0001.gif From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 30 19:00:55 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:00:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] uninteresting question - HELP! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070530102247.028080b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070529095520.02808400@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> <1180160621.4657d26e0014e@imp.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20070529095520.02808400@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070530102247.028080b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0AD00644-223E-4024-9D10-2143DEA0BDD2@rochester.rr.com> On May 30, 2007, at 4:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 21:52 29/05/2007 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > and waving it about as the card he intends to play, where his >> partner could have seen its face, is certainly so designating it. > > AG : sorry, Sir, this is not what the word "designate" means. > According to Lognman, for example, it is "to point out, or call by > a special name".Neither has been done. You are mistaken. I dunno Lognman, but according to Merriam-Webster designate means "to indicate and set apart for a specific purpose, office, or duty". And that *has* been done. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 31 08:08:11 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:08:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC References: <465BDAB1.2040102@skynet.be> <465C3F67.30002@skynet.be> <465D1ED8.50103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00cc01c7a34a$1518c240$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > - the clever opponent will always ask at every turn, hoping to catch > out misunderstandings and trying to get people to exchange UI. Surely > that is not the way we want bridge to be played. > > Really, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that I am > right, even if I'm the only one saying so. I would very much like to > hear an encouraging word once in a while. > Herman is right. Forcing people to exchange UI unnecessarily is not in the spirit of the game. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 31 00:08:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:08:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00cc01c7a34a$1518c240$6801a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: >Herman is right. Forcing people to exchange UI >unnecessarily is not in the spirit of the game. Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >>_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the >>question'. The fallacy of founding a >>conclusion on a basis that as much needs >>to be proved as the conclusion itself. >> >>*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety >>of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are >>that capital punishment is necessary >>because without it murders would increase, >>and that democracy must be the best form >>of government because the majority are >>always right. Richard Hills: (1) The word "unnecessarily" is the first begging of the question. Giving the other side a correct explanation of your mutual partnership agreement, in accordance with the requirements of Law 75C, is very necessary. (2) The second begging of the question is that the De Wael School advocates, as was recently discussed in April's "De Whale" thread, the generation of unnecessary UI whenever a question is asked about a call for which there is not any mutual partnership agreement (by lying to the opponents that there is an agreement, thus providing very unnecessary UI to pard on how you will interpret the undiscussed call). Herman De Wael: >>> - the clever opponent will always ask at >>>every turn, hoping to catch out >>>misunderstandings and trying to get people >>>to exchange UI. Richard Hills: No, only a stupid opponent does that. Not only does that so-called "clever" player place UI restrictions on their partner by asking excessive questions, but also the badgering of the other side with incessant questioning is a clear infraction of the courtesy requirements of Law 74A2, so would therefore receive a disciplinary penalty if I was the Director. 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 Thu May 31 00:45:18 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:45:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <00cc01c7a34a$1518c240$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <465BDAB1.2040102@skynet.be> <465C3F67.30002@skynet.be> <465D1ED8.50103@skynet.be> <00cc01c7a34a$1518c240$6801a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <465DFE7E.10205@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] Really, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that I am right, even if I'm the only one saying so. I would very much like to hear an encouraging word once in a while. [Marvin L French] Herman is right. Forcing people to exchange UI unnecessarily is not in the spirit of the game. [Nige1] Good on you Marv! :) Herman's is not the orthodox resolution of the seeming inconsistency in the *current* law book. We can but hope that the *new* law book sides with his interpretation. No more "bridge experience" or *undiscussed" or "we don't want to confuse you with too much detail" or other prevarication or rationalisation :( For the sake of fairness, justice, clarity, simplicity and the sanity of players, the new edition should specify "if an opponent asks for an explanation of the auction of partner's call/play but you don't know its agreed significance, then you must guess." A wrong guess is treated as accidental misinformation :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 31 10:04:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:04:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >20 Board Match - National Trial >System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance. There was an >opportunity to register changes at a meeting immediately before play >began in the first match. This is match three on the evening of the >first day. > >Board One > >1C (1S*) ? > >* Either diamonds or both majors > >This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card >nor any verbal mention made of this defense. > >Do you ... > >1. Allow this method > >2. Disallow this method? Richard Hills: 1. Allow this method. Wayne Burrows: >Assume you allow the method ... > >Do you ... > >1. Allow the opponents time to prepare a counter-defense > >2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare > >3. Allow the opponents to prepare a defense but any time taken is >considered playing time > >4. As for 3 but charge any initial overrun in time solely to the >side that did not disclose > >5. Something else that I have not thought of. Richard Hills: 2. Allow no time for the opponents to prepare. Wayne Burrows: >Are there any circumstances in which you think it would be >reasonable to allow the method and not let their opponents have any >time to prepare a defense against this method Richard Hills: Yes, the stated circumstances that this is a New Zealand National Trials. Come on now, similar TWERB and Toxic methods are extremely commonplace, played by many mediocre players at local Canberra clubs. Any partnership who belongs in a New Zealand National Trials should have generic defences to ambiguous overcalls prepared well before the event started. What's the problem? Or does Wayne want potential New Zealand international players to be as coddled as ACBL international Larry Cohen? Larry, due to ACBL system restrictions, is uncomfortable playing against Polish Club, so therefore argues that it is a system which should be restricted from general use in international events. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/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 May 31 10:10:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:10:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > (1) The word "unnecessarily" is the first > begging of the question. Giving the other > side a correct explanation of your mutual > partnership agreement, in accordance with the > requirements of Law 75C, is very necessary. > And why would that be, Richard? The information that you deem so necessary has no relation whatsoever to the had of the guy bidding it. As an opponent, I could not care less about the systemic meaning of a call, I want to know what the bidder is telling us about his hand. Take the bidding : ... - 4NT (meant as for the minors, alerted as blackwood) - pass - 5Di. If I now ask what 5Di means, I want to hear that the man has 0/3 KC, not that he is showing longer diamonds. So you are completely wrong. Giving the other side a correct explanation of your mutual partnership agreement, in accordance with the requirements of Law 75C, is _not_ necessary. > (2) The second begging of the question is > that the De Wael School advocates, as was > recently discussed in April's "De Whale" > thread, the generation of unnecessary UI > whenever a question is asked about a call > for which there is not any mutual partnership > agreement (by lying to the opponents that > there is an agreement, thus providing very > unnecessary UI to pard on how you will > interpret the undiscussed call). > But Richard, are you playing the same way as I am? Isn't "That's Ghestem" and "I believe that's Ghestem" exactly the same thing as far as UI to partner is concerned? And please stop mixing threads. > Herman De Wael: > >>>> - the clever opponent will always ask at >>>> every turn, hoping to catch out >>>> misunderstandings and trying to get people >>>> to exchange UI. > > Richard Hills: > > No, only a stupid opponent does that. Not > only does that so-called "clever" player > place UI restrictions on their partner by > asking excessive questions, but also the > badgering of the other side with incessant > questioning is a clear infraction of the > courtesy requirements of Law 74A2, so would > therefore receive a disciplinary penalty if I > was the Director. > But we are not talking about badgering, or about UI to partner. I am simply comparing an opponent who looks at the CC with an opponent who asks. The first one reads "1 ace", the second one gets from me the reply "1 ace". The second one gets from you the reply "we are having a bidding misunderstanding". Against you, it is clever to always ask and never look at the CC. Against me, the two are the same. Do you really want every single one of your partner's bids to be asked about? Then do go on with giving "unnecessary UI to partner" every time you do have a misunderstanding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From geller at nifty.com Thu May 31 11:07:33 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:07:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] Removal of bidding cards from the table In-Reply-To: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> References: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200705310907.AA09130@geller204.nifty.com> Can someone help me out please. In earlier threads it's been mentioned that in some countries bidding cards aren't picked up after the final pass, but rather are left on the table until the opening lead has placed on the table face down and third hand says he has no questions. Could someone please provide a copy of the regulations that specify this procedure, or a link to a web page giving these regulations in English. Thanks! -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From J.P.Pals at uva.nl Thu May 31 11:54:46 2007 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:54:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846992@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> North makes his opening lead (the four of hearts) out of turn. The director's explains Laws 54 and 50D, and east forbids the heart lead. When south considers his opening lead, north leads out of turn for the second time! This time the spade six. What now? From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu May 31 12:45:44 2007 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:45:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Removal of bidding cards from the table References: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> <200705310907.AA09130@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000f01c7a370$d88a5ec0$c8590d52@AnnesComputer> Taken from the recomendations of the WBF, the EBU regulations are http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/The%20Orange%20Book/2006%20Orange%20Book.pdf 7 B 7 At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes. If the hand is passed out then the passes are immediately returned to their boxes. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:07 AM Subject: [blml] Removal of bidding cards from the table > Can someone help me out please. > > In earlier threads it's been mentioned that in some countries > bidding cards aren't picked up after the final pass, but rather are > left on the table until the opening lead has placed on the table face > down and third hand says he has no questions. > > Could someone please provide a copy of the regulations that specify this > procedure, or a link to a web page giving these regulations in English. > Thanks! > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com Thu May 31 12:54:32 2007 From: ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com (Ken Richardson) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:54:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846992@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: Declarer has the same options again whether to accept the lead of the six of spades. (law 54) If he chooses not to accept the lead then both cards become major penalty cards and offenders partner can be asked to lead one of the suits, thus cancelling the penalty card in that suit only. Alternatively declarer can prohibit the lead of one or both suits, cancelling the penalty cards in all such suits. (law 51) The director may feel obliged to fine north. (10% or 3 imps?) (laws 90/91) Ken -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Jan Peter Pals Sent: 31 May 2007 10:55 To: blml Subject: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn North makes his opening lead (the four of hearts) out of turn. The director's explains Laws 54 and 50D, and east forbids the heart lead. When south considers his opening lead, north leads out of turn for the second time! This time the spade six. What now? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/05/2007 15:03 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/05/2007 15:03 From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu May 31 13:02:39 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:02:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Removal of bidding cards from the table References: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> <200705310907.AA09130@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B722614946D@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> > Could someone please provide a copy of the regulations that specify this > procedure, or a link to a web page giving these regulations in English. > Thanks! EBU Orange Book (try www.ebu.co.uk ) section 7B7. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070531/4c526686/attachment.htm From a.witzen at chello.nl Thu May 31 13:48:05 2007 From: a.witzen at chello.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:48:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846992@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20070531134805.00f8ad18@mail.chello.nl> isnt this an old dutch oral TD exam question? I rememer the story about what happened next told by sietze sietsma:) btw that wasnt nice after all:) regards anton At 11:54 AM 5/31/2007 +0200, you wrote: >North makes his opening lead (the four of hearts) out of turn. >The director's explains Laws 54 and 50D, and east forbids the heart >lead. >When south considers his opening lead, north leads out of turn for the >second time! This time the spade six. >What now? > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu May 31 14:26:39 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:26:39 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Confused_-_second_lead_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?out_of_turn?= References: Message-ID: <465EBEFE.000001.04123@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- The director may feel obliged to fine north. (10% or 3 imps?) (laws 90/91) Agree, but I remember a case where the director said "you may disallow the lead, and in that case you have the following options etc." but failed to say that in that case the lead reverted to the "real" LHO. Declarer decided to prohibit the lead, and RHO in all good faith led another suit Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070531/8cd44e64/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/20070531/8cd44e64/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 2435 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070531/8cd44e64/attachment-0002.gif -------------- 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/20070531/8cd44e64/attachment-0003.gif From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu May 31 15:15:43 2007 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:15:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn References: Message-ID: <004101c7a385$cc345cb0$c8590d52@AnnesComputer> AND if Jan Peter Pals is intimating that because the heart option has been excersised and the heart is no longer a penalty card, so declarers options only apply to the spade suit, I would suggest Law 60 If the offending side has a previous obligation to play a penalty card, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, the obligation remains at future turns. I would replace the H card on the table and give declarer the options again from the start. In view of the presence of the spade card declarer may change his mind about his request to prohibit a heart lead. As the penalty has not been paid I also would rule 2 major penalty cards. I understand Ken's thoughts about penalty points, and would need to think that N, while paying insufficient attention to the game was trying to gain advantage. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Richardson" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn > Declarer has the same options again whether to accept the lead of the six > of > spades. (law 54) > > If he chooses not to accept the lead then both cards become major penalty > cards and offenders partner can be asked to lead one of the suits, thus > cancelling the penalty card in that suit only. Alternatively declarer can > prohibit the lead of one or both suits, cancelling the penalty cards in > all > such suits. (law 51) > > The director may feel obliged to fine north. (10% or 3 imps?) (laws 90/91) > > Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On > Behalf Of Jan Peter Pals > Sent: 31 May 2007 10:55 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn > > > North makes his opening lead (the four of hearts) out of turn. > The director's explains Laws 54 and 50D, and east forbids the heart > lead. > When south considers his opening lead, north leads out of turn for the > second time! This time the spade six. > What now? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/05/2007 > 15:03 > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/05/2007 > 15:03 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk at ripe.net Thu May 31 17:21:49 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:21:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Confused - second lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20070531134805.00f8ad18@mail.chello.nl> References: <465E82F4.7010004@skynet.be> <3.0.5.32.20070531134805.00f8ad18@mail.chello.nl> Message-ID: <465EE80D.4020307@ripe.net> Anton Witzen wrote: > isnt this an old dutch oral TD exam question? Yes. The official answer was: after dealing with the H4, south is on lead, so the S6 is a card led out of turn. Declarer now has usual series of options again (accept, lead a spade, don't lead a spade, lead anything). In the last two cases, south is not allowed to lead a heart either. This assumed that the candidate had told north that _south_ was on lead after dealing with the H4. > I rememer the story about what happened next told by Sietze Sietsma:) Knowing Sytze, I'm pretty sure that for bonus points, he gave south 7-6 in the majors and told east not to accept a lead in either major ;-) Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 31 23:00:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:00:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1C 1H 1S(1) 2H ? (1) Promises at least five spades (would negative double with only four spades) You, South, hold: K85 J652 3 AKQJ5 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/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 May 31 23:59:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <914B6154-BE87-4F57-9FB0-929B4EAD2E97@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > The player pulled a card from his hand, and waved it about in such a > way that he clearly intended to play it The original post said "West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played) then withdraws it ...". There's no "waving about" which could be interpreted as designating the card. West intended to play the card but realised (before actually doing so or otherwise naming it) that he had revoked on the previous trick. I would accept the card had been "designated" if it had been waved about just above the table as if to indicate it had been played. Tim