From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 1 00:13:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:13:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <465E82F4.7010004@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >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. Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936): Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid - Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade. "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all." Richard Hills: Herman is completely wrong. Master of them all is the Cold Iron necessity of Law 72A1. "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws." Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936): "Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong. Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong. I forgive thy treason - I redeem thy fall - For Iron - Cold Iron - must be master of men all!" 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 tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Jun 1 01:16:20 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:16:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <465F5744.4090508@comcast.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 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? 4S. I consider 3H and 4D (if a splinter), but I don't see where those auctions are going. I'm doubling opponents in 5H and giving up chances at slam. -Todd From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Jun 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:01:01 +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 Fri Jun 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for May 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 29 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 14 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 12 svenpran (at) online.no 12 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 12 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 11 twm (at) cix.co.uk 10 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 9 hermandw (at) skynet.be 7 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 7 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 5 john (at) asimere.com 5 ehaa (at) starpower.net 5 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 4 geller (at) nifty.com 3 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 3 adam (at) irvine.com 2 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 2 mandache (at) free.fr 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 2 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 2 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 2 andre.kriner (at) gmail.com 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 1 tstrongbridge (at) iprimus.com.au 1 sarahamos (at) onetel.net 1 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 1 ken.deri31 (at) ntlworld.com 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm 1 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 1 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 1 a.witzen (at) chello.nl 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 J.P.Pals (at) uva.nl 1 Frances.Hinden (at) Shell.com 1 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 1 01:00:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:00:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Removal of bidding cards from the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200705310907.AA09130@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >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! Richard Hills: The ABF regulations for written bidding and bidding boxes are at: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html Selected relevant excerpts -> 4.1 The Laws concerning correct procedure in the auction, irregularities in the auction and the proprieties apply mutatis mutandi to written bidding and bidding boxes. 11.1 When screens are in use the bidding cards are restored to their boxes prior to the opening lead. 11.2 When screens are not in use, all the bidding cards should remain on the table until after the opening lead has been faced. * * * Attached is a polemic, "A plague of bidding boxes", written by ABF National Director Matthew McManus, which appeared in the May 2007 edition of the ABF Newsletter. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * For the first time this year, bidding boxes were used in the South West Pacific Teams during the Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra. While some players would have been familiar with bidding boxes, as they are used in a number of clubs around the country, for many it would have been a new experience. Some clubs enter into the discussion about whether to purchase bidding boxes for their sessions, and I am often asked for my advice. I strongly discourage them from going down this path. I firmly believe that written bidding is superior to the use of bidding boxes. While this is particularly true from a director's viewpoint, we may also be unwittingly doing a disservice to a significant proportion of bridge players by giving up on traditional written bidding. One of the main arguments put forward for bidding boxes is that it is what the rest of the world is doing and so we should "move forward". We should recall than until very recently, the rest of the world was still using spoken bidding. There was never any suggestion that we should follow suit just because everyone else was doing it. Australia and New Zealand had developed the far superior method of written bidding and we all enjoyed its benefits. Bidding boxes are a definite improvement on spoken bidding, but still fall well short of written bidding. Maybe one day the rest of the world will catch up! As a director, there really is no comparison between the two methods. With written bidding the director has an immediate record of the auction. If it needs to be considered in more detail, it is a very simple matter to take the bidding sheet away. With bidding boxes, the director has to write down his own copy of the auction after hearing from the players...and, particularly if the bidding has been long or complex, just getting the players to agree on what the auction was can take quite a while. There are frequent disagreements about how the bidding went, whether there had been an alert of this call or of that one, whether this hand passed or doubled on this round, and so on. Just two examples from January may help to give weight to my argument. Over the course of over 600 boards played in the 2007 Australian Youth Championships, there was only one director call which involved anything more than a technical ruling (ie, a lead out of turn, insufficient bid, etc.). It occurred in the one event when bidding boxes rather than written bidding were employed. There was a dispute as to whether or not a call had been alerted. In this situation, the director needs to (maybe reluctantly) proceed on the basis that there has not been an alert as the responsibility to make the opponents aware lies with the alerter. With written bidding, there either would or would not have been a circle around the bid - no room for dispute. Later in the week, I ventured over to the Hellenic Club to check out the new venue. I had hardly made it through the door, when I was accosted by a phalanx of directors asking, "What do you do if one side says that the contract is 4H and the other says it's 4H doubled?" There really is no satisfactory answer to this question. Both sides think that they are right and whatever decision is made, one (or even both sides) will be aggrieved. A further observation is that there seems to be significantly more insufficient bids using bidding boxes compared with written bidding. One of the reasons could be that it is not uncommon for players to accidentally pull out the wrong card. (For instance, you go to take out the 3H card, and you miss, or it gets stuck and only the 2H card appears on the table.) Now the laws of Bridge allow this to be corrected without penalty - Law 25A, Inadvertent Call. However, I have noticed that less experienced players are reluctant to admit that the wrong card has been placed on the table accidentally. As has been said to me on more than one occasion, "I thought that once I put the wrong bid down, I was stuck with it." The other situation where I believe that the less experienced player is disadvantaged by the use of bidding boxes is in the procedures at the end of the auction. Those clubs who have used bidding boxes for a while usually have a regulation that the bidding cards should remain on the table until after the opening lead is made. This enables the defenders to take in and make any enquiries about the auction while it is still in view. In practice, however, despite all encouragements, inducements, and threats from directors and administrators, the cards are scooped up as soon as the final pass is made - and sometimes even before that. For the seasoned player, this usually does not present a problem. Either they have developed the skills to recall or reconstruct the auction or they have no qualms about asking for a review of the bidding. The less experienced player can be intimidated by the abruptness of the process and may be reluctant to request a review for fear of being thought of as a troublemaker - after all, no one else seems to need to be told what the auction was. In a recent edition of the Newsletter, the Editor spoke of the negative experiences that new players encountered when first venturing onto the Congress scene. Why should we make it worse by imposing something unfamiliar and potentially very user-unfriendly? If we want to make the transition from club bridge to higher levels as easy as possible, we should stick to the written bidding that they are used to. I will not dispute that there are benefits with bidding boxes, but on comparison, if we consider the needs of all concerned, I think that they fall well short of written bidding. We have a successful, tried and tested process at the moment. Let's not throw it all away. Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 1 02:10:01 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:10:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004301c7a3e1$3263aa30$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:00 PM Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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? 3S > What other calls do you consider making? more likely 2S than 4S or 4D, this hand smells of foul breaks. > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrhind at therock.bm Fri Jun 1 02:32:42 2007 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:32:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004301c7a3e1$3263aa30$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On 5/31/07 8:10 PM, "John Probst" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:00 PM > Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> 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? > > I would bid 4S. We are vulnerable and we have a great fit. > >> What other calls do you consider making? > From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri Jun 1 03:32:08 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:32:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <465F5744.4090508@comcast.net> References: <465F5744.4090508@comcast.net> Message-ID: <465F7718.40406@cs.elte.hu> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >>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? >> >> > >4S. > >I consider 3H and 4D (if a splinter), but I don't see where >those auctions are going. I'm doubling opponents in 5H and >giving up chances at slam. > >-Todd > > > I consider DBL as well, playing support DBL in this situation is not a bad method. It!s important to show, we have only 3card support. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Jun 1 04:24:37 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:24:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000501c7a3f4$01137ab0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:00 PM Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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? We play support Dbls (even when partner is known to have 5 spades; it helps to identify trump length and determine proper level). So I Double. > What other calls do you consider making? 2S when not playing support doubles. This hand is nice but not worth a jump nor 4S; bad breaks likely and partner has promised nothing more than 5 spades and 6+HCP (he might have even fewer with the now-known singleton heart). From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 1 10:35:14 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:35:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070601102852.0280a550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:00 1/06/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >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? I have to raise unambiguously. If I doubled ("cards"), I'd be exposed to a 4D fit-jump or the like. My valuation tells me to raise to 3S (6 losers but many tricks). Playing strong notrumps, this shows genuine clubs by inference. Some might say this is a game hand, and bid any one of 4S, 4C or 4D. All of these might be considered LAs. 2S isn't. Some weak notrumpers could bid 2S, because they play this stronger than 3S. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 1 11:34:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:34:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <465FE81A.8060306@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> 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. > > Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936): > > Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid - > Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade. > "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, > "But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all." > > Richard Hills: > > Herman is completely wrong. Master of them all is the Cold > Iron necessity of Law 72A1. > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws." > Richard, posts like this are absolutely unhelpful. I'm citing Law. You're citing another law. And then you say that I'm wrong because the law is King. Please grant me a little more respect than that. You will never win arguments this way. So either quit with this Herman bashing, or start a serious discussion with me. At your terms. Either on blml or out of it, after which we present a joint statement of arguments and counter-arguments. You know what you should do? Read the summary of the posts that were sent to this list in 1998 (http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html) and write me a detailed summary of the laws as you read them. Maybe then we can have a serious discussion. Until then, I'm just gonna stop. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 14:28:57 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:28:57 +1200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706010528m12202fc1p49391831cc39e35e@mail.gmail.com> On 31/05/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 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. > > :-( > Absolutely not Richard. As far as I am aware there was no other pair playing similar methods in the trials neither is it a common defensive system in New Zealand. I have no problem playing against this method but in an event where there is time to prepare and discuss and remind each other what exactly we play against various relatively unusual methods. In the first match I played today my opponents were playing the relatively common system - Precision. Nevertheless I took the time to refresh our partnership understandings of what we do over Precision before we drew the cards from the first board. A pair that do not disclose their methods as required therefore gains an advantage over other pairs by depriving their opponents of the time to discuss or refresh a defense against peculiarities in their system. Do you really think that is fair Richard? Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 14:34:29 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:34:29 +1200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <000e01c7a2ac$3ec9ddc0$abb887d9@Hellen> References: <2a1c3a560705291627s532a8192n299d25f923c85b25@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0705291921u18b36ce9u8f10f999c40d61a9@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560705292019g65b9bc5ehc7032204f598b4a8@mail.gmail.com> <001601c7a28d$f021bda0$8a429058@oakdene1> <000e01c7a2ac$3ec9ddc0$abb887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706010534n2a4e89ebk7af786ff768ac169@mail.gmail.com> On 30/05/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > 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 ? > Yes this part you got right Grattan. > 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? No there was no appeal. The board where the undisclosed system bids came up was a nothing hand where the opponent's out bid us in a part-score auction and I cannot now remember whether this was good or bad. We were at the potential disadvantage of not discussing our agreements over this method for the next 19 boards but fortunately the situation did not come up. Wayne > ~ 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 :)) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 1 15:23:51 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:23:51 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Nondisclosure_=5BSEC=3D?= =?iso-8859-1?q?UNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <2a1c3a560706010528m12202fc1p49391831cc39e35e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46601DE6.000004.76161@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > Any partnership who belongs in a New Zealand National Trials should > have generic defences to ambiguous overcalls prepared well before > the event started. AG : any partnership, at any time, any level and in any competition, should be given time for recalling their generic defenses. Come to think of it, that's why New Zealand (like Belgium) requires advance disclosure. To put it squarely, if you require advance disclosure, but allow intricated conventions without this disclosure, that's pretty incoherent, isn't it ? Ah yes, one more point : do you really think the defense should be the same if 1S meant "majors or diamonds", "majors or minors" (CRaSh) or "spades or reds" ? I do not. Whence generic defenses aren't enough (especially at such a high level). Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070601/bd62080c/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/20070601/bd62080c/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/20070601/bd62080c/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 1 15:37:53 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:37:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3230EBFD-04F9-45CD-BB30-D43EBCA435D5@starpower.net> On May 31, 2007, at 5:00 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 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? Either 2S or 3S, depending on my opening bid style (sound or light, respectively). > What other calls do you consider making? The other one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jun 1 16:39:44 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 01 Jun 2007 16:39:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure Message-ID: <20070601143944.E6AD8719097@poczta.interia.pl> > Ah yes, one more point : do you really think the defense should > be the same if 1S meant "majors or diamonds", "majors or minors" (CRaSh) > or "spades or reds" I do not. I do. For many years I had one generic defense to _all_ artificial systems and we've never had any problems with it. You really don't need to fine-tune your defense every single time - the payoff is far too small. Trust me. Right now I'm playing a strong club system and I have one generic defense for all cases when a 1S overcall doesn't promise a specific suit. I really don't anything more detailed. BTW I used to play a strong pass system for 7 years when these systems were allowed in all tournaments in Poland. Poland was an oasis of freedom at that time and generally people knew how do defend against weird systems because people knew them from experience. Then came the system regulations and they absolutely killed all artificial systems in Poland. Polish juniors don't even know the opening bids of "No Name", the most popular Polish strong pass system. These systems disappeared because you can no longer practice them in regular tournaments and no one is going make something their basic system if they can only play it a few times a year in league matches. So three years ago during a playoff match (72 deals) to qualify for the Polish First Division when we were down by 50 at the half I sat down to play with my old partner with whom I used to play for 7 seven years and we decided to play strong pass. Naturally we had sent the detailed system description well in advance and all just to be able to switch to strong pass in case the situation became desperate. So our opponents knew we might play it days in advance. We sat down against the junior world champions Kalita - Kotorowicz who are already one of the best Polish pairs. And we beat them nicely during the 36 deals left to play. The problem was that, say, 20 years ago they would be familiar with such systems because they would have to play against them in regular tournaments. Today a top junior pair has never seen anything nonstandard in their whole lives. So us playing a strong pass systems was like putting a tiger on a island where there has never been any tigers and other animals have no clue how to defend against it. This is exactly the same effect of Larry Cohen complaining about having to play against the Polish Club - it is a vicious circle. If you disallow something on the basis that people don't know how to defend against it then how on earth are they going to learn to defend against it when you ban it in the first place? That's why the sentence in the WBF Systems Policy about "affording proper consideration to progress and innovation" is one of the biggest jokes - the WBF Systems Policy killed all innovations in bridge in recent times. How many new systems have appeared in world bridge in recent years? In Poland since the WBF Systems Policy has been adopted the number of pairs playing anything different from the Polish Club or short club systems is below 0.01%. So getting back to the problem at hand - Wayne, if your opponents had a properely filled CC and you failed to look at it then I firmly believe it was your fault, Wayne, and you deserved to be at a disadvantage. I also firmly believe that every pair at such a high level should have a bunch of generic defenses to all kinds of weirdness. If I could do it when I played in the Fourth Division then someone who has aspirations to represent his country at the national level should be able to do it, too. It is really not that hard. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------ CTR Ju? jest i czeka na Ciebie. Sprawd? na >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1a9c From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 00:23:02 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:23:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <20070601143944.E6AD8719097@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070601143944.E6AD8719097@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706011523i741bc461x99f54c3faa64a45a@mail.gmail.com> > So getting back to the problem at hand - Wayne, if your opponents had > a properely filled CC and you failed to look at it then I firmly > believe it was your fault, Wayne, and you deserved to be at a disadvantage. This was covered in the opening post "This method over a natural 1C has not been disclosed on their card nor any verbal mention made of this defense." Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 2 03:18:18 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 02:18:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <20070601143944.E6AD8719097@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20070601143944.E6AD8719097@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4660C55A.7070106@NTLworld.com> [Konrad Ciborski] I do (really think the defense should be the same if 1S meant "majors or diamonds", "majors or minors" (CRaSh) or "spades or reds). For many years I had one generic defense to _all_ artificial systems and we've never had any problems with it. You really don't need to fine-tune your defense every single time - the payoff is far too small. Trust me. Right now I'm playing a strong club system and I have one generic defense for all cases when a 1S overcall doesn't promise a specific suit. I really don't anything more detailed. BTW I used to play a strong pass system for 7 years when these systems were allowed in all tournaments in Poland. Poland was an oasis of freedom at that time and generally people knew how do defend against weird systems because people knew them from experience. Then came the system regulations and they absolutely killed all artificial systems in Poland. Polish juniors don't even know the opening bids of "No Name", the most popular Polish strong pass system. These systems disappeared because you can no longer practice them in regular tournaments and no one is going make something their basic system if they can only play it a few times a year in league matches. So three years ago during a playoff match (72 deals) to qualify for the Polish First Division when we were down by 50 at the half I sat down to play with my old partner with whom I used to play for 7 seven years and we decided to play strong pass. Naturally we had sent the detailed system description well in advance and all just to be able to switch to strong pass in case the situation became desperate. So our opponents knew we might play it days in advance. We sat down against the junior world champions Kalita - Kotorowicz who are already one of the best Polish pairs. And we beat them nicely during the 36 deals left to play. The problem was that, say, 20 years ago they would be familiar with such systems because they would have to play against them in regular tournaments. Today a top junior pair has never seen anything nonstandard in their whole lives. So us playing a strong pass systems was like putting a tiger on a island where there has never been any tigers and other animals have no clue how to defend against it. This is exactly the same effect of Larry Cohen complaining about having to play against the Polish Club - it is a vicious circle. If you disallow something on the basis that people don't know how to defend against it then how on earth are they going to learn to defend against it when you ban it in the first place? That's why the sentence in the WBF Systems Policy about "affording proper consideration to progress and innovation" is one of the biggest jokes - the WBF Systems Policy killed all innovations in bridge in recent times. How many new systems have appeared in world bridge in recent years? In Poland since the WBF Systems Policy has been adopted the number of pairs playing anything different from the Polish Club or short club systems is below 0.01%. So getting back to the problem at hand - Wayne, if your opponents had a properely filled CC and you failed to look at it then I firmly believe it was your fault, Wayne, and you deserved to be at a disadvantage. I also firmly believe that every pair at such a high level should have a bunch of generic defenses to all kinds of weirdness. If I could do it when I played in the Fourth Division then someone who has aspirations to represent his country at the national level should be able to do it, too. It is really not that hard. [nige1] Konrad's arguments are usually completely clear and persuasive but here, exceptionally, a couple of points would benefit from Konrad's further elucidation: [A] I am intrigued by generic defences to such artificial overcalls. Please would you explain yours Konrad? [B] Wayne's opponents did *not* have their 1S overcall on their convention card and, anyway, the conditions of contest *mandated* timely pre-disclosure of systems. Hence Wayne seems to have had a legal right to object. In justice, he would expect the director to prevent opponents from using the convention. IMO, Wayne also had a moral right to object. Banning of the convention would have been a fair ruling because it put Wayne at an unnecessary disadvantage. Wayne's opponents and their team-captain adopted a cavalier attitude to the rules of contest. They had clear warning, ample time, and several opportunities to divulge their unusual methods. Why should they be allowed to get away with this? what kind of precedent does it create? From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Jun 2 09:19:26 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 09:19:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure References: <20070601143944.E6AD8719097@poczta.interia.pl> <4660C55A.7070106@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004d01c7a4e6$5e356760$37201d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" > [nige1] > > Konrad's arguments are usually completely clear and persuasive but here, > exceptionally, a couple of points would benefit from Konrad's further > elucidation: > > [A] I am intrigued by generic defences to such artificial overcalls. > Please would you explain yours Konrad? For example our defense to a natural 1S overcall is: 1C (1S) ? x = 0-5 pass = 6-8 1BA = 9+ BAL 2C = 9+, 5+D 2D = 9+, 5=H 2H = 9+, 5+C 2S = 9+, BAL 2NT = 6-8, 5+H-5+C/D 3X = 6-8 6+X 3S = 9+, three-suiter spade shortness When 1S doesn't promise any suit we modify our defense slightly: 1C (1S) ? pass = 6-8 x = 0-5 1BA = 9+ BAL 2C = 9+, 5+D 2D = 9+, 5=H 2H = 9+, 5+S 2S = 9+, 5+C 2NT = 6-8, 5+S-5+H 3X = 6-8 6+X We don't really care is 1S is Crash or random or whatever. Because the scheme is very similar to when 1S is natural then we don't really have to remember more. We have a third variant when 1S promises another suit (eg 1S is a transfer to D). We feel this is enough. When artificial systems were allowed I played the following defense to all artificial systems (assuming the opening bid was not strong like 2C ART GF): (1X) - ? x = 13+, 3+X BAL, or 16+ BAL 2+X overcall = nat 1NT = Dynamic roughly 18+ UNBAL 2X = natural We had one more defense against all strong openings (similar to CRASH). So all we needed to do before every round was to take a look at the opp's CC and decide: we treat these openings as artificial not strong, this one as artificial strong, and this one as natural. > > [B] Wayne's opponents did *not* have their 1S overcall on their > convention card and, anyway, the conditions of contest *mandated* timely > pre-disclosure of systems. I must have missed it for which I apologize. In that case of course they should not be allowed to play it all. As much as I am all for systems freedom I absolutely reaquire full disclosure - if you don't have it on your CC you cannot play it. Period. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ile masz w domu niepotrzebnych rzeczy? Wymien sie z sasiadami >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a93 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jun 3 06:08:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:08:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070601102852.0280a550@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >I have to raise unambiguously. If I doubled ("cards"), I'd be >exposed to a 4D fit-jump or the like. Richard Hills: Even if Double was, by agreement, a Support Double (showing three spades), you would be leaving pard in the dark about the playing strength of your hand, so pard and/or you could be forced to a guess whether to play or defend if LHO pre-empts. Alain Gottcheiner: >My valuation tells me to raise to 3S (6 losers but many tricks). >Playing strong notrumps, this shows genuine clubs by inference. Richard Hills: At the table South chose the equivalent call of a 3H cue-raise, since in the North-South methods 3S would be a pre-emptive raise. John Probst: >>3S ..... this hand smells of foul breaks. Richard Hills: At the table North accepted the invitation to game, but there were not any foul breaks, since there was a friendly 3-3 heart break -> Matchpoint pairs Dlr: East Vul: North-South The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass 1C 1H 1S(1) 2H 3H(2) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Promises at least five spades (would negative double with only four spades) (2) Inviting game in spades AT632 T73 A9 T93 J84 Q7 AK9 Q84 KQ84 JT7652 764 82 K85 J652 3 AKQJ5 East led the four of hearts. The defenders cashed the first three hearts tricks, then waited to collect their eventual trump trick for one off. This was a top, as all other North-South pairs gained a plus score, since against other 4S contracts West did not choose a 1H lead-directing overcall, causing East to choose a diamond lead instead. (Ace of diamonds, ace and king of spades, run clubs, thus getting to pitch a heart before West could ruff in.) East-West were an occasional partnership, with this session on 31st May being their first game together since 19th January (although they are opponents on a regular basis each Wednesday evening). Shortly before the session started, East was bewailing how his other partner psyched, ruining any chance of a place in a regional congress. West replied: "I never psyche....." {Gales of laughter from East and all other players within earshot.} ".....except when it works." This board was West's only psyche of the session, and it worked. Do East and West have a concealed partnership agreement? Or do East and West have a revealed but illegal partnership agreement? As Director, how would you rule? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jun 3 06:51:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:51:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004d01c7a4e6$5e356760$37201d53@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Mike Amos: [snip] >>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 :)) Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >As much as I am all for systems freedom I >absolutely require full disclosure - if you don't >have it on your CC you cannot play it. Period. Cootamundra Congress Teams Sunday 24th June 2007 Round 1, Board 1 North-South are Hashmat Ali and Richard Hills. East-West are Wayne Burrows and Konrad Ciborowski. The Director is Mike Amos. Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Wayne Richard Konrad Hashmat --- 1H Pass 1S Richard alerts Hashmat's 1S response, explaining that although it is a natural call, it is also a non-forcing call. Wayne summons the Director, and complains that: "This method over a natural 1H has not been disclosed on their card nor was any verbal pre-alert given of this response. Will you allow Konrad and me time to prepare a defence to this unusual and undisclosed agreement?" The Director, Mike Amos replies: "The ABF alert regulations do seem to require advance pre-alert notification of system so clearly it was the regulation writers' intention to demand advance disclosure of this 1S response to 1H. No one can deny that this non-forcing response is 'unusual', and I would expect Cootamundra country congress competitors to understand their obligations." However..... The Chief Tournament Director over-rules the Director, deeming that the 1S response to 1H is such a trivial part of the Ali-Hills system that it would need a pre- alert only in a Canberra Bridge Club supervised play session. The CTD offers Wayne a free game therein. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jun 3 08:08:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 16:08:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <465FE81A.8060306@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 72A1 (General Principles - Observance of Laws - General Obligation on Contestants): "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws." Herman De Wael (2007): [snip] >Read the summary of the posts that were sent to this >list in 1998 >(http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html) >and write me a detailed summary of the laws as you read >them. Maybe then we can have a serious discussion. Until >then, I'm just gonna stop. Herman De Wael (1998): >I think we may safely say that at least on this issue, >David Stevenson is in a minority position. Laws 75C and >75D2 do contradict one another, and a player in these >circumstances shall be forced to break one of them. Richard Hills (2007): No, I would argue that in these circumstances a National Authority should reinterpret either Law 75C or Law 75D2. It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break a Law. Either the National Authority should interpret Law 75C as reading: "When explaining the significance of partner?s call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. **But, as an over-riding exception to this Law, a player shall lie about their partnership agreements if required by the Law 75D2 criterion to not "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made".** Or the National Authority should interpret Law 75D2 as reading: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. **But, as an over-riding exception to this sentence, a player shall truthfully answer a Law 75C question.** After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous." Herman De Wael (1998): >This leads us to a discussion on which of the Laws, 75C >or 75D2, is the strongest. Jesper Dybdal (1998): >However, it is generally accepted that your duty to >inform the opponents takes precedence over your duty to >not give partner UI. The UI is partner's problem, and >that is the price your partner must pay for having >forgotten his system. If you do not answer according to >your agreements, you are making it the opponents' >problem, which is much worse. I agree that the law book >does not say that L75D2 is less important than L75C. But >it seems obvious to me that it should be, and I believe >it is generally accepted that it is. Grant Sterling (1998): >When given a choice between explicitly violating a law >and violating another law only under an obviously >minority reading of an ambiguous clause, I would prefer >to violate the latter [even if I thought my reading of it >was the correct one. :)] Jeremy Rickard (1998): >When two laws contradict each other, my first reaction is >not to think "Oh, the lawmakers decided to force me to be >a criminal!", but to think "Oh, maybe I misunderstood one >of the laws." In this case, the most obvious way of >interpreting the two laws so as not to lead to a >contradiction seems to me to be the one that I (and most >other contributors) have chosen. Herman De Wael (1998): >However, he forgets there is a third option : > >We have often seen that the bridge-laws, despite >considerable effort, are not perfect. > >It just might be (no, it is certain) that the Lawmakers >never visualised this occurrence, where in a particular >situation a player is faced with the dilemma that he must >break one Law or the other. > >So the Lawmakers never intended a player to become a >criminal as you put it. > >So we are still with this dilemma. Richard Hills (2007): A clearer example of a non-visualisation of circumstance is when declarer's RHO leads, declarer revokes, declarer's LHO revokes, and then both declarer and LHO discover their two revokes before either revoke is established. This is such an obscure circumstance that I know of only one case in which it has occurred at the table. The problem is that Law 62B1 says that LHO's card is a penalty card, but Law 62C1 says that LHO's card is not a penalty card. Herman De Wael (1998): >I believe we should decide upon which law to break, not >by reinterpreting one of the laws so that it ends up not >being broken, but by ranking the laws as to severity. Richard Hills (2007): Herman forgets the possibility of a fourth option; a drafting error by the creators of the 1997 Lawbook. A clearer example of a drafting error is in Law 71C. The preamble of Law 71C states: "within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C..." but the final sentence of Law 71C states: "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends..." In this Law 71C case, however, the WBF LC has issued an interpretation stating that the relevant correction period is the one stated in the Law 71C preamble. Herman De Wael (1998): >Many other posters have commented on this issue, but they >mostly give their personal preference without giving >detailed account as to why they think their vision should >necessarily be the correct one. Richard Hills (2007): I agree that my Law 81C5 interpretation of Law 75D2 - **But, as an over-riding exception to this sentence, a player shall truthfully answer a Law 75C question.** - is not necessarily _permanently_ the correct one. At any time the opposite interpretation could be adopted by the ABF National Authority, or by the WBF Laws Committee. But, until such time as my interpretation is over-ruled by a higher tribunal, players participating in walk-in pairs I direct must _necessarily_ abide by my Law 81C5 ruling. Herman De Wael (1998): >Let me conclude by saying that it would not be incorrect >for a player to choose to follow either Law, and break the >other one. Richard Hills (2007): Now _that_ part of Herman's philosophy I find necessarily absurd. Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll (1832-1898): >>Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said "one >>can't believe impossible things." >> >>"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the >>Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an- >>hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six >>impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl >>again!' Richard Hills (2007): It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break a Law. There goes the shawl again! :-) 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 Sun Jun 3 13:14:36 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:14:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4661c7c7.434c.0@iol.ie> References: <4661c7c7.434c.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: <4662A29C.1000605@skynet.be> Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Herman De Wael: >> Hi Herman, > Interesting question and one you have raised before...have the powers that > be (ton, grattan, max, antonio) ever said where they stand? > Regards, > Fearghal. Hello Fearghal, No, they have never given me even a private response. Why don't you ask them in 2 weeks' time? > >>>> 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. >>> Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936): >>> >>> Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid - >>> Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade. >>> "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, >>> "But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all." >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Herman is completely wrong. Master of them all is the Cold >>> Iron necessity of Law 72A1. >>> >>> "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict >>> accordance with the Laws." >>> >> Richard, >> >> posts like this are absolutely unhelpful. >> I'm citing Law. You're citing another law. >> And then you say that I'm wrong because the law is King. >> >> Please grant me a little more respect than that. You will never win >> arguments this way. >> >> So either quit with this Herman bashing, or start a serious discussion >> with me. At your terms. Either on blml or out of it, after which we >> present a joint statement of arguments and counter-arguments. >> You know what you should do? Read the summary of the posts that were >> sent to this list in 1998 >> (http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html) >> and write me a detailed summary of the laws as you read them. Maybe >> then we can have a serious discussion. Until then, I'm just gonna stop. >> >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.hdw.be >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > http://www.iol.ie > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 3 13:29:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:29:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4662A60A.1080303@skynet.be> Hello Richard, thanks for your interesting reply. Allow me to go through it. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 72A1 (General Principles - Observance of Laws - > General Obligation on Contestants): > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws." > > Herman De Wael (2007): > > [snip] > >> Read the summary of the posts that were sent to this >> list in 1998 >> (http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html) >> and write me a detailed summary of the laws as you read >> them. Maybe then we can have a serious discussion. Until >> then, I'm just gonna stop. > > Herman De Wael (1998): > >> I think we may safely say that at least on this issue, >> David Stevenson is in a minority position. Laws 75C and >> 75D2 do contradict one another, and a player in these >> circumstances shall be forced to break one of them. > > Richard Hills (2007): > > No, I would argue that in these circumstances a National > Authority should reinterpret either Law 75C or Law 75D2. > OK, maybe they should. But they haven't. And I would hate it if all 100 National Authorities would have to make such an interpretation, with the added possibility that neighbouring organisations would issue different interpretations. Maybe the WBFLC ought to give such an interpretation. Which is why I gave them the hint to do that interpretation my way. > It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in > strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break > a Law. > No, only a robot would freeze if the laws were handed to it too strictly ("Runaround" if that tells you anything - I think it does). > Either the National Authority should interpret Law 75C > as reading: > > "When explaining the significance of partner???s call or > play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a > player shall disclose all special information conveyed to > him through partnership agreement or partnership > experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn > from his general knowledge and experience. **But, as an > over-riding exception to this Law, a player shall lie > about their partnership agreements if required by the Law > 75D2 criterion to not "indicate in any manner that a > mistake has been made".** > That would be the interpretation I would prefer to see. > Or the National Authority should interpret Law 75D2 as > reading: > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation > may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may > he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a > defender may not correct the error until play ends. > **But, as an over-riding exception to this sentence, a > player shall truthfully answer a Law 75C question.** > After calling the Director at the earliest legal > opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be > declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a > defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in > his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous." > You have read five reasons why such an interpretation would be disastroud (IMO). > Herman De Wael (1998): > >> This leads us to a discussion on which of the Laws, 75C >> or 75D2, is the strongest. > > Jesper Dybdal (1998): > >> However, it is generally accepted that your duty to >> inform the opponents takes precedence over your duty to >> not give partner UI. The UI is partner's problem, and >> that is the price your partner must pay for having >> forgotten his system. If you do not answer according to >> your agreements, you are making it the opponents' >> problem, which is much worse. I agree that the law book >> does not say that L75D2 is less important than L75C. But >> it seems obvious to me that it should be, and I believe >> it is generally accepted that it is. > "generally accepted" is, you must agree, a very bad reason for argueing that something is true - "E per si muove". > Grant Sterling (1998): > >> When given a choice between explicitly violating a law >> and violating another law only under an obviously >> minority reading of an ambiguous clause, I would prefer >> to violate the latter [even if I thought my reading of it >> was the correct one. :)] > I prefer to follow the strength of my own convictions. > Jeremy Rickard (1998): > >> When two laws contradict each other, my first reaction is >> not to think "Oh, the lawmakers decided to force me to be >> a criminal!", but to think "Oh, maybe I misunderstood one >> of the laws." In this case, the most obvious way of >> interpreting the two laws so as not to lead to a >> contradiction seems to me to be the one that I (and most >> other contributors) have chosen. > Well, I did the same, but I chose a different law that needed reinterpretation. > Herman De Wael (1998): > >> However, he forgets there is a third option : >> >> We have often seen that the bridge-laws, despite >> considerable effort, are not perfect. >> >> It just might be (no, it is certain) that the Lawmakers >> never visualised this occurrence, where in a particular >> situation a player is faced with the dilemma that he must >> break one Law or the other. >> >> So the Lawmakers never intended a player to become a >> criminal as you put it. >> >> So we are still with this dilemma. > > Richard Hills (2007): > > A clearer example of a non-visualisation of circumstance > is when declarer's RHO leads, declarer revokes, declarer's > LHO revokes, and then both declarer and LHO discover their > two revokes before either revoke is established. > Indeed this is also an oversight, but it only leads to a problem for the director, not for the player. > This is such an obscure circumstance that I know of only > one case in which it has occurred at the table. The > problem is that Law 62B1 says that LHO's card is a penalty > card, but Law 62C1 says that LHO's card is not a penalty > card. > > Herman De Wael (1998): > >> I believe we should decide upon which law to break, not >> by reinterpreting one of the laws so that it ends up not >> being broken, but by ranking the laws as to severity. > > Richard Hills (2007): > > Herman forgets the possibility of a fourth option; a > drafting error by the creators of the 1997 Lawbook. A > clearer example of a drafting error is in Law 71C. The > preamble of Law 71C states: > > "within the correction period established in accordance > with Law 79C..." > > but the final sentence of Law 71C states: > > "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent > board, or until the round ends..." > > In this Law 71C case, however, the WBF LC has issued an > interpretation stating that the relevant correction > period is the one stated in the Law 71C preamble. > Well, yes, so what is the WBF waiting for to correct this particular oversight? > Herman De Wael (1998): > >> Many other posters have commented on this issue, but they >> mostly give their personal preference without giving >> detailed account as to why they think their vision should >> necessarily be the correct one. > > Richard Hills (2007): > > I agree that my Law 81C5 interpretation of Law 75D2 - > > **But, as an over-riding exception to this sentence, a > player shall truthfully answer a Law 75C question.** > > - is not necessarily _permanently_ the correct one. At > any time the opposite interpretation could be adopted by > the ABF National Authority, or by the WBF Laws Committee. > Thank you. At least you recognise that a different interpretation is possible. > But, until such time as my interpretation is over-ruled by > a higher tribunal, players participating in walk-in pairs I > direct must _necessarily_ abide by my Law 81C5 ruling. > And there you go wrong, IMO. The player will never ask a ruling on his choice of actions. He will only ask a ruling on the actions he chose. If the player chose the actions that I recommend, then you will give him a MI ruling, and you won't be needing to give an UI ruling. My ruling would be exactly the same. OTOH, if the player chooses to follow your advice rather than mine, I (as TD called to the table) would give the necessary UI ruling. You would give the exact same ruling at that table. Nowhere is there need to give a L81C5 ruling. The player has broken a law (either the one or the other) and it is not up to the TD to rule on his choice, only on his actions. > Herman De Wael (1998): > >> Let me conclude by saying that it would not be incorrect >> for a player to choose to follow either Law, and break the >> other one. > > Richard Hills (2007): > > Now _that_ part of Herman's philosophy I find necessarily > absurd. > > Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll (1832-1898): > >>> Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said "one >>> can't believe impossible things." >>> >>> "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the >>> Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an- >>> hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six >>> impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl >>> again!' > > Richard Hills (2007): > > It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in > strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break > a Law. There goes the shawl again! > > :-) > But that is simply not true. The player is forced to break one law or another, and no queen of hearts can tell him that he shall lose his head if he breaks the wrong one. > > Best wishes > Thanks for the reply, but you still have not seen the light. Maybe I should stop trying. You still have not told me, Richard, why my actions are less legal than yours. You have reiterated "things that everyone knows". Well, not everyone knows them, and even if everyone minus one knows them, that does not mean they are right. I happen to believe (with arguments) that they are wrong, but if you refuse to listen to the arguments and simply continue to state that they are right, then there is no hope for progress. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 07:42:15 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:42:15 +1200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <004d01c7a4e6$5e356760$37201d53@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706032242v3ad81e0cydd50d5113083b51@mail.gmail.com> On 03/06/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Mike Amos: > > [snip] > > >>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 :)) > > Konrad Ciborowski: > > [snip] > > >As much as I am all for systems freedom I > >absolutely require full disclosure - if you don't > >have it on your CC you cannot play it. Period. > > Cootamundra Congress Teams > Sunday 24th June 2007 > Round 1, Board 1 > > North-South are Hashmat Ali and Richard Hills. > East-West are Wayne Burrows and Konrad Ciborowski. > The Director is Mike Amos. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Wayne Richard Konrad Hashmat > --- 1H Pass 1S > > Richard alerts Hashmat's 1S response, explaining that > although it is a natural call, it is also a non-forcing > call. Wayne summons the Director, and complains that: > > "This method over a natural 1H has not been disclosed > on their card nor was any verbal pre-alert given of > this response. Will you allow Konrad and me time to > prepare a defence to this unusual and undisclosed > agreement?" > > The Director, Mike Amos replies: > > "The ABF alert regulations do seem to require advance > pre-alert notification of system so clearly it was the > regulation writers' intention to demand advance > disclosure of this 1S response to 1H. No one can deny > that this non-forcing response is 'unusual', and I would > expect Cootamundra country congress competitors to > understand their obligations." > > However..... > > The Chief Tournament Director over-rules the Director, > deeming that the 1S response to 1H is such a trivial > part of the Ali-Hills system that it would need a pre- > alert only in a Canberra Bridge Club supervised play > session. The CTD offers Wayne a free game therein. > > :-) Where is the line you are drawing Richard? Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 4 09:09:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:09:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706032242v3ad81e0cydd50d5113083b51@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >>if you don't have it on your CC you cannot play it. Period. Wayne Burrows: >Where is the line you are drawing Richard? Richard Hills: The point that I was making is Konrad's "Period." assertion had a bit of poetic license, and there is indeed a line to be drawn. An infinitesimal number of partnerships would ever be able to fit _all_ of their agreements and negative inferences onto their system cards / convention cards. In my opinion only significant agreements need to be written on the system card, and only very significant agreements need to be pre-alerted. Of course, the definitions of "significant" and "very significant" depend upon the local sponsoring organisation's regulations for the particular event in question. My initial response to Wayne's question may have been a bit harsh. The ABF system regulations state that if a natural one-level opening bid in a suit is overcalled conventionally, and that conventional overcall does not guarantee an anchor suit, then that conventional overcall is defined as Brown Sticker. If New Zealand uses a parallel definition of Brown Sticker then indeed such Brown Sticker overcalls not only must be written on the system card, but also must be pre-alerted. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 4 09:39:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:39:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4662A60A.1080303@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 72A1 (General Principles - Observance of Laws - General Obligation on Contestants): "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws." Richard Hills: >>It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in >>strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break >>a Law. Herman De Wael: >No, only a robot would freeze if the laws were handed to >it too strictly ("Runaround" if that tells you anything - >I think it does). Richard Hills: When I was a teenager in the early 1970s, I read all of Isaac Asimov's science fiction short stories and novels. "Runaround" was not Asimov's first story in his positronic robot series, but it was the first to mention the Three Laws of Robotics. 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. As Herman has correctly deduced, I believe that the logical consequence of Law 72A1 is that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge need to be interpreted in an Asimovian exceptional style. That is, if Law A says, "A player must do such-and-such", but is contradicted by Law B, which says, "A player must do so-and-so", then Law B should be reinterpreted as meaning, "A player must do so-and-so, except when such action would conflict with Law A". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 P.S. "Runaround" is collected in Isaac Asimov's book "I Robot", which is an enjoyable introduction for newbies to Asimoviana. (Do not be misled by the movie of the same name, which has nothing in common with the book except the title.) Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/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 Mon Jun 4 03:26:24 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 02:26:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBU White Book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000e01c7a687$5cfa6ce0$769a87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Jeff Easterson" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU White Book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Jeff Easterson: > >>What is OB? I don't find it on my abbreviation list. >>How do I get one? >> Ciao, JE > > Richard Hills: > > The EBU Orange Book is of limited value to non-EBU > directors, since it is merely a compilation of EBU > system regulations. > +=+ I think that is too simple a statement. The first 43 pages contain regulations on a variety of matters which are worthy of perusal for their ideas. Pages 44 through 67 are a compilation of system regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From sarahamos at onetel.net Mon Jun 4 11:20:56 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:20:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <004d01c7a4e6$5e356760$37201d53@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560706032242v3ad81e0cydd50d5113083b51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000f01c7a689$a834ee40$c16b2b54@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 03/06/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Mike Amos: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>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 :)) >> >> Konrad Ciborowski: >> >> [snip] >> >> >As much as I am all for systems freedom I >> >absolutely require full disclosure - if you don't >> >have it on your CC you cannot play it. Period. >> >> Cootamundra Congress Teams >> Sunday 24th June 2007 >> Round 1, Board 1 >> >> North-South are Hashmat Ali and Richard Hills. >> East-West are Wayne Burrows and Konrad Ciborowski. >> The Director is Mike Amos. >> >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: Nil >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Wayne Richard Konrad Hashmat >> --- 1H Pass 1S >> >> Richard alerts Hashmat's 1S response, explaining that >> although it is a natural call, it is also a non-forcing >> call. Wayne summons the Director, and complains that: >> >> "This method over a natural 1H has not been disclosed >> on their card nor was any verbal pre-alert given of >> this response. Will you allow Konrad and me time to >> prepare a defence to this unusual and undisclosed >> agreement?" >> >> The Director, Mike Amos replies: >> >> "The ABF alert regulations do seem to require advance >> pre-alert notification of system so clearly it was the >> regulation writers' intention to demand advance >> disclosure of this 1S response to 1H. No one can deny >> that this non-forcing response is 'unusual', and I would >> expect Cootamundra country congress competitors to >> understand their obligations." >> >> However..... >> >> The Chief Tournament Director over-rules the Director, >> deeming that the 1S response to 1H is such a trivial >> part of the Ali-Hills system that it would need a pre- >> alert only in a Canberra Bridge Club supervised play >> session. The CTD offers Wayne a free game therein. >> >> :-) > > Where is the line you are drawing Richard? > > Wayne > I think Richard has answered his own question already - It is the Brown Sticker regulations that are relevant here (Incidentally for trials in England, it is only Brown Sticker and Hums which are not allowed at what we call Level 4 that need advance notification. All conventions and methods that are generally licenced for other competitions are allowed without notice even if they are themselves Brown Sticker or even Hum Mike > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 11:52:29 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:52:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4663E0DD.10802@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 72A1 (General Principles - Observance of Laws - General > Obligation on Contestants): > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws." > > Richard Hills: > >>> It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in >>> strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break >>> a Law. > > Herman De Wael: > >> No, only a robot would freeze if the laws were handed to >> it too strictly ("Runaround" if that tells you anything - >> I think it does). > > Richard Hills: > > When I was a teenager in the early 1970s, I read all of > Isaac Asimov's science fiction short stories and novels. > "Runaround" was not Asimov's first story in his positronic > robot series, but it was the first to mention the Three > Laws of Robotics. > > 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through > inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. > > 2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings > except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. > > 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such > protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. > > As Herman has correctly deduced, I believe that the logical > consequence of Law 72A1 is that the Laws of Duplicate > Bridge need to be interpreted in an Asimovian exceptional > style. > > That is, if Law A says, "A player must do such-and-such", > but is contradicted by Law B, which says, "A player must do > so-and-so", then Law B should be reinterpreted as meaning, > "A player must do so-and-so, except when such action would > conflict with Law A". > Indeed it must, but as with robots, it is not up to the individual to do the interpreting. It is up to the lawmakers. The story "runaround" deals with a robot whose instructionlist is not yet sufficiently "interpreted", hence its running around in circles. The same is true of this problem. Since the WBF refuses to clear up the dilemma, Richard and Herman end up running circles around one another. However, unlike robots, Herman and Richard are equipped with meta-reasoning, allowing Richard and Herman to devellop strategies that allow them to reach a target. Now only two things remain to be done: the first is for Richard to realize that his interpretation is not the only possible one (Herman has already done so); the second is for Richard to realize that Herman's interpretation is the better one. What Richard needs to realize however, is that > That is, if Law A says, "A player must do such-and-such", > but is contradicted by Law B, which says, "A player must do > so-and-so", then Law B should be reinterpreted as meaning, > "A player must do so-and-so, except when such action would > conflict with Law A". > has two solutions: Law A can also be reinterpreted in the same manner as Richard suggests Law B to be reinterpreted. You cannot have "law A is contradicted by law B" without also having "law B is contradicted by law A". The phrase above can be read in both directions, Richard !! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 11:55:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:55:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4663E18C.9070503@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>> if you don't have it on your CC you cannot play it. Period. > > Wayne Burrows: > >> Where is the line you are drawing Richard? > > Richard Hills: > > The point that I was making is Konrad's "Period." assertion > had a bit of poetic license, and there is indeed a line to be > drawn. An infinitesimal number of partnerships would ever be > able to fit _all_ of their agreements and negative inferences > onto their system cards / convention cards. > As already stated, I agree with Richard (on this one). Law 40A means you can play anything. Law 40C describes what is done if you have failed to explain suffuciently. No-where is it said that a bid disappears if it has not been explained. > In my opinion only significant agreements need to be written > on the system card, and only very significant agreements > need to be pre-alerted. > > Of course, the definitions of "significant" and "very > significant" depend upon the local sponsoring organisation's > regulations for the particular event in question. > > My initial response to Wayne's question may have been a bit > harsh. The ABF system regulations state that if a natural > one-level opening bid in a suit is overcalled conventionally, > and that conventional overcall does not guarantee an anchor > suit, then that conventional overcall is defined as Brown > Sticker. If New Zealand uses a parallel definition of Brown > Sticker then indeed such Brown Sticker overcalls not only must > be written on the system card, but also must be pre-alerted. > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jun 4 12:59:39 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:59:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4661c7c7.434c.0@iol.ie> <4662A29C.1000605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c7a697$a19c5c40$ee9887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>> Herman De Wael: >>> Hi Herman, >> Interesting question and one you have raised > > before...have the powers that be (ton, grattan, > > max, antonio) ever said where they stand? >> Regards, >> Fearghal. > > Hello Fearghal, > > No, they have never given me even a private > response. Why don't you ask them in 2 weeks' > time? > +=+ I have refrained from comment because I see nothing to be gained by it. The best place to look for guidance is in the statements under Example 1 in the footnote to Law 75. I refer to the sentence that begins :"This explanation is an infraction of Law since ....". I do have a note of this correspondence in my little black book, under 'Correct Procedure'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jun 4 14:11:09 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 04 Jun 2007 14:11:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20070604121109.C484C21C893@poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski: > > >>if you don't have it on your CC you cannot play it. Period. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >Where is the line you are drawing Richard? > > Richard Hills: > > The point that I was making is Konrad's "Period." assertion > had a bit of poetic license, Of course it was, I thought that the context was clear, obviously no one can be advocating that if you don't put your 7NT opening on your CC then you cannot open 7NT. I thought we were talking all the time only about low level, first round artificial bids. Specific definition of what "low level" and "artificial" should mean is purely technical stuff, the Brown Sticker definition does a reasonably good job about it, I think. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wicie, rozumicie.... Zobacz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1a74 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 4 14:11:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4663E18C.9070503@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > As already stated, I agree with Richard (on this one). Law 40A means > you can play anything. Law 40C describes what is done if you have > failed to explain suffuciently. That is close enough to true regarding most natural agreements. > No-where is it said that a bid disappears if it has not been > explained. But there is also L40D. If the CoC states that only conventions disclosed in advance may be played then any convention not so disclosed is an illegal agreement. The bid doesn't necessarily "disappear" but if there are stipulated procedures relating to the use of illegal conventions those should be applied. The convention is still illegal even if it is trivial, alerted, and correctly explained. If preparing for an event where "anything goes" a careful player tries to consider everything opps might be playing and agrees a default framework of defences which will hopefully cater to all eventualities. OTOH if the event is "conventions must be registered in well advance" the careful player considers the conventions that have been registered in greater detail and doesn't waste time preparing defences to things they know they won't encounter. My personal view is that international trials *should* be of the "anything goes" variety but since that was not what the NZ authorities chose it is irrelevant. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 15:31:29 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:31:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46641431.3020605@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> As already stated, I agree with Richard (on this one). Law 40A means >> you can play anything. Law 40C describes what is done if you have >> failed to explain suffuciently. > > That is close enough to true regarding most natural agreements. > >> No-where is it said that a bid disappears if it has not been >> explained. > > But there is also L40D. If the CoC states that only conventions > disclosed in advance may be played then any convention not so disclosed > is an illegal agreement. The bid doesn't necessarily "disappear" but if > there are stipulated procedures relating to the use of illegal > conventions those should be applied. The convention is still illegal > even if it is trivial, alerted, and correctly explained. > OK, duly noted, and my opinion changed to allow for this. This is however an application of L40D and of the regulations that complement this, not an application of the oft cited L40B. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 4 15:35:10 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:35:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBU White Book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c7a687$5cfa6ce0$769a87d9@Hellen> References: <000e01c7a687$5cfa6ce0$769a87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <9C4D79AE-3B1E-4E08-8A02-34A2324500ED@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 3, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> Richard Hills: >> >> The EBU Orange Book is of limited value to non-EBU >> directors, since it is merely a compilation of EBU >> system regulations. >> > +=+ I think that is too simple a statement. The first 43 > pages contain regulations on a variety of matters which > are worthy of perusal for their ideas. Pages 44 through > 67 are a compilation of system regulations. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As a non-EBU director, I gotta agree with Grattan on this one. One has to remember when making rulings, of course, that one is not *in* the EBU. :-) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jun 4 15:36:46 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:36:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401c7a697$a19c5c40$ee9887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed it and might have an opinion. ton > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>> Herman De Wael: >>> Hi Herman, >> Interesting question and one you have raised > > before...have the powers that be (ton, grattan, max, antonio) ever > > said where they stand? >> Regards, >> Fearghal. > > Hello Fearghal, > > No, they have never given me even a private response. Why don't you > ask them in 2 weeks' > time? > +=+ I have refrained from comment because I see nothing to be gained by it. The best place to look for guidance is in the statements under Example 1 in the footnote to Law 75. I refer to the sentence that begins :"This explanation is an infraction of Law since ....". I do have a note of this correspondence in my little black book, under 'Correct Procedure'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 17:12:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:12:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be> Message-ID: <46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed it > and might have an opinion. > > ton > The question is the standard one from the discussion termed "DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years: A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now asked to explain partner's next one; he has two options: - either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner; - or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI. Which of the two should he do? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From geller at nifty.com Mon Jun 4 17:16:57 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:16:57 +0900 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be> References: <46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200706041516.AA09198@geller204.nifty.com> The answer seems very simple. He should give the correct answer according to the system, but this answer is UI to his partner. If his partner uses the info then there can/should be a score adjustment. What's the problem? -Bob Herman De Wael ????????: >ton wrote: >> >> Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed it >> and might have an opinion. >> >> ton >> > >The question is the standard one from the discussion termed >"DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years: > >A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now >asked to explain partner's next one; he has two options: >- either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that >partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner; >- or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not >revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI. > >Which of the two should he do? > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 17:22:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:22:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200706041516.AA09198@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be> <200706041516.AA09198@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46642E51.7080707@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > The answer seems very simple. He should give the correct answer > according to the system, but this answer is UI to his partner. If his partner > uses the info then there can/should be a score adjustment. What's > the problem? > The problem is that the answer seems equally simple to me, but my answer is exatly the opposite of yours. I believe the player should refrain from giving UI to partner, by explaining partner's bid in the way partner has intended it (which, incidentally, is a much more interesting reply for opponents than your solution, because your answer will not tell them anything worth while about his hand). > -Bob > > Herman De Wael $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >> ton wrote: >>> >>> Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed it >>> and might have an opinion. >>> >>> ton >>> >> The question is the standard one from the discussion termed >> "DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years: >> >> A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now >> asked to explain partner's next one; he has two options: >> - either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that >> partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner; >> - or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not >> revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI. >> >> Which of the two should he do? >> >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.hdw.be >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From geller at nifty.com Mon Jun 4 17:32:40 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:32:40 +0900 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46642E51.7080707@skynet.be> References: <46642E51.7080707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> Herman De Wael ????????: >Robert Geller wrote: >> The answer seems very simple. He should give the correct answer >> according to the system, but this answer is UI to his partner. If his partner >> uses the info then there can/should be a score adjustment. What's >> the problem? >> > >The problem is that the answer seems equally simple to me, but my >answer is exatly the opposite of yours. I believe the player should >refrain from giving UI to partner, by explaining partner's bid in the >way partner has intended it (which, incidentally, is a much more >interesting reply for opponents than your solution, because your >answer will not tell them anything worth while about his hand). -> The general principle governing this matter is that the opponents are entitled to know your agreements, not what's actually in your hands. Herman, it seems to me you are arguing about what the laws and regulations should be, rather than what they actually are now. You may or may not be right if you are arguing about what the laws should be (although I personally don't agree), but I think you are incorrect in arguing that the present laws can be interpreted in the sense you advocate. -Bob > >> -Bob >> >> Herman De Wael ????????: >>> ton wrote: >>>> >>>> Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed it >>>> and might have an opinion. >>>> >>>> ton >>>> >>> The question is the standard one from the discussion termed >>> "DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years: >>> >>> A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now >>> asked to explain partner's next one; he has two options: >>> - either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that >>> partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner; >>> - or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not >>> revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI. >>> >>> Which of the two should he do? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Herman DE WAEL >>> Antwerpen Belgium >>> http://www.hdw.be >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com >> >> > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 4 17:52:16 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:52:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46642E51.7080707@skynet.be> <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2A15F225-3BD5-4158-968F-EFB3A0122EC2@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 4, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > Herman, it seems to me you are arguing about what the laws and > regulations should be, rather than what they actually are now. > You may or may not be right if you are arguing about what the laws > should be (although I personally don't agree), but I think you are > incorrect in arguing that the present laws can be interpreted in > the sense you advocate. Syllogisms (or sillygisms, take your pick): Hercule Poirot is Belgian. Hercule Poirot is always right. Herman de Wael is Belgian. Therefore, Herman de Wael is always right. Alternatively, Herman de Wael is Hercule Poirot. Sorry, can't help it. :-) From geller at nifty.com Mon Jun 4 19:27:47 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:27:47 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-2022-jp?b?UhskQnFHGyhCLiAgOiBSZTogIERlV2FlbCBTY2hv?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?b2wgYW5kIFdCRkxDICAgIFtTRUM9VU5PRkZJQ0lBTF0=?= In-Reply-To: <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <200706041727.AA09201@geller204.nifty.com> Sorry if I think Herman's point is not well-taken. Law 20 apllies (you have to explain your agreements), and Law73C also applies (partner has to avoid using the UI from your correct explanation of the system). -Bob Alain Gottcheiner ????????: > > > > >-------Message original------- > > > >De : Robert Geller > >Date : 06/04/07 17:51:26 > >A : Herman De Wael > >Cc : blml > >Sujet : Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >Herman, it seems to me you are arguing about what the laws and > >regulations should be, rather than what they actually are now. > >You may or may not be right if you are arguing about what the laws > >should be (although I personally don't agree), but I think you are > >incorrect in arguing that the present laws can be interpreted in > >the sense you advocate. > > > >Robert, ISTM you're mistaken. > >Herman (together with YT) is arguing that, whenever partner gave wrong >explanation, you're caught in the middle between obligations to L20 (you >have to explain your system, not partner's holding) and L 73 (you should >strive to avoid transmitting information to your partner by any others means >than bids and cards ; this includes information that partner is wrong about >the system or that you made the wrong bid). > >And we both think it will often be be the lesser of two evils to choose >going along with L 73 rather than with L 20. > > > >Best regards > > > > Alain ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From mustikka at charter.net Mon Jun 4 20:17:58 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:17:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be> <46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > ton wrote: >> >> Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed it >> and might have an opinion. >> >> ton >> > > The question is the standard one from the discussion termed > "DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years: > > A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now > asked to explain partner's next one; he has two options: > - either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that > partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner; > - or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not > revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI. > > Which of the two should he do? > I am a simple soul: Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell the truth. If this creates UI, so be it. It is not against the Law to create UI although *using UI* is. Competent TD will rule appropriately if there is UI created and the UI is used, and there is damage. It is against the law to give MI. It happens sometimes, it may cause damage, it might become complicated. Whatever. A competent TD will rule appropriately on the case. Giving MI intentionally, ie. deliberately and knowingly explaining as an agreement something that never was an agreement, or covering up for partner who apparently has forgotten system/misbid, is definitely against the Law. In common terms this is called lying and the TD should deal with it severely, if it comes to light that the MI was given on purpose and the explainer knew the actual agreement all along. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jun 4 20:29:42 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:29:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200706041516.AA09198@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: I should have known, this is not interesting at all and Herman is wrong saying that the LC has not answered this question. We did not give his answer and that for sure is unforgivable. Of course the only obligation a player has is to explain the partnership agreements. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Geller Sent: maandag 4 juni 2007 17:17 To: Herman De Wael Cc: blml Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The answer seems very simple. He should give the correct answer according to the system, but this answer is UI to his partner. If his partner uses the info then there can/should be a score adjustment. What's the problem? -Bob Herman De Wael ????????: >ton wrote: >> >> Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have >> missed it and might have an opinion. >> >> ton >> > >The question is the standard one from the discussion termed >"DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years: > >A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now asked >to explain partner's next one; he has two options: >- either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that >partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner; >- or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not >revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI. > >Which of the two should he do? > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > >_______________________________________________ >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 pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 4 19:25:27 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 19:25:27 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__DeWael_School_and_WBFLC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Robert Geller Date : 06/04/07 17:51:26 A : Herman De Wael Cc : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Herman, it seems to me you are arguing about what the laws and regulations should be, rather than what they actually are now. You may or may not be right if you are arguing about what the laws should be (although I personally don't agree), but I think you are incorrect in arguing that the present laws can be interpreted in the sense you advocate. Robert, ISTM you're mistaken. Herman (together with YT) is arguing that, whenever partner gave wrong explanation, you're caught in the middle between obligations to L20 (you have to explain your system, not partner's holding) and L 73 (you should strive to avoid transmitting information to your partner by any others means than bids and cards ; this includes information that partner is wrong about the system or that you made the wrong bid). And we both think it will often be be the lesser of two evils to choose going along with L 73 rather than with L 20. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070604/c2d3163d/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/20070604/c2d3163d/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 16816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070604/c2d3163d/attachment-0001.gif From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 20:55:44 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:55:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46645a2b.6711cbcc.1581.5116SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <200706041516.AA09198@geller204.nifty.com> <46645a2b.6711cbcc.1581.5116SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0706041155u4f1f4117hea49a52681886746@mail.gmail.com> On 6/4/07, ton wrote: > I should have known, this is not interesting at all and Herman is wrong > saying that the LC has not answered this question. > We did not give his answer and that for sure is unforgivable. > > Of course the only obligation a player has is to explain the partnership > agreements. > > > ton > ton, are you willing to cite or state the answer explicitly? So far, I find Herman's arguments on this issue quite convincing, while the counterarguments I have been reading seem to me generally or always to miss Herman's points. So many dismissive comments and so little content. The only writers who are being specific and clear on this topic seems to be Herman and a few who agree with him on this issue. Herman's writing shows a tenfold better grasp of the counterarguments than the counter arguers' writing shows of his position. He addresses the counterarguments with great patience and clarity; the other side refuses to even attempt to answer several of his clear questions or address his best points. Anyway, if it has really been addressed by the LC, let's see what was written, okay? -Jerry Fusselman From bridgelaws at j-s-nichols.com Mon Jun 4 22:57:18 2007 From: bridgelaws at j-s-nichols.com (bridgelaws at j-s-nichols.com) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:57:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <6348894.336171180990638472.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> WOW ! I have been away from BLML for a couple of years. I decided to check it out again and there it is, the topic is STILL ALIVE. What is the record for the longest lived topic? WOW ! >Herman De Wael ????????: >>Robert Geller wrote: >>> The answer seems very simple. He should give the correct answer >>> according to the system, but this answer is UI to his partner. If his >partner >>> uses the info then there can/should be a score adjustment. What's >>> the problem? >>> >> >>The problem is that the answer seems equally simple to me, but my >>answer is exatly the opposite of yours. I believe the player should >>refrain from giving UI to partner, by explaining partner's bid in the >>way partner has intended it (which, incidentally, is a much more >>interesting reply for opponents than your solution, because your >>answer will not tell them anything worth while about his hand). > >-> >The general principle governing this matter is that the opponents are >entitled to know your agreements, not what's actually in your hands. > >Herman, it seems to me you are arguing about what the laws and >regulations should be, rather than what they actually are now. >You may or may not be right if you are arguing about what the laws >should be (although I personally don't agree), but I think you are >incorrect in arguing that the present laws can be interpreted in >the sense you advocate. > >-Bob > > >> >>> -Bob >>> >>> Herman De Wael ????????: >>>> ton wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Is it possible to repeat this interesting question? I must have missed >it >>>>> and might have an opinion. >>>>> >>>>> ton >>>>> >>>> The question is the standard one from the discussion termed >>>> "DeWaelSchool" on this list for the past 10 years: >>>> >>>> A player hears his partner misexplain his previous bid and is now >>>> asked to explain partner's next one; he has two options: >>>> - either he gives a correct systemic answer, thereby revealing that >>>> partner has misunderstood and creating UI for partner; >>>> - or he tells the opponents what his partner intended, thereby not >>>> revealing that partner misunderstood, but giving additional MI. >>>> >>>> Which of the two should he do? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Herman DE WAEL >>>> Antwerpen Belgium >>>> http://www.hdw.be >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blml mailing list >>>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>> Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 23:06:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:06:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46642E51.7080707@skynet.be> <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46647EB8.4080608@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > -> > The general principle governing this matter is that the opponents are > entitled to know your agreements, not what's actually in your hands. > I know all that. But that principle is used when people are telling too little - not too much. Surely an opponent cannot blame you for telling what's in the hand, not in the system. And to me, the general principle governing this matter is that a player is not allowed to inform his partner that there is a misunderstanding on the books. What the higher purpose is, is up to us to investigate. > Herman, it seems to me you are arguing about what the laws and > regulations should be, rather than what they actually are now. > You may or may not be right if you are arguing about what the laws > should be (although I personally don't agree), but I think you are > incorrect in arguing that the present laws can be interpreted in > the sense you advocate. > Oh no, this interpretation has been issued by me for 10 years already, and was present under even the 1987 laws. And if you take the time to investigate the matter closelyu, you'll be able to conclude that I've been right all along. And no, this is not a silly Belgian speaking. > -Bob > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 4 23:06:10 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:06:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__DeWael_School_and_WBFLC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <87783776-6E3C-4FBC-905F-B01EF8ABB76D@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman (together with YT) is arguing that, whenever partner gave > wrong explanation, you're caught in the middle between obligations > to L20 (you have to explain your system, not partner's holding) and > L 73 (you should strive to avoid transmitting information to your > partner by any others means than bids and cards ; this includes > information that partner is wrong about the system or that you made > the wrong bid). > And we both think it will often be be the lesser of two evils to > choose going along with L 73 rather than with L 20. Law 73A2: Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. Law 75C: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience. Law 40B: A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. Preface to (American edition) or Scope and Interpretation of (English edition) the laws: When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. In contrast, when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained...."), a violation will be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not". "Shall" is a stronger injunction than "should", and "may not" is at least as strong an injunction as "shall". Seems to me pretty clear that explaining your agreements takes precedence over avoiding giving UI. Law 20 isn't really relevant, as it speaks to the timing and mechanics of explaining, rather than the requirements. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 23:07:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:07:38 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=1B=24BqG=1B=28B=2E_=3A_Re=3A__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?DeWael_School_and_WBFLC____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <200706041727.AA09201@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> <200706041727.AA09201@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46647F1A.1070200@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Sorry if I think Herman's point is not well-taken. > Law 20 apllies (you have to explain your agreements), and > Law73C also applies (partner has to avoid using the UI from > your correct explanation of the system). > But so does L73B1, instructing you to avoid giving UI. Surely this must be also allowing you to avoid giving UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 23:09:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:09:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be> <46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be> <001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be> raija wrote: > > I am a simple soul: Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell the > truth. I am a simple soul as well. Obey the law, and follow laws 73B1 and 75D2. Don't tell your partner he's made a mistake. Quite simple really. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 23:31:51 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:31:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be> <46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be> <001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <466484C7.9020505@skynet.be> raija wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:09 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> raija wrote: >>> >>> I am a simple soul: Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell the >>> truth. >> >> I am a simple soul as well. Obey the law, and follow laws 73B1 and >> 75D2. Don't tell your partner he's made a mistake. Quite simple really. > > But that involves lying about the partnership agreement, in the case > under discussion. I would not be willing to tell a lie to the > opponents, when I am obligated to explain my side's agreements. Let the > chips fall where they may but telling a lie can never be the recommended > path in legal matters, bridge law or otherwise. > > You'd rather commit a murder than lie to your wife about spending an evening at a bar (and I don' even mean with another woman)? Some crimes are worse than lying! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 23:35:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:35:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__DeWael_School_and_WBFLC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <87783776-6E3C-4FBC-905F-B01EF8ABB76D@rochester.rr.com> References: <200706041532.AA09199@geller204.nifty.com> <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> <87783776-6E3C-4FBC-905F-B01EF8ABB76D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <46648594.2060009@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > Seems to me pretty clear that explaining your agreements takes > precedence over avoiding giving UI. > L75D2: Nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. Seems to me pretty clear that not giving UI takes precedence over not giving MI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 4 23:43:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:43:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466484C7.9020505@skynet.be> <001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> raija wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> raija wrote: >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "blml" >>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:09 PM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>> raija wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am a simple soul: Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell >>>>> the >>>>> truth. >>>> >>>> I am a simple soul as well. Obey the law, and follow laws 73B1 and >>>> 75D2. Don't tell your partner he's made a mistake. Quite simple really. >>> >>> But that involves lying about the partnership agreement, in the case >>> under discussion. I would not be willing to tell a lie to the >>> opponents, when I am obligated to explain my side's agreements. Let the >>> chips fall where they may but telling a lie can never be the recommended >>> path in legal matters, bridge law or otherwise. >>> >>> >> >> You'd rather commit a murder than lie to your wife about spending an >> evening at a bar (and I don' even mean with another woman)? >> Some crimes are worse than lying! >> >> > > The case under discussion involves no wife and no bars and no murder nor > another woman... > > It involves explanation of partnership agreements. You recommend lying > about your agreements, and I recommend telling the truth. The Law also > requires that one tell the truth about one's agreements. > > The law also tells me not to give UI to my partner. In fact, a particular law tells me to avoid giving UI, even when that means leaving MI in place (L75D2). Unless you see that there is a dilemma here, there can be no advance. You must get it out of your head that MI is the worst crime. It is not. UI is a worse crime. And if a situation arises where you have to chose between giving MI and UI, the choice is not that one you thought of originally. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mustikka at charter.net Mon Jun 4 23:54:02 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:54:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361><466484C7.9020505@skynet.be><001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c7a6f2$ddea1330$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > raija wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:31 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> raija wrote: >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >>>> >>>> To: "blml" >>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:09 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> >>>> >>>>> raija wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am a simple soul: Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell >>>>>> the >>>>>> truth. >>>>> >>>>> I am a simple soul as well. Obey the law, and follow laws 73B1 and >>>>> 75D2. Don't tell your partner he's made a mistake. Quite simple >>>>> really. >>>> >>>> But that involves lying about the partnership agreement, in the case >>>> under discussion. I would not be willing to tell a lie to the >>>> opponents, when I am obligated to explain my side's agreements. Let the >>>> chips fall where they may but telling a lie can never be the >>>> recommended >>>> path in legal matters, bridge law or otherwise. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> You'd rather commit a murder than lie to your wife about spending an >>> evening at a bar (and I don' even mean with another woman)? >>> Some crimes are worse than lying! >>> >>> >> >> The case under discussion involves no wife and no bars and no murder nor >> another woman... >> >> It involves explanation of partnership agreements. You recommend lying >> about your agreements, and I recommend telling the truth. The Law also >> requires that one tell the truth about one's agreements. >> >> > > The law also tells me not to give UI to my partner. > In fact, a particular law tells me to avoid giving UI, even when that > means leaving MI in place (L75D2). > > Unless you see that there is a dilemma here, there can be no advance. > You must get it out of your head that MI is the worst crime. It is > not. UI is a worse crime. And if a situation arises where you have to > chose between giving MI and UI, the choice is not that one you thought > of originally. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be Actually, I have no dilemma so in that sense, you are right, there can be no advance. When a situation arises where I have to decide to tell a lie or to tell the truth, I will tell the truth. And I need no Law to guide me on this. From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Jun 5 02:06:25 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:06:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466484C7.9020505@skynet.be> <001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4664A901.2070008@comcast.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > The law also tells me not to give UI to my partner. I don't believe it does. It says you may not give UI to partner. It does not say you must not give UI to your partner. However, you must disclose your system agreements. > In fact, a particular law tells me to avoid giving UI, even when that > means leaving MI in place (L75D2). Your obligation to correctly disclose your system is stated with the word "must" (L75A). All of the obligations to not transmit UI that you reference use the words "may not" (L75D2) or "shall not" (L73B1). Restated, perhaps too simplistically, you do not have permission to transmit UI, however, in some circumstances you are under obligation to do so. That obligation is stronger than the injunction against. -Todd From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jun 5 03:53:57 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:53:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "raija" [along with many others] > Giving MI intentionally, ... is definitely against the Law. Telling partner he has given a mistaken explanation is definitely against the Law (75D2) as well. This dilemma -- which Law to violate -- is the _weak_ case for dWS. (Normally, one would say the specific Law overrides the general. Why not here?) Those who so vociferously assert that Herman is wrong would gain some credibility if they could explain the _strong_ case for dWS. Herman may indeed be wrong, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone saying so understands his point. Ton and Grattan: if the WBFLC has issued an opinion on this subject, I haven't seen it. While I'm not convinced Herman is right in the weak case, neither am I convinced he's wrong. He almost certainly is right in the strong case, but there's no need for any interpretation on that one. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jun 5 04:04:15 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:04:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200706041426.l54EQN4u011095@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706041426.l54EQN4u011095@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4664C49F.9020802@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Wayne Richard Konrad Hashmat > --- 1H Pass 1S > > Richard alerts Hashmat's 1S response, explaining that > although it is a natural call, it is also a non-forcing > call. > "This method over a natural 1H has not been disclosed > on their card nor was any verbal pre-alert given of > this response. Was it required to be disclosed? (It would be required in the ACBL.) If so, there's an infraction of L40B. I've tried repeatedly to ferret out how L40B violations are to be treated but so far with little agreement. Wayne's original case differs in that the artificial overcall was a convention. While no SO can forbid the natural but non-forcing 1S response (assuming there's nothing otherwise that makes it a convention), the artificial overcall is a different matter. Ideally the system regulations that required advance disclosure would have specified what to do if disclosure was lacking. Absent that, the TD has to find some way to protect the non-offending side. At least two methods have been suggested in this forum. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 5 09:33:17 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:33:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-2022-jp?b?UhskQnFHGyhCLiA6IFJlOiAgRGVXYWVsICBTY2hv?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?b2wgYW5kIFdCRkxDICAgIFtTRUM9VU5PRkZJQ0lBTF0=?= In-Reply-To: <200706041727.AA09201@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> <46644B04.000001.14407@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070605093138.02142500@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:27 5/06/2007 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >Sorry if I think Herman's point is not well-taken. >Law 20 apllies (you have to explain your agreements), and >Law73C also applies (partner has to avoid using the UI from >your correct explanation of the system). The problem is, L73B1 applies also. From geller at nifty.com Tue Jun 5 09:44:07 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:44:07 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-2022-jp?b?UhskQnFHGyhCLiA6IFJlOiAgRGVXYWVsICBTY2hv?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?b2wgYW5kIFdCRkxDICAgIFtTRUM9VU5PRkZJQ0lBTF0=?= In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070605093138.02142500@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070605093138.02142500@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200706050744.AA09210@geller204.nifty.com> Give me a break!!! L73B1 reads as follows ********************************************** B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. ****************************************** This says you can't use an answer to a question to deliberately communicate info to partner. It doesn't in any way say you are relieved of the obligation to answer questions about your agreements like a pre-programmed robot, which is what the laws require. -Bob Alain Gottcheiner ????????: >At 02:27 5/06/2007 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >>Sorry if I think Herman's point is not well-taken. >>Law 20 apllies (you have to explain your agreements), and >>Law73C also applies (partner has to avoid using the UI from >>your correct explanation of the system). > >The problem is, L73B1 applies also. > ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 5 10:02:32 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:02:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0706041155u4f1f4117hea49a52681886746@mail.gmail.com> References: <200706041516.AA09198@geller204.nifty.com> <46645a2b.6711cbcc.1581.5116SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <2b1e598b0706041155u4f1f4117hea49a52681886746@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46651898.70909@NTLworld.com> [Ton] ... Herman is wrong saying that the LC has not answered this question. We did not give his answer and that for sure is unforgivable. Of course the only obligation a player has is to explain the partnership agreements. [Jerry Fusselman] .... if it has really been addressed by the LC, let's see what was written, okay? [nige1] Yes please. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 10:05:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:05:59 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_R=1B=24BqG=1B=28B=2E_=3A_Re=3A__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?DeWael__School_and_WBFLC____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <200706050744.AA09210@geller204.nifty.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070605093138.02142500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200706050744.AA09210@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46651967.3060908@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Give me a break!!! > > L73B1 reads as follows > ********************************************** > B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners > 1. Gratuitous Information > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous > remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and > explanations given or not given to them. > ****************************************** > > This says you can't use an answer to a question to deliberately communicate info > to partner. It doesn't in any way say you are relieved of the obligation to answer > questions about your agreements like a pre-programmed robot, which is what the > laws require. > > -Bob Give me a break too, and don't start to shout so early in the debate. I've been having these discussions for 10 years already and there's nothing you can find in the lawbook that I haven't already seen. You are making one huge mistake in your reasoning. UI limits your actions in the sense of bidding and play. There is nothing in the laws that forbids the use of UI in other areas. For example, you are under the obligation to correct MI before the opening lead (if your side is declaring). How can you do that unless you take in the UI? and then : > This says you can't use an answer to a question to deliberately communicate info > to partner. Well, if you reply by "the truth", you ARE communicating something (deliberately) to partner, namely that his previous answer was wrong. You have just cited the singlemost important article that supports my claim! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 10:12:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:12:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4664A901.2070008@comcast.net> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466484C7.9020505@skynet.be> <001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> <4664A901.2070008@comcast.net> Message-ID: <46651AD0.9040102@skynet.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> The law also tells me not to give UI to my partner. > > I don't believe it does. It says you may not give UI to > partner. It does not say you must not give UI to your > partner. However, you must disclose your system agreements. > >> In fact, a particular law tells me to avoid giving UI, even when that >> means leaving MI in place (L75D2). > > Your obligation to correctly disclose your system is stated > with the word "must" (L75A). All of the obligations to not > transmit UI that you reference use the words "may not" > (L75D2) or "shall not" (L73B1). > > Restated, perhaps too simplistically, you do not have > permission to transmit UI, however, in some circumstances > you are under obligation to do so. That obligation is > stronger than the injunction against. > Your analysis is perfect, Todd, until the last sentence. You claim that the obligation is stronger than the injunction. Would you care to prove that statement? You correctly take the words "shall not" in L73B1. A very strong injunction. You also read "may not" in L75D2, to which I would like to add "in any manner". A very strong injunction too. But you find the word "must" in L75A. When I read that law, I see a passive structure. "the system MUST be available". It does not say "the player MUST explain the system". As such, I do not believe there is as strong an obligation on the player to explain the system. After all, partner has not followed the system, so the actual system is about as relevant as "Sydney is the capital of Australia" (with excuse to Melbourners). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From geller at nifty.com Tue Jun 5 10:19:20 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:19:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-2022-jp?b?X19SGyRCcUcbKEIuXzpfUmU6X19EZVdhZWxfX1Nj?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?aG9vbF9hbmRfV0JGTENfX19fW1NFQz1VTk9GRklDSUFMXQ==?= In-Reply-To: <46651967.3060908@skynet.be> References: <46651967.3060908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200706050819.AA09212@geller204.nifty.com> Herman De Wael ????????: >Well, if you reply by "the truth", you ARE communicating something >(deliberately) to partner, namely that his previous answer was wrong. >You have just cited the singlemost important article that supports my >claim! -> The UI transmitted to partner as a side effect of answering the question by honestly and fully answering the oppt's question is only a problem if pard uses it, in which case score adjustment will occur. So I don't see any problem. ...... Toto, we're not in Kansas any more..... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 10:21:36 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:21:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c7a6f2$ddea1330$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361><466484C7.9020505@skynet.be><001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> <002301c7a6f2$ddea1330$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46651D10.1010200@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:43 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "blml" >>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:31 PM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>> raija wrote: >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" >>>>> >>>>> To: "blml" >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:09 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> raija wrote: >>>>>>> I am a simple soul: Obey the Law = explain the agreement and tell >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> truth. >>>>>> I am a simple soul as well. Obey the law, and follow laws 73B1 and >>>>>> 75D2. Don't tell your partner he's made a mistake. Quite simple >>>>>> really. >>>>> But that involves lying about the partnership agreement, in the case >>>>> under discussion. I would not be willing to tell a lie to the >>>>> opponents, when I am obligated to explain my side's agreements. Let the >>>>> chips fall where they may but telling a lie can never be the >>>>> recommended >>>>> path in legal matters, bridge law or otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You'd rather commit a murder than lie to your wife about spending an >>>> evening at a bar (and I don' even mean with another woman)? >>>> Some crimes are worse than lying! >>>> >>>> >>> The case under discussion involves no wife and no bars and no murder nor >>> another woman... >>> >>> It involves explanation of partnership agreements. You recommend lying >>> about your agreements, and I recommend telling the truth. The Law also >>> requires that one tell the truth about one's agreements. >>> >>> >> The law also tells me not to give UI to my partner. >> In fact, a particular law tells me to avoid giving UI, even when that >> means leaving MI in place (L75D2). >> >> Unless you see that there is a dilemma here, there can be no advance. >> You must get it out of your head that MI is the worst crime. It is >> not. UI is a worse crime. And if a situation arises where you have to >> chose between giving MI and UI, the choice is not that one you thought >> of originally. >> >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.hdw.be > > Actually, I have no dilemma so in that sense, you are right, there can be no > advance. > When a situation arises where I have to decide to tell a lie or to tell the > truth, I will tell the truth. And I need no Law to guide me on this. > The problem with that attitude is that you take no heed to laws which might be more important than speaking "the truth". Giving UI for instance. And another problem is that "the truth" is so very badly defined. What you tell them may be the truth in the sense that it is the systemic meaning, but what I tell them is the truth in the sense that it is the actual meaning of what my partner holds. In that sense, my response is much more helpful than yours. In fact, you say something untrue, and then cry high and mightily that it is "the truth". Take the following example: I bid 4NT, intending to ask for minors. Partner explains it as Blackwood and responds 5Di. They ask me how many aces he has. If I say "1", is that not "the truth"? OTOH if you are in the same position and you answer "diamond preference", is that the truth? Maybe in one sense it is, but in another sense, it is hardly relevant. What will happen is that they will still ask you how many aces he has. And they are entitled to that information. So you will also say "1 ace". What have you now said, all in all 1-"He has 1 ace" (true) 2-"we are having a misunderstanding" (true) 3-"he has shown diamond preference in my system" (true) All these things are true. But then again, I have also said only true things (1-). So while you have spoken the truth, so have I. You have said a bit more, but the things you have said are: -information they are not entitled to (2-) and which you are allowed to keep to yourself -unauthorized information (2-) to your partner, which L73B1 forbids you to utter -mention that he has misexplained (2-) which L75D2 forbids you to utter -totally irrelevant (3-) So don't talk about "truth", will you? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 10:26:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:26:06 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_=5F=5FR=1B=24BqG=1B=28B=2E=5F=3A?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5FRe=3A=5F=5FDeWael=5F=5FSchool=5Fand=5FWBFLC=5F?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5F=5F=5F=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <200706050819.AA09212@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46651967.3060908@skynet.be> <200706050819.AA09212@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46651E1E.5050403@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Herman De Wael $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >> Well, if you reply by "the truth", you ARE communicating something >> (deliberately) to partner, namely that his previous answer was wrong. >> You have just cited the singlemost important article that supports my >> claim! > > -> > The UI transmitted to partner as a side effect of answering the > question by honestly and fully answering the oppt's question > is only a problem if pard uses it, in which case score adjustment > will occur. So I don't see any problem. > > ...... Toto, we're not in Kansas any more..... > The problem is that there are two laws (L73B1 and L75D2) that expressly _forbid_ you to give this UI. The problem is not what partner shall do with it. The problem is that you are not allowed to give the UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jun 5 11:39:05 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:39:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] (blml) DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070605093138.02142500@pop.ulb.ac.be><200706050744.AA09210@geller204.nifty.com> <46651967.3060908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004101c7a755$73c00010$b1a487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:05 AM Subject: Re: DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] < > I've been having these discussions for 10 years already > +=+ Is it only ten years?+=+ > > Well, if you reply by "the truth", you ARE communicating > something (deliberately) to partner, namely that his previous > answer was wrong. You have just cited the single most > important article that supports my claim! > +=+ In my view the crux of the matter is that Herman argues contrary to the practice of Laws Committees and Appeals Committees which allow that it is lawful to convey UI in the course of compliance with law - and that the illegality in such circumstances lies in the subsequent use by the partner of that UI. I recognize that Herman believes his approach is superior, but I have failed to pick up his quotation of the actual Law that justifies not his argument but his practice (if it be so) of overriding their greater authority. The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws". There is no *design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that the laws require him to answer. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 12:18:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:18:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] (blml) DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004101c7a755$73c00010$b1a487d9@Hellen> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070605093138.02142500@pop.ulb.ac.be><200706050744.AA09210@geller204.nifty.com> <46651967.3060908@skynet.be> <004101c7a755$73c00010$b1a487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <46653869.7020403@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > " Man does not live by words alone, > despite the fact that he sometimes > has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:05 AM > Subject: Re: DeWael School and WBFLC > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > < >> I've been having these discussions for 10 years already >> > +=+ Is it only ten years?+=+ yes, see my webpages that retell the discussion first time around. It started in April 1998. http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html >> Well, if you reply by "the truth", you ARE communicating >> something (deliberately) to partner, namely that his previous >> answer was wrong. You have just cited the single most >> important article that supports my claim! >> > +=+ In my view the crux of the matter is that Herman argues > contrary to the practice of Laws Committees and Appeals > Committees which allow that it is lawful to convey UI in the > course of compliance with law - and that the illegality in such > circumstances lies in the subsequent use by the partner of that > UI. I recognize that Herman believes his approach is superior, > but I have failed to pick up his quotation of the actual Law > that justifies not his argument but his practice (if it be so) of > overriding their greater authority. > The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, > makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not > commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that > information that is a breach of the laws". There is no *design* > to convey UI when a player answers a question that the laws > require him to answer. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Correct Grattan, but what you are doing now is defending the legality of the Majority School, not explaining the illegality of the dWs. I have never said that a person who wishes to follow the advice of Richard et.al. is acting illegally, I am defending the actions of a player who follows my advice. And just as the one player is excused for giving UI, by his wish not to give MI, so a player should be excused for giving MI, by his wish not to give UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jun 5 13:53:50 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:53:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] (blml) DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070605093138.02142500@pop.ulb.ac.be><200706050744.AA09210@geller204.nifty.com> <46651967.3060908@skynet.be><004101c7a755$73c00010$b1a487d9@Hellen> <46653869.7020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c7a768$477bedd0$539887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] (blml) DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >> +=+ In my view the crux of the matter is that Herman argues >> contrary to the practice of Laws Committees and Appeals >> Committees which allow that it is lawful to convey UI in the >> course of compliance with law - and that the illegality in such >> circumstances lies in the subsequent use by the partner of that >> UI. I recognize that Herman believes his approach is superior, >> but I have failed to pick up his quotation of the actual Law >> that justifies not his argument but his practice (if it be so) of >> overriding their greater authority. >> The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, >> makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not >> commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that >> information that is a breach of the laws". There is no *design* >> to convey UI when a player answers a question that the laws >> require him to answer. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Correct Grattan, but what you are doing now is defending the > legality of the Majority School, not explaining the illegality of the > dWs. I have never said that a person who wishes to follow the > advice of Richard et.al. is acting illegally, I am defending the > actions of a player who follows my advice. And just as the one > player is excused for giving UI, by his wish not to give MI, so a > player should be excused for giving MI, by his wish not to give > UI. > +=+ You misunderstand me, Herman. I am not defending anything. I merely observe that it is a violation of an explicit law if a player "when explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's enquiry" fails to "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience". I have added by way of a rider the WBF statement that communication of UI in doing so is not a violation of law. This is not something I should permit myself to debate at length, being, as an officer, subservient to the WBF's interpretations of the Laws of the game. In the current period I do have an interest, however, in any question of what is desirable in the Laws and particularly in the opinions of colleagues collaborating in the formulation of fresh law. These I will no doubt soon learn. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 5 16:22:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:22:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <46651D10.1010200@skynet.be> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361><466484C7.9020505@skynet.be><001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> <002301c7a6f2$ddea1330$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46651D10.1010200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <68C4ADF5-6F54-4A89-AE4D-A906CC08B668@starpower.net> On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Take the following example: I bid 4NT, intending to ask for minors. > Partner explains it as Blackwood and responds 5Di. They ask me how > many aces he has. If I say "1", is that not "the truth"? > OTOH if you are in the same position and you answer "diamond > preference", is that the truth? Maybe in one sense it is, but in > another sense, it is hardly relevant. What will happen is that they > will still ask you how many aces he has. And they are entitled to that > information. So you will also say "1 ace". > What have you now said, all in all > 1-"He has 1 ace" (true) > 2-"we are having a misunderstanding" (true) > 3-"he has shown diamond preference in my system" (true) What about 4-"my hand is consistent with asking for minors, not with asking for aces" (true)? And 5-"my next call will be consistent with 5D having shown a diamond preference, not with 5D having shown one ace" (also true, if you act ethically). By replying "one ace", you are deliberately and illegally preventing them from drawing those conclusions. Your partner forgot the system, and while you are not required to reveal this explicitly, you are not permitted to go out of your way to mislead your opponents in an attempt to keep them from any possibility of uncovering (or even guessing) the situation for themselves. Herman's argument is that lying about the systemic meaning of a call, when you know it is not the meaning partner intended in any case, is a significantly less egregious offense than passing UI, and he may be right about that. But he overlooks that by following his prescription in cases like this, he is also effectively volunteering false and misleading information not just about his system, but about *his own hand*, which is about as egregious an offense as any in the book. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jun 5 17:00:24 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:00:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361><466484C7.9020505@skynet.be><001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be><002301c7a6f2$ddea1330$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46651D10.1010200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c7a782$41826480$f8065e47@DFYXB361> (snipped earlier exchanges) Raija writes: >> When a situation arises where I have to decide to tell a lie or to tell >> the >> truth, I will tell the truth. And I need no Law to guide me on this. >> > Herman writes: > The problem with that attitude is that you take no heed to laws which > might be more important than speaking "the truth". Giving UI for instance. > > And another problem is that "the truth" is so very badly defined. What > you tell them may be the truth in the sense that it is the systemic > meaning, but what I tell them is the truth in the sense that it is the > actual meaning of what my partner holds. In that sense, my response is > much more helpful than yours. In fact, you say something untrue, and > then cry high and mightily that it is "the truth". *** I will accept the consequences when my side has made an error; typically there is cost of some type. Crying high and mightily is not my style, please do attribute to me words or actions that I have not said/done, nor will. > > Take the following example: I bid 4NT, intending to ask for minors. > Partner explains it as Blackwood and responds 5Di. They ask me how > many aces he has. If I say "1", is that not "the truth"? > OTOH if you are in the same position and you answer "diamond > preference", is that the truth? Maybe in one sense it is, but in > another sense, it is hardly relevant. What will happen is that they > will still ask you how many aces he has. And they are entitled to that > information. So you will also say "1 ace". > What have you now said, all in all > 1-"He has 1 ace" (true) > 2-"we are having a misunderstanding" (true) > 3-"he has shown diamond preference in my system" (true) **** There is no need to exercise one's right to ask a question every time it is one's turn to bid. The opponents might be trying to stir the pot a little by their questions, forcing our side into UI when I give a true answer; or MI, when you give a false answer. So be it, they got their fun in seeing opponents in deeper trouble and they had the legal right for that entertainment... > > All these things are true. But then again, I have also said only true > things (1-). > So while you have spoken the truth, so have I. You have said a bit > more, but the things you have said are: > -information they are not entitled to (2-) and which you are allowed > to keep to yourself > -unauthorized information (2-) to your partner, which L73B1 forbids > you to utter > -mention that he has misexplained (2-) which L75D2 forbids you to utter > -totally irrelevant (3-) > > So don't talk about "truth", will you? ***If I am asked what the meaning of a call is and I know it, I will NOT give a false answer. The wheels are off due to our side's forget or misunderstanding. Trying to further complicate it with intentionally false information about our agreements, will not cure the problem. Telling the truth will not cure the problem either. However, being obligated to give false information about one's agreements because "the laws require you tell a lie" seems preposterous to me. I've said my piece and will follow this thread from the sidelines from now on. Raija From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 17:20:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:20:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c7a782$41826480$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361><466484C7.9020505@skynet.be><001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be><002301c7a6f2$ddea1330$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46651D10.1010200@skynet.be> <001101c7a782$41826480$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46657F59.6070303@skynet.be> raija wrote: > > **** There is no need to exercise one's right to ask a question every time > it is one's turn to bid. The opponents might be trying to stir the pot a > little by their questions, forcing our side into UI when I give a true > answer; or MI, when you give a false answer. So be it, they got their fun in > seeing opponents in deeper trouble and they had the legal right for that > entertainment... > It is my opinion that we should not encourage people to ask questions. When I bid 4NT, and my partner explains as Blackwood, and then bids 5Di, most of my opponents will either wait or look at the convention cards. I do not want to give the lazy opponents the added benefit that when they ask "how many aces", I should have to tell them "actually, we are having a misunderstanding". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 17:29:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:29:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <68C4ADF5-6F54-4A89-AE4D-A906CC08B668@starpower.net> References: <5u0rmi$4ni8sj@in.mx.skynet.be><46642BF9.4070707@skynet.be><001101c7a6d4$af2d7d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46647FA0.1020409@skynet.be><001101c7a6ef$7af946e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361><466484C7.9020505@skynet.be><001901c7a6f1$333cf2f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <4664879D.8010003@skynet.be> <002301c7a6f2$ddea1330$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46651D10.1010200@skynet.be> <68C4ADF5-6F54-4A89-AE4D-A906CC08B668@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4665814E.3080509@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Take the following example: I bid 4NT, intending to ask for minors. >> Partner explains it as Blackwood and responds 5Di. They ask me how >> many aces he has. If I say "1", is that not "the truth"? >> OTOH if you are in the same position and you answer "diamond >> preference", is that the truth? Maybe in one sense it is, but in >> another sense, it is hardly relevant. What will happen is that they >> will still ask you how many aces he has. And they are entitled to that >> information. So you will also say "1 ace". >> What have you now said, all in all >> 1-"He has 1 ace" (true) >> 2-"we are having a misunderstanding" (true) >> 3-"he has shown diamond preference in my system" (true) > > What about 4-"my hand is consistent with asking for minors, not with > asking for aces" (true)? > > And 5-"my next call will be consistent with 5D having shown a diamond > preference, not with 5D having shown one ace" (also true, if you act > ethically). > > By replying "one ace", you are deliberately and illegally preventing > them from drawing those conclusions. Your partner forgot the system, > and while you are not required to reveal this explicitly, you are not > permitted to go out of your way to mislead your opponents in an > attempt to keep them from any possibility of uncovering (or even > guessing) the situation for themselves. > > Herman's argument is that lying about the systemic meaning of a call, > when you know it is not the meaning partner intended in any case, is > a significantly less egregious offense than passing UI, and he may be > right about that. But he overlooks that by following his > prescription in cases like this, he is also effectively volunteering > false and misleading information not just about his system, but about > *his own hand*, which is about as egregious an offense as any in the > book. > I agree. But those pieces of MI are a consequence of the MI that partner has already provided. L75D2 forbids me to correct that MI. Do you think the lawmakers have written L75D2 only to prevent UI? They have also prevented MI from being corrected. What you are doing is not only give "correct" information about 5Di, but also about 4NT. You were not allowed to give that information if they had not asked. Now you are using opponent's question to get out from under your L75D2 obligations. I don't think that is right. But anyway. You are accusing me of chosing between UI and MI, and chosing that which is better for me. I do no such thing. I always give the MI. By claiming that there are cases where the MI might actually be worse for me, you are trying to get to a system where you might want to chose. I don't think you should be allowed to chose. Th WBF have chosen for us, by writing L75D2. I'd wish they'd have the good sense to extend the application of the same principle. Because face it: without L75D2 a player might be under a similar dilemma: if partner misexplains, might I not do better by correcting? After all, the same arguments apply as those bandied around here. And that situation is even more warped in favour of correcting: after all, the MI than partner has given is real MI, he has misdescribed my hand. By explaining his bid the way he intended it, I am merely giving technical MI, which can hardly do any harm. So if the WBF have once made the choice, why not make it a second time in the same direction? Do you really think a law that goes "you are not allowed to correct (in any manner) except when they ask a follow-up question" would work? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 5 18:35:49 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:35:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC >> From: "raija" > [along with many others] >> Giving MI intentionally, ... is definitely against the Law. > > Telling partner he has given a mistaken explanation is definitely > against the Law (75D2) as well. This dilemma -- which Law to violate -- > is the _weak_ case for dWS. (Normally, one would say the specific Law > overrides the general. Why not here?) > > Those who so vociferously assert that Herman is wrong would gain some > credibility if they could explain the _strong_ case for dWS. Herman may > indeed be wrong, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone saying > so understands his point. I stay out of this discussion as Herman knows my opinion. There is no doubt that there is significant merit in his position. I can't even blame it on sloppy laws translation as Herman's English is more than good enough to understand the nuance of Grattanese English more than well enough, so he doesn't rely on a Belgian translation. I am of the opinion that a rigorous parsing of the shall, shall not, must, must not, may, may not etc in the relevant laws leads to the interpretation to which most of us adhere; whereas Herman seems to think not. After 10 years of this amiable contretemps I have no intention of rejoining it, but any resolution of the deWael school will only be achieved through this rigorous grammatical route. I think it's demeaning to Herman and any poster who just tries to howl him down. It ain't as clear as that. Herman! I'm hereby claiming a deWael School merit point for supporting you while simultaneeously telling you you're a bluthering idiot! cheers ! rgds john > > Ton and Grattan: if the WBFLC has issued an opinion on this subject, I > haven't seen it. While I'm not convinced Herman is right in the weak > case, neither am I convinced he's wrong. He almost certainly is right > in the strong case, but there's no need for any interpretation on that > one. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 19:27:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:27:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john> References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu> <005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <46659CE8.8070000@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > > I think it's demeaning to Herman and any poster who just tries to howl him > down. It ain't as clear as that. > > Herman! I'm hereby claiming a deWael School merit point for supporting you > while simultaneeously telling you you're a bluthering idiot! > > cheers ! rgds john > Thanks John. Your support means a lot to me. PS: Am I wrong when I thought the word was blithering? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 5 19:51:12 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:51:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000701c7a798$ee204bb0$0701a8c0@john> References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu><005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john> <46659CE8.8070000@skynet.be> <000701c7a798$ee204bb0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4665A290.7030905@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:27 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC > > >> John Probst wrote: >>> I think it's demeaning to Herman and any poster who just tries to howl >>> him >>> down. It ain't as clear as that. >>> >>> Herman! I'm hereby claiming a deWael School merit point for supporting >>> you >>> while simultaneeously telling you you're a bluthering idiot! >>> >>> cheers ! rgds john >>> >> Thanks John. Your support means a lot to me. >> PS: Am I wrong when I thought the word was blithering? > > yep, I'm using dialect here; probably Scottish. As you know, I reject the > deWael school, but am certain that the only resolution is parsing the > minutiae of the wording of the relevant Laws and that is non-trivial. > Equally i know you support the deWael school from the pov of Devil's > Advocate as much as anything, and you certainly don't find the traditional > interpretation to be any more illegal than your own. John Yes and No. At current, a player following the advice of the Majority School (MS anyone?) would not be subject to any more rulings than the UI ruling that he subjects himself to. However, I would urge people to think twice before changing the laws, or the regulations, in such a manner that the MS would become the only legal alternative. I've given five reasons for that, and I won't repeat them here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 6 00:26:53 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:26:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:53 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Telling partner he has given a mistaken explanation is definitely > against the Law (75D2) as well. Um. Law 75D2 enjoins a player whose partner has misinformed opponents about their agreements to keep silent until an appropriate time, to then call the TD and, in his presence, tell the opponents what has happened. While it does prohibit the player from saying anything until that appropriate time, it does not say that telling partner (in the course of following the law and telling the opponents) is illegal. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 6 00:34:37 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:34:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu><005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john><46659CE8.8070000@skynet.be> <000701c7a798$ee204bb0$0701a8c0@john> <4665A290.7030905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c7a7c1$cb4f3140$289d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC >>> PS: Am I wrong when I thought the word was blithering? >> +=+ Actually it is originally either 'blethering' or 'blathering'. 'Blithering' is a corruption of these. So I guess it is no more than deviant corruption if you happen to type 'bluthering'. Forms I have not yet met are 'blothering' and 'blythering', nor, the possibly Cymraeg, 'blwddering'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 6 01:57:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:57:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000801c7a7c1$cb4f3140$289d87d9@Hellen> References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu> <005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john> <46659CE8.8070000@skynet.be> <000701c7a798$ee204bb0$0701a8c0@john> <4665A290.7030905@skynet.be> <000801c7a7c1$cb4f3140$289d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Forms I have not yet met are 'blothering' and 'blythering', > nor, the possibly Cymraeg, 'blwddering'. Oooh, I like that last one. :-) From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 6 02:09:21 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 01:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu><005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john><46659CE8.8070000@skynet.be><000701c7a798$ee204bb0$0701a8c0@john> <4665A290.7030905@skynet.be> <000801c7a7c1$cb4f3140$289d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000f01c7a7ce$ef085230$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > " Man does not live by words alone, > despite the fact that he sometimes > has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC > > >>>> PS: Am I wrong when I thought the word was blithering? >>> > +=+ Actually it is originally either 'blethering' or 'blathering'. > 'Blithering' is a corruption of these. So I guess it is no more > than deviant corruption if you happen to type 'bluthering'. > Forms I have not yet met are 'blothering' and 'blythering', > nor, the possibly Cymraeg, 'blwddering'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I tend to think of Scottish etymology; "a good blether" springs to mind. It's not a Southern (London) usage normally and I wrote it with the intention of using dialect; mis-spelling the "blethering" I'd had in mind. Well, it's a new collection of epithets to describe Herman, who deserves most of them :) cheers john. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 6 09:13:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:13:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC In-Reply-To: References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu> <4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46665EA2.3010407@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:53 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> Telling partner he has given a mistaken explanation is definitely >> against the Law (75D2) as well. > > Um. Law 75D2 enjoins a player whose partner has misinformed opponents > about their agreements to keep silent until an appropriate time, to > then call the TD and, in his presence, tell the opponents what has > happened. While it does prohibit the player from saying anything > until that appropriate time, it does not say that telling partner (in > the course of following the law and telling the opponents) is illegal. > Um, I would consider something that is prohibited also illegal. besides, I used "against the law", and that seems to be another way of saying the same thing. Face it, Ed. You cannot get around the dilemma. Both alternatives contain illegal actions, or forbidden ones, or prohibited ones, or actions against the law, however you want to call them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 6 11:30:30 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:30:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC References: <200706041916.l54JGYio005173@cfa.harvard.edu><4664C235.8060609@cfa.harvard.edu><005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@john> <46659CE8.8070000@skynet.be><000701c7a798$ee204bb0$0701a8c0@john> <4665A290.7030905@skynet.be><000801c7a7c1$cb4f3140$289d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <006a01c7a81d$88c26e30$749c87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC > > On Jun 5, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> Forms I have not yet met are 'blothering' and 'blythering', >> nor, the possibly Cymraeg, 'blwddering'. > > > Oooh, I like that last one. :-) > +=+ My 25% Welsh ancestry tells me I should have possibly written of 'blwddur-ing'. +=+ From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Jun 7 02:04:52 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:04:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N Message-ID: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: QT63 JT7 JT97 73 W/EW The bidding is the following: W E 1N 2D 3D 3N P 1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. 2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major 3D: good hand, no 4cM 3N: T/P which card do you lead? which card do you consider leading? cheers Laci From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 01:13:54 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 19:13:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706061613p43ce91bbl6c96f361316fc490@mail.gmail.com> I lead the Jack of Diamonds I consider the Jack of Hearts On 6/6/07, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: > > QT63 > JT7 > JT97 > 73 > > W/EW > > The bidding is the following: > > W E > 1N 2D > 3D 3N > P > > 1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. > 2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major > 3D: good hand, no 4cM > 3N: T/P > > which card do you lead? > which card do you consider leading? > > cheers > Laci > > _______________________________________________ > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 02:03:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:03:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4664C49F.9020802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (hypothetical scenario): [snip] >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Wayne Richard Konrad Hashmat >>--- 1H Pass 1S >> >>Richard alerts Hashmat's 1S response, explaining that >>although it is a natural call, it is also a non-forcing >>call. [snip] >>"This method over a natural 1H has not been disclosed >>on their card nor was any verbal pre-alert given of >>this response. [snip] Steve Willner: >Was it required to be disclosed? (It would be required >in the ACBL.) Richard Hills: Yes and no. Yes, ABF regulations require a natural but unusual call to be disclosed by a contemporaneous alert. No, the four-page ABF Standard System Card does not require a 1S response to 1H to be disclosed _in advance_. (The two-page ABF Simple System Card requires even less advance disclosure of responses.) See: http://www.abf.com.au/system/index.html While some opponents have complimented me on the full and free meticulous detail on the Ali-Hills four-page ABF Standard System Card, others have noted that reading our CC is a sure cure for insomnia. :-) Steve Willner: >If so, there's an infraction of L40B. I've tried >repeatedly to ferret out how L40B violations are to be >treated but so far with little agreement. Richard Hills: I would argue that if there is an infraction of Law 40B, then the non-offending side - if damaged - should receive a Law 12 score adjustment. And whether or not the non- offending side is damaged, the offending side should either receive a Law 90 procedural penalty or a Law 91 disciplinary penalty, depending upon the gravity of the Law 40B infraction. Steve Willner: >Wayne's original case differs in that the artificial >overcall was a convention. While no SO can forbid the >natural but non-forcing 1S response (assuming there's >nothing otherwise that makes it a convention), [snip] Richard Hills: This raises an interesting point. In the Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system (copies of system notes emailed on request) a 1NT response to 1H is an artificial game force relay. It is because of our conventional 1NT response to 1H that our 1S response to 1H is non-forcing. Is the consequential complement of a convention also a convention? 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 03:19:19 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:19:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401c7a697$a19c5c40$ee9887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I have refrained from comment because >I see nothing to be gained by it. The best place >to look for guidance is in the statements under >Example 1 in the footnote to Law 75. I refer >to the sentence that begins :"This explanation >is an infraction of Law since ....". > I do have a note of this correspondence in >my little black book, under 'Correct Procedure'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The complete sentence in the Law 75 footnote that Grattan is referring to is: "This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score)." Of course, Herman admits that players following his De Wael School advice are infracting Law 75C and the Law 75 footnote in order to avoid (what he believes is) an infraction of Law 75D2. But the big problem with the De Wael School advice to a player to lie about their agreements during the auction, in accordance with the first sentence of Law 75D2, is that Herman has committed a severe error of omission in his advice to players by ignoring the _second_ sentence. Law 75D2 (second sentence): >>After calling the Director at the earliest legal >>opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to >>be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is >>to be a defender), the player must inform the >>opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's >>explanation was erroneous. Richard Hills: Even if one assumes that the De Wael School is legal, so that it is permitted to violate Law 75C and the Law 75 footnote during the auction in order to comply with Law 75D2, such violation is merely temporary and must be corrected - before the opening lead if declarer or dummy, or at the end of play if a defender. But never has the De Wael School advised players to merely temporarily lie. Perhaps this is because of Herman's idiosyncratically illegal definitions of "partnership agreement" and "misinformation". Herman De Wael: >>>there's nothing you can find in the lawbook that >>>I haven't already seen. Richard Hills: And therein lies the problem; the De Wael School is a very literal interpretation of the Lawbook, but it ignores the official reinterpretation of the Lawbook in the WBF Code of Practice. Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The WBF has stated that "a player who, without >design, makes unauthorized information available to >his partner does not commit an infraction of law or >propriety; it is the use of that information that >is a breach of the laws". There is no *design* to >convey UI when a player answers a question that the >laws require him to answer. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 7 03:31:21 2007 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 02:31:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> <2da24b8e0706061613p43ce91bbl6c96f361316fc490@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001b01c7a8a3$8f098590$c8590d52@AnnesComputer> > which card do you lead? DJ > which card do you consider leading? S3 Wonder if there was a hesitation or questions asked about the 2D bid. If this is the case I will definitely lead S3. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: "Laszlo Hegedus" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] opening lead vs 3N >I lead the Jack of Diamonds > I consider the Jack of Hearts > > On 6/6/07, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: >> You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: >> >> QT63 >> JT7 >> JT97 >> 73 >> >> W/EW >> >> The bidding is the following: >> >> W E >> 1N 2D >> 3D 3N >> P >> >> 1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. >> 2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major >> 3D: good hand, no 4cM >> 3N: T/P >> >> which card do you lead? >> which card do you consider leading? >> >> cheers >> Laci >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 04:11:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:11:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200706041532.AA09199@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Bob Geller: [snip] >incorrect in arguing that the present laws can be interpreted >in the sense you advocate. Richard Hills: Naah. Every single Law in the Lawbook can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways; even the apparently simple Law 1. >From a very old thread -> Therefore, I prefer to use a dictionary definition of "rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would rule that the cards should be arranged from the least rancid to the most rancid. William Shakespeare (Hamlet): >>O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven; >>It hath the primal eldest curse upon 't >>A brother's murder. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 04:34:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:34:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46674BA4.1070201@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: >You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: > >QT63 >JT7 >JT97 >73 > >W/EW > >The bidding is the following: > >W E >1N 2D >3D 3N >P > >1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. >2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card >Major >3D: good hand, no 4cM >3N: T/P > >which card do you lead? >which card do you consider leading? Richard Hills: The textbook lead is the three of spades. In Staymanish auctions when the 1NT opener has denied a four card major, the plan is to lead the four card major that the responder does not have. (If dummy holds both majors, c'est la vie.) Anne Jones: >>Wonder if there was a hesitation or questions asked about the >>2D bid. If this is the case I will definitely lead S3. Richard Hills: Likewise. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 08:46:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:46:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005b01c7a78f$9320a2e0$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >From the "De Wael School and WBF LC thread" -> Ed Reppert: [snip] >>Preface to (American edition) or Scope and Interpretation of (English >>edition) the laws: When a player "should" do something ("a claim >>should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do >>it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but >>which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. In contrast, when these >>Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take >>any action until the Director has explained...."), a violation will >>be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before >>making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates >>that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very >>strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than >>"shall not", just short of "must not". >> >>"Shall" is a stronger injunction than "should", and "may not" is at >>least as strong an injunction as "shall". >> >>Seems to me pretty clear that explaining your agreements takes >>precedence over avoiding giving UI. [snip] John Probst: [snip] >I am of the opinion that a rigorous parsing of the shall, shall not, >must, must not, may, may not etc in the relevant laws leads to the >interpretation to which most of us adhere; whereas Herman seems to >think not. After 10 years of this amiable contretemps I have no >intention of rejoining it, but any resolution of the deWael school >will only be achieved through this rigorous grammatical route. I think >it's demeaning to Herman and any poster who just tries to howl him >down. It ain't as clear as that. > >Herman! I'm hereby claiming a deWael School merit point for >supporting you while simultaneously telling you you're a bluthering >idiot! Richard Hills: Herman! I am also claiming a De Wael School merit point for stating that Ed and John have proposed an irrelevant blwddur-ing argument. As the Preface / Scope explains, it is an infraction to violate any "may not" and/or "shall" and/or "should" Laws. Rather, the varying strengths of the injunctions merely reflect the varying likelihoods of whether procedural penalties are merited. So, just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant, therefore one cannot argue that the Majority School is a little bit illegal, compared to the De Wael School being much more illegal. :-) 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 Jun 7 09:08:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:08:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4667AF01.7050406@skynet.be> Richard, this amounts to slander. An dit shows that you are more interested in a personal attack on my good self, than in a serious discussion about the dWS. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ I have refrained from comment because >> I see nothing to be gained by it. The best place >> to look for guidance is in the statements under >> Example 1 in the footnote to Law 75. I refer >> to the sentence that begins :"This explanation >> is an infraction of Law since ....". >> I do have a note of this correspondence in >> my little black book, under 'Correct Procedure'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > The complete sentence in the Law 75 footnote that > Grattan is referring to is: > > "This explanation is an infraction of Law, since > East-West are entitled to an accurate description > of the North-South agreement (when this infraction > results in damage to East-West, the Director shall > award an adjusted score)." > > Of course, Herman admits that players following > his De Wael School advice are infracting Law 75C > and the Law 75 footnote in order to avoid (what he > believes is) an infraction of Law 75D2. > > But the big problem with the De Wael School advice > to a player to lie about their agreements during > the auction, in accordance with the first sentence > of Law 75D2, is that Herman has committed a severe > error of omission in his advice to players by > ignoring the _second_ sentence. > > Law 75D2 (second sentence): > >>> After calling the Director at the earliest legal >>> opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to >>> be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is >>> to be a defender), the player must inform the >>> opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's >>> explanation was erroneous. > > Richard Hills: > > Even if one assumes that the De Wael School is > legal, so that it is permitted to violate Law 75C > and the Law 75 footnote during the auction in order > to comply with Law 75D2, such violation is merely > temporary and must be corrected - before the > opening lead if declarer or dummy, or at the end of > play if a defender. > Of course it is. > But never has the De Wael School advised players to > merely temporarily lie. Perhaps this is because of > Herman's idiosyncratically illegal definitions of > "partnership agreement" and "misinformation". > If you believe this, you have not read everything I have written in the past 10 years. Of course I cannot be bothered to explain in every single post on this issue that the situation should be cleared up before the opening lead, but I dare you to find any single case in which I have stated that this "lie" as you put it is in any way legal and not subject to the ruling that the TD has to give on it. Please read my webpage again. You'll find several instances in which it is clearly stated that the misinformation must be corrected before the opening lead. If you cannot find any better arguments than this, then please admit defeat. > Herman De Wael: > >>>> there's nothing you can find in the lawbook that >>>> I haven't already seen. > > Richard Hills: > > And therein lies the problem; the De Wael School is > a very literal interpretation of the Lawbook, but it > ignores the official reinterpretation of the Lawbook > in the WBF Code of Practice. > Please point me to any sentence in that Code of Practice that is relevant to these cases. Do you mean the one below? I think I have already answered that one. > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >> The WBF has stated that "a player who, without >> design, makes unauthorized information available to >> his partner does not commit an infraction of law or >> propriety; it is the use of that information that >> is a breach of the laws". There is no *design* to >> convey UI when a player answers a question that the >> laws require him to answer. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 10:00:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:00:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU White Book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9C4D79AE-3B1E-4E08-8A02-34A2324500ED@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>The EBU Orange Book is of limited value to non-EBU >>>directors, since it is merely a compilation of EBU >>>system regulations. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I think that is too simple a statement. The >>first 43 pages contain regulations on a variety of >>matters which are worthy of perusal for their >>ideas. Pages 44 through 67 are a compilation of >>system regulations. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ed Reppert: >As a non-EBU director, I gotta agree with Grattan on >this one. One has to remember when making rulings, >of course, that one is not *in* the EBU. :-) Richard Hills: Okay, my "merely" was too simple. But I still do not resile from my opinion that the EBU White Book is more generally useful than the EBU Orange Book _for directors_. The ideas in the first 43 pages of the EBU Orange Book may be useful _for administrators_ designing regulations, but there is chaff amongst the wheat. For example, EBU Orange Book regulation 3B4: "Opponents can then ask a supplementary question..." and 3B9: "If the questioner asks a more specific question then a TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer to his question." :-( 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 Jun 7 10:33:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:33:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4667C2F3.4080801@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > Herman! I am also claiming a De Wael School merit point for stating > that Ed and John have proposed an irrelevant blwddur-ing argument. > > As the Preface / Scope explains, it is an infraction to violate any > "may not" and/or "shall" and/or "should" Laws. Rather, the varying > strengths of the injunctions merely reflect the varying likelihoods of > whether procedural penalties are merited. So, just as one cannot be a > little bit pregnant, therefore one cannot argue that the Majority > School is a little bit illegal, compared to the De Wael School being > much more illegal. > > :-) > OK Richard, but this is not directed at me. I'm not the one that is saying that the dWS is more illegal than the MS. I'm the one that is saying that both are illegal - and therefore both are acceptable. You are apparently agreeing with me that the actions of the MS are illegal, are you not? Then you have earned a merit point for crossing the second hurdle. You are also agreeing with me that it is virtually impossible to deduce from the laws which illegality is greater? Then you have earned another merit point fro crossing the third hurdle. And that is all that I ask! The actions of a player following the advice of the dWS are not legal, but there are no actions available to a player in these sets of circumstances that are completely legal. Therefore, the actions of such players are "acceptable". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 7 11:41:56 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:41:56 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_R=1B=24BqG=1B=28B=2E=3A_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A__DeWael__School_and_WBFLC____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFIC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?IAL=5D?= References: <200706050744.AA09210@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4667D2E2.000001.62273@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Robert Geller Date : 06/05/07 09:45:23 A : Alain Gottcheiner Cc : Herman De Wael; blml Sujet : Re: R$BqG(B.: Re: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Give me a break!!! L73B1 reads as follows ********************************************** B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. ****************************************** > This says you can't use an answer to a question to deliberately communicate info to partner. It doesn't in any way say you are relieved of the obligation to answer questions about your agreements AG : absolutely right ! And everybody now sees how and why L73 and L20 create a contradiction. In Law, if the situation is such that you have to infringe some law, you can t be chastised for having infringed one. One classical case : if the organization of a crossroad is such that you have to bypass the continuous line to see incoming traffic, you can't be declared at fault for doing so. But of course the best way to deal with this is to either : a) change at least one of the two laws. b) explicitly state which law predomines in case of a conflict. Note that this was the case pre-87 (L73 was par of properties, not laws) but not any more. (Note that the word "deliberately" isn't written in the law, so that your translation is biaised) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/9c29e3eb/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/20070607/9c29e3eb/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 16816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/9c29e3eb/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 7 11:48:49 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:48:49 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?AR=E9f=2E_=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <4667D480.000004.62273@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Laszlo Hegedus Date : 07/06/2007 01:10:00 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : [blml] opening lead vs 3N You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: QT63 JT7 JT97 73 W/EW The bidding is the following: W E 1N 2D 3D 3N P 1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. 2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major 3D: good hand, no 4cM 3N: T/P which card do you lead? AG : a small spade 6 or 3, according to my agreements. which card do you consider leading? AG : Diamond Jack. This is the lead I'd make at matchpoints, since I don't expect the cards to be placed in such a way that the contract will often go down and because spades might be dummy's suit after all. A heart suffers of the same disadvantage and doesn't have the same potential advantage as a spade, so it's inferior. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/82909666/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/20070607/82909666/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/20070607/82909666/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 7 11:52:07 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:52:07 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= References: <001b01c7a8a3$8f098590$c8590d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <4667D547.000007.62273@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Anne Jones Date : 07/06/2007 03:31:47 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] opening lead vs 3N > which card do you lead? DJ > which card do you consider leading? S3 > Wonder if there was a hesitation or questions asked about the 2D bid. If this is the case I will definitely lead S3. An hesitation over 2D may suggest anything. For example, the player might have strong clubs, know other players would have an opprtunity to double a Stayman 2C and deliberate about bidding 3C. Deciding that an hesitation specifically suggests diamonds is harsh. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/66c60737/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/20070607/66c60737/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/20070607/66c60737/attachment-0001.gif From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 7 12:08:39 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:08:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4667AF01.7050406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <013001c7a8eb$eaccf4f0$069387d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ I am sure that Herman does think this. It is a matter of opinion. In my view he has responded to the point, but not answered it. And, as both Ton and I have noted, there are no attractions in debate to no end. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > > Please point me to any sentence in that Code of > Practice that is relevant to these cases. Do you > mean the one below? I think I have already > answered that one. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Jun 7 14:59:35 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> Laszlo Hegedus wrote: >You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: > >QT63 >JT7 >JT97 >73 > >W/EW > >The bidding is the following: > >W E >1N 2D >3D 3N >P > >1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. >2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major >3D: good hand, no 4cM >3N: T/P > >which card do you lead? >which card do you consider leading? > >cheers >Laci > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Thanks all the anwsers. As I realised, one of the small Spades, the J of Hearts and J J of Diamonds are all possible opening leads. The whole diagramm: ..........QT63 ..........JT7 ..........JT97 ..........73 K9...................AJ82 K43..................95 AKQ4.................86 T852.................KQJ94 ..........754 ..........AQ862 ..........532 ..........A6 Screens were used, and East misinformed North, abbout West's 3D bid: maximal hand with 4card hearts and a 4card minor. Of course North could not find the killing heart lead. How do you judge as TD or AC? Laci From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 7 13:42:03 2007 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:42:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= References: <001b01c7a8a3$8f098590$c8590d52@AnnesComputer> <4667D547.000007.62273@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <007e01c7a8f8$df983b00$c8590d52@AnnesComputer> I am harsh Alan. ;-) Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: blml at rtflb.org ; Anne Jones Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:52 AM Subject: R?f. : Re: [blml] opening lead vs 3N -------Message original------- De : Anne Jones Date : 07/06/2007 03:31:47 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] opening lead vs 3N > which card do you lead? DJ > which card do you consider leading? S3 > Wonder if there was a hesitation or questions asked about the 2D bid. If this is the case I will definitely lead S3. An hesitation over 2D may suggest anything. For example, the player might have strong clubs, know other players would have an opprtunity to double a Stayman 2C and deliberate about bidding 3C. Deciding that an hesitation specifically suggests diamonds is harsh. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/63b392f2/attachment-0001.htm -------------- 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/20070607/63b392f2/attachment-0001.gif -------------- 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/20070607/63b392f2/attachment-0001.jpeg From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 7 14:44:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:44:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > >> You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: >> >> QT63 >> JT7 >> JT97 >> 73 >> >> W/EW >> >> The bidding is the following: >> >> W E >> 1N 2D >> 3D 3N >> P >> >> 1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. >> 2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major >> 3D: good hand, no 4cM >> 3N: T/P >> >> which card do you lead? >> which card do you consider leading? >> > Thanks all the anwsers. As I realised, one of the small Spades, the > J of > Hearts and J J of Diamonds are all possible opening leads. The whole > diagramm: > > ..........QT63 > ..........JT7 > ..........JT97 > ..........73 > K9...................AJ82 > K43..................95 > AKQ4.................86 > T852.................KQJ94 > ..........754 > ..........AQ862 > ..........532 > ..........A6 > > > Screens were used, and East misinformed North, abbout West's 3D bid: > maximal hand with 4card hearts and a 4card minor. Of course North > could > not find the killing heart lead. > > How do you judge as TD or AC? I find out what North actually led. I ask him to explain why he chose that lead. I ask him what he thinks his reasoning might have been had he gotten a correct explanation. Having absorbed and contemplated that information, I will assign weights for 3NT +5 (spade lead), +4 (diamond lead) and -1 (heart lead). (If the opening lead at the table was not a spade, the explanations might induce me to give zero weight to the possibility of a spade lead.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 7 16:32:42 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:32:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <03df01c7a910$b56a4540$6ffe010a@bridge.corp> Eric wrote: I find out what North actually led. I ask him to explain why he chose that lead. I ask him what he thinks his reasoning might have been had he gotten a correct explanation. Having absorbed and contemplated that information, I will assign weights for 3NT +5 (spade lead), +4 (diamond lead) and -1 (heart lead). (If the opening lead at the table was not a spade, the explanations might induce me to give zero weight to the possibility of a spade lead.) ----- I add that the percentage I would use for a heart lead are unlikely to be above 20%, since this is a highly unlikely lead. Hans From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 7 15:27:52 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:27:52 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= References: <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <466807D6.00000A.62273@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- ...........QT63 ...........JT7 ...........JT97 ...........73 K9...................AJ82 K43..................95 AKQ4.................86 T852.................KQJ94 ...........754 ...........AQ862 ...........532 ...........A6 Screens were used, and East misinformed North, abbout West's 3D bid: maximal hand with 4card hearts and a 4card minor. Of course North could not find the killing heart lead. How do you judge as TD or AC? AG : seems like S is more popular than H or D. Perhaps about 20-25% would have led HJ in real life. Biasing the percentage towards the NOS, as we usually do, I'd give 1/3 of the score after a H lead and 2/3 of the score after another lead, being careful to consider that the actual number of tricks should perhaps been changed, too (e.g. wrong discard influenced by the wrong explanation). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/99b6e5af/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/20070607/99b6e5af/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/20070607/99b6e5af/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 7 16:28:57 2007 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:28:57 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= References: Message-ID: <46681628.000001.56489@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- (If the opening lead at the table was not a spade, the explanations might induce me to give zero weight to the possibility of a spade lead.) AG : sorry, IBTD. With the explanations given, responder does hold a 4-card spade suit (didn't care about hearts), so the fact that a spade wasn't led doesn't prove anything, except that LHO did understand the explanation. But it doesn't change that much anyway. Say the right explanation was given. Either the player is an aggressive leader, one would lead a spade and the probability of a heart lead is quite low ; or one is a cautious leader, one would lead a diamond, and the probability of a heart lead is rather low still. IOW, the probability of a heart lead isn't that much dependent from the actual lead, so you might as well neglect this factor. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/f356d72e/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/20070607/f356d72e/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 16816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/f356d72e/attachment-0001.gif From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 7 17:13:55 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:13:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <466820B3.6000907@NTLworld.com> [Laszlo Hegedus] > Thanks all the anwsers. As I realised, one of the small Spades, the J of > Hearts and J J of Diamonds are all possible opening leads. The whole > diagramm: > > ..........QT63 > ..........JT7 > ..........JT97 > ..........73 > K9...................AJ82 > K43..................95 > AKQ4.................86 > T852.................KQJ94 > ..........754 > ..........AQ862 > ..........532 > ..........A6 > > > Screens were used, and East misinformed North, abbout West's 3D bid: > maximal hand with 4card hearts and a 4card minor. Of course North could > not find the killing heart lead. > > How do you judge as TD or AC? > > Laci [nige1] [A] Assuming that no other reliable information is available from the director or cross-examination of the players, I would rule 3N-2 on a heart lead. Not only is this obviously fair to all. More importantly, it may deter EW from gaining such advantages in future (whether carelessly or deliberately). [B] If the director *insists* that we invoke the *notorious 12C3*, I would consult a a representative group or North's equals in an attempt to weight the various leads, given correct information. I don't know if this BLML poll would qualify :) (i) Like Eric Landau, however, I would be tempted to give zero weight to a spade lead unless North actually led a spade (but I would first find out from the director whether this zero weighting was within the spirit of the law -- especially as I am so biased against 12C3 -- which manifestly unfair and unnecessary. (ii) East-West will be delighted with a 12C3 ruling :) Their careless behaviour is reinforced for the future. -- Much of the time no director will be called. -- Sometimes, however, they will be unlucky enough to meet a pair in contention, -- this pair may be attentive and know enough law to call a director; and -- these opponents may persuade the director to gives an adverse ruling. Even then, if EW are lucky enough to get a 12C3 ruling, they will still keep a percentage of their ill-gotten gains. Surely the purpose of Bridge laws isn't to *encourage* bad behaviour? Since this argument attracts no support whatsoever, I assume that there must be some flaw in it; but I have yet to be convinced of one. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 7 18:30:15 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:30:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Law Book Message-ID: <46683297.9090402@NTLworld.com> A newly discovered Coleridge poem (Possibly later incorporated into lesser works) Awaiting the Delayed New Edition of the Fabulous Law Book by Samuel Taylor Coleridge There passed a weary time. Each throat Was parched, and glazed each eye. A weary time! a weary time! How glazed each weary eye, When looking westward, I beheld A something in the sky. At first it seemed a little speck, And then it seemed a mist; It moved and moved, and took at last A certain shape, I wist. A speck, a mist, a shape, I wist! And still it neared and neared: As if it dodged a water-sprite, It plunged and tacked and veered. With throats unslaked, with black lips baked, We could nor laugh nor wail; Through utter drought all dumb we stood! I bit my arm, I sucked the blood, And cried, A sail! a sail! With throats unslaked, with black lips baked, Agape they heard me call: Gramercy! they for joy did grin, And all at once their breath drew in. As they were drinking all. See! see! (I cried) she tacks no more! Hither to work us weal; Without a breeze, without a tide, She steadies with upright keel! ************************* Great stuff. We can but hope the mariner is right in his assumptions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 8 00:18:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 08:18:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4667C2F3.4080801@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked hopefully: >You are apparently agreeing with me that the actions of the MS >are illegal, are you not? Richard Hills dashed expectations: No. I am merely stating that the Reppert/Probst "shall" argument against the De Wael School and for the Majority School is a little bit pregnant a.k.a logically invalid. I support the Majority School because of the Endicott/Kooijman logically valid argument. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 8 00:20:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 08:20:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46680137.3020909@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: >Thanks all the answers. As I realised, one of the small Spades, the J >of Hearts and J of Diamonds are all possible opening leads. The whole >diagram: > >..........QT63 >..........JT7 >..........JT97 >..........73 >K9...................AJ82 >K43..................95 >AKQ4.................86 >T852.................KQJ94 >..........754 >..........AQ862 >..........532 >..........A6 > >Screens were used, and East misinformed North, about West's 3D bid: >maximal hand with 4card hearts and a 4card minor. Of course North >could not find the killing heart lead. > >How do you judge as TD or AC? Richard Hills: Given that the East-West agreement was that East was guaranteeing a four card major, I disagree with Laci's assessment that the jack of hearts was a logical alternative lead. Therefore as TD and AC I do not adjust the score. If an ACBL TD judged that on correct information the jack of hearts was a logical alternative lead, then that ACBL TD would adjust the score to -100 pursuant to Law 12C2. If an EBU TD judged that on correct information the jack of hearts was a logical alternative lead, then that EBU TD would adjust a weighted score pursuant to Law 12C3 based on the estimated probability of the jack of hearts being selected if no misinformation had occurred (polling of peers would be useful here). 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 hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri Jun 8 02:50:50 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 02:50:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4668A7EA.7080801@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Laszlo Hegedus: > > > >>Thanks all the answers. As I realised, one of the small Spades, the J >>of Hearts and J of Diamonds are all possible opening leads. The whole >>diagram: >> >>..........QT63 >>..........JT7 >>..........JT97 >>..........73 >>K9...................AJ82 >>K43..................95 >>AKQ4.................86 >>T852.................KQJ94 >>..........754 >>..........AQ862 >>..........532 >>..........A6 >> >>Screens were used, and East misinformed North, about West's 3D bid: >>maximal hand with 4card hearts and a 4card minor. Of course North >>could not find the killing heart lead. >> >>How do you judge as TD or AC? >> >> > >Richard Hills: > >Given that the East-West agreement was that East was guaranteeing a >four card major, I disagree with Laci's assessment that the jack of >hearts was a logical alternative lead. Therefore as TD and AC I do >not adjust the score. > >If an ACBL TD judged that on correct information the jack of hearts >was a logical alternative lead, then that ACBL TD would adjust the >score to -100 pursuant to Law 12C2. If an EBU TD judged that on >correct information the jack of hearts was a logical alternative >lead, then that EBU TD would adjust a weighted score pursuant to >Law 12C3 based on the estimated probability of the jack of hearts >being selected if no misinformation had occurred (polling of peers >would be useful here). > > Thanks all the anwsers, you wrote. This one seems to me the precisest anwser. I was a member of the AC and planned to judge a weighted score, but we decided we could not estimate the probability of the heart lead, so we adjusted AV+/AV-. Anyway the statement above thet the J of hearts is a logical alternative is not my assessment. That's the collection of the anwsers on the blml, and the opinions of some hungarian top player. My opinion is that the J of Hearts is not an alternative but is THE ONLY POSSIBLE lead in IMP-based competitions. Of course I have a better chance to find a 4card heart on dummy than a 4card spade, but I have a much better chance to find a 5card Heart suit at partner than a 5 card Spade. And the 3NTs mostly goes down bye a five card suit. Anyway if we need passive play, the JH is better than a spade as well. I would lead the J of hearts 100 times of 100. But it's bridge, not directing :) cheers Laci From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 8 03:16:44 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:16:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: <200706071813.l57IDNPc009792@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706071813.l57IDNPc009792@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4668ADFC.5030807@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Hans van Staveren" > I find out what North actually led. I ask him to explain why he > chose that lead. I ask him what he thinks his reasoning might have > been had he gotten a correct explanation. Having absorbed and > contemplated that information, I will assign weights ... This looks right to me. Also consult several players of equivalent skill to the opening leader. > I add that the percentage I would use for a heart lead are unlikely to be > above 20%, since this is a highly unlikely lead. It was the lead I chose before reading any other comments. No doubt that shows how bad it is. What this really shows is the importance of wide consultation before giving a judgment ruling. (I think the opening lead problem is very tough, and a poll would find votes for all four suits.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 8 03:26:53 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:26:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <200706071824.l57IO8Cc011896@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706071824.l57IO8Cc011896@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4668B05D.3030309@cfa.harvard.edu> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>Wayne Richard Konrad Hashmat >>>--- 1H Pass 1S >>> >>>Richard alerts Hashmat's 1S response, explaining that >>>although it is a natural call, it is also a non-forcing >>>call. >>>"This method over a natural 1H has not been disclosed >>>on their card nor was any verbal pre-alert given of >>>this response. SW>Was it required to be disclosed? > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Yes and no. > > Yes, ABF regulations require a natural but unusual call > to be disclosed by a contemporaneous alert. > > No, the four-page ABF Standard System Card does not > require a 1S response to 1H to be disclosed _in advance_. I'm surprised that no mention on the CC is required, but if so, there has been no infraction and therefore no adjusted score or penalty is warranted. SW> I've tried SW>repeatedly to ferret out how L40B violations are to be SW>treated but so far with little agreement. > I would argue that if there is an infraction of Law 40B, > then the non-offending side - if damaged - should receive > a Law 12 score adjustment. Yes, of course. Everybody gives a score adjustment. The question is _what_ adjustment. There are at least two different possibilities. I'm surprised Richard hasn't noticed this from the past discussion. > In the Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system (copies of system > notes emailed on request) a 1NT response to 1H is an > artificial game force relay. It is because of our > conventional 1NT response to 1H that our 1S response to > 1H is non-forcing. > > Is the consequential complement of a convention also a > convention? I think whether a call is convention depends on the set of hands it shows and not on how hands not falling within the set are shown. Probably not everyone will agree -- we know there is no perfect definition of "convention" -- but (perhaps foolishly) I'd expect majority support. One thing we know for sure from Part 1 of the FLB is that an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. From adam at irvine.com Thu Jun 7 17:02:00 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:02:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:59:35 +0200." <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <200706071454.HAA03838@mailhub.irvine.com> Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > >You are sitting North in IMP pairs and you hold: > > > >QT63 > >JT7 > >JT97 > >73 > > > >W/EW > > > >The bidding is the following: > > > >W E > >1N 2D > >3D 3N > >P > > > >1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. > >2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major > >3D: good hand, no 4cM > >3N: T/P > > > >which card do you lead? > >which card do you consider leading? > > Thanks all the anwsers. As I realised, one of the small Spades, the J of > Hearts and J J of Diamonds are all possible opening leads. Now, if I had been the opening leader, a club would have been the only lead to defeat the contract... -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 8 06:52:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:52:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7a293$173aa500$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: [snip] >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! Richard Hills: I would argue that the border between Law 63A2 and Law 63A1 is one of the player's initial intention. For a defender's card accidentally exposed to their partner, Law 63A1 would apply. But for a defender's card deliberately exposed to their partner, as part of the process of the defender's initial intention to play that card, Law 63A2 would apply. 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 7 17:25:35 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:25:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?AR=E9f=2E_=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= In-Reply-To: <4667D480.000004.62273@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> <4667D480.000004.62273@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <4668236F.40105@NTLworld.com> [Laszlo Hegedus] > You are sitting North in IMP pairs W/EW and you hold: > S: QT63 H:JT7 D:JT97 C:73 > _W _E > 1N 2D > 3D 3N AP > 1N: 12-16, denies 4card major if 16. > 2D: Relay. Exactly invitational promises one or two 4 or 5 card Major > 3D: good hand, no 4cM > 3N: T/P > [A] which card do you lead? > [B] which card do you consider leading? > cheers Laci [nige1] IMO S3=10 HJ=9 ST=8 DJ=4 C7=2 Arguably, opponents are stretching, so you should play as safely as possible -- with a diamond lead, say. I feel, however, that you should prefer a major because opponents may have an eight card or better fit in a minor but their auction reveals that they don't have such a fit in a major. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070607/cc8e95c4/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 8 09:54:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:54:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46690B4E.6060200@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asked hopefully: > >> You are apparently agreeing with me that the actions of the MS >> are illegal, are you not? > > Richard Hills dashed expectations: > > No. I am merely stating that the Reppert/Probst "shall" argument > against the De Wael School and for the Majority School is a > little bit pregnant a.k.a logically invalid. > > I support the Majority School because of the Endicott/Kooijman > logically valid argument. > Would you care to enlighten me as to what that argument is? I have not really grasped Ton's and Grattan's point of view on this. And if it was in the form of a logically valid argument, then I really must have been sleeping, or some set of posts slithered past me. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 8 15:39:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:39:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: <466820B3.6000907@NTLworld.com> References: <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070608153612.027fc2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:13 7/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >Even then, if EW are lucky enough to get a 12C3 ruling, they will still >keep a percentage of their ill-gotten gains. Except, perhaps, that, as 3NT was bound to win most of the time with the right explanation being given, the ill-gotten part of the gain is quite small. >Surely the purpose of Bridge laws isn't to *encourage* bad behaviour? > >Since this argument attracts no support whatsoever, I assume that there >must be some flaw in it; but I have yet to be convinced of one. See above. However, it might seem a good idea to be allowed to use L12C2 in combination with weighting to give EW 3NT-2 and NS a weighted score. You see, there is no reason whatsoever to give NS more than their due share. We don't want to encourage lawyering either. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 8 19:47:28 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:47:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070608153612.027fc2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> <46674BA4.1070201@cs.elte.hu> <46680137.3020909@cs.elte.hu> <5.1.0.14.0.20070608153612.027fc2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46699630.4040103@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] See above. However, it might seem a good idea to be allowed to use L12C2 in combination with weighting to give EW 3NT-2 and NS a weighted score. [nige1] A better idea than giving the weighted score to both sides but, MO, not as good as a straight L12C2 ruling. [Alain Gottcheiner] You see, there is no reason whatsoever to give NS more than their due share. We don't want to encourage lawyering either [nige1] L12C3 is lawyering and I suppose few players would want to encourage *that*. I wish, however, that players would report *more* infractions. Especially when not in contention. Reporting an infraction is always fraught and some law-breakers regard it as a personal slight. Many (most?) infractions aren't noticed or aren't reported. Even when a player is in contention and so *is* tempted to report an infraction, he may feel that it is not worth the hassle if all it can expect is a derisory 12C3 adjustment. Alain argues the official position well but I fear that his attitude further re-enforces law-breaking and reduces the incentive to report infractions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 9 05:56:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:56:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4668B05D.3030309@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>I would argue that if there is an infraction of Law 40B, >>then the non-offending side - if damaged - should receive >>a Law 12 score adjustment. Steve Willner: >Yes, of course. Everybody gives a score adjustment. The >question is _what_ adjustment. There are at least two >different possibilities. I'm surprised Richard hasn't >noticed this from the past discussion. Richard Hills: A score adjustment correcting an infraction of failure to disclose (Law 40B) should be based on what would have happened if timely disclosure had occurred. A score adjustment correcting an infraction of using an illegal convention (Law 40D) should be based on what would have happened if a call based on a legal partnership agreement had been made instead. (But under EBU regulation such a score adjustment is Ave+ to the non-offending side - unless the table score is better than Ave+ - due to the EBU's belief that determining what would have happened if the offending side had played a different system is too difficult to assess.) Note that using a _conditionally_ illegal convention, one that is illegal unless notified to the opponents some weeks in advance, is an infraction of Law 40D, not of Law 40B. Therefore any score adjustment should be predicated on the assumption that the convention was not used, rather than predicated on the assumption that the convention was used but explained in advance. Such a Law 40D ruling was very famously used in the semi-final of the 1994 Rosenblum Cup. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 9 06:17:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:17:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4668A7EA.7080801@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >I would lead the J of hearts 100 times of 100. But it's bridge, >not directing :) > >cheers >Laci On the "bridge" issue, I would be interested if any blmler with a bridge dealing computer program could run a simulation. I still think that in the long run a spade lead will defeat 3NT more often than a heart lead would, given North's cards and the information about the auction that North is entitled to. Many years ago, Aussie international player Paul Marston wrote an article for The Bridge World about his pet theory that if: (a) you are on lead against 3NT, and (b) with no special information on what suit to lead, and (c) you hold a five card suit, and (d) you also hold a four card suit, then you should lead from your four card suit, not your five card suit, since you are more likely to find partner with length opposite your four card suit. Unfortunately for Paul Marston, the Editor of The Bridge World - Jeff Rubens - is not only a top class bridge player, but also a professor of mathematics. Jeff returned the article with the terse one-line rejection, "This idea has neither theoretical nor practical merit." :-) 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 9 13:07:59 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:07:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= In-Reply-To: <466A7616.000001.46643@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46699630.4040103@NTLworld.com> <466A7616.000001.46643@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <466A8A0F.9090508@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gotcheinner] AG : you have to remember that part of the so-called official position is that people don't cheat. They err. The Law (no, not bridge laws) says that punishment is to be used against deliberate offences, while redress (in Belgium, this is L1768 IIRC ; there is also /Lex Aquilia/) is used against damage from involuntary actions. This means that using overcompensation (as you intend) is saying to the OS : "you're cheats". I don't like your position at all. [nigel] Like Richard Hills you prop up the same pathetic straw man, again and again, however often I take him down and shred him. *I don't accuse players of deliberate cheating* *I don't accuse players of deliberate cheating* *I don't accuse players of deliberate cheating* Players often break the law but that is easily explained in terms of innocent *mechanical error, ignorance, rationalisation, carelessness, and so on*. I simply contend that the law shouldn't actively *encourage* such mechanical error, ignorance, rationalisation, carelessness, and so on. The practical effect of 12C3 is drastically to reduce the penalty to the law-breaker; and the compensation to the victim. Alain's "Over-compensation" is a peculiar concept in a the rules of a game. Does anyone complain when you hoover a player over a hotel-bill at Monopoly? Well not much :) In any case, even without 12C3, there is little incentive to report infractions. Few players make an effort to learn the rules, especially *local* rules, and WBF interpretations. In fact the rules are so sophisticated and diffuse, it is a task beyond most directors. Therefore some infractions go unrecognised. Past the initial stages of an event, most players are out of contention. Hence few infractions are reported. The *equity* in 12C3 is confined to the imagination of law-makers and directors. For the player is is hard to understand. In practice, it further reduces the incentive to report an infraction because of the likelihood of frustration and derisory compensation. L12C3 provides a more peaceful and intellectually challenging life for directors but leads directly to more law-breaking. Eventually, each poor victim will absorb the subliminal but clear message integral to all recent WBFLC interpretations... *if you can't beat the law-breakers then join them* For example, some jurisdictions are determined to further discourage the reporting of infractions, They deprive the victim of redress if the director judges that a *subsequent* action is wild and *gambling*. An injured player is reluctant to endure further insult replacing already inadequate redress. Another example is the "Three wise monkey" interpretation of the laws relevant to directors spotting infractions and kibitzers reporting infractions. Try extrapolating such rules to other games :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Jun 9 11:42:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 11:42:47 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__opening_lead_vs_3N?= References: <46699630.4040103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <466A7616.000001.46643@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Nigel : Alain argues the official position well but I fear that his attitude further re-enforces law-breaking and reduces the incentive to report infractions. AG : you have to remember that part of the so-called official position is that people don't cheat. They err. The Law (no, not bridge laws) says that punishment is to be used against deliberate offences, while redress (in Belgium, this is L1768 IIRC ; there is also Lex Aquilia) is used against damage from involuntary actions. This means that using overcompensation (as you intend) is saying to the OS : "you're cheats". I don't like your position at all. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070609/6f82b6a7/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/20070609/6f82b6a7/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/20070609/6f82b6a7/attachment-0001.gif From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 9 11:33:28 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:33:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C3, equity, consistency and the field. Message-ID: <466A73E8.9060105@NTLworld.com> Elsewhere, at length, I've argued that, although 12C3 involves less hassle for directors than 12C2, the former *encourages law-breaking* and *deters victims from reporting infractions*. Most BLMLers reject such arguments out of hand, with no attempt to explain their flaws. Another fault of 12C3 rulings is *structural* inconsistency. Under any law, a ruling usually requires subjective judgement but the ultimate decision tends to be *all or none*, so rulings by different people on the same facts are likely to agree. In contrast, in a L12C3 ruling, it is likely that two people will disagree on *subjective weightings*. A small difference in weighting may have a drastic effect on competition standings for the disputants. The director has the license to play God with impunity. Within broad limits nobody will quibble with his weightings. His decision is virtually unappeallable. Sometimes, a L12C3 ruling can effect other player's results. In an extreme case, a knowledgeable director may be able to determine the winner of an event, simply by tinkering with the plausible weights that he gives to different possible outcomes. Would such manipulation be against director guidelines? I hope so. Although it is hard to imagine what anybody could do about it. For incomprehensible reasons, It is against the principles of law-makers and law-enforcers to to protect the field -- although to a naive player that is among the *primary* purposes of the rules of a game -- so I expect this argument to get short shrift. Justice *seen* to be done anyone? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070609/e7c15653/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 9 21:10:32 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:10:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] More law tigers Message-ID: <466AFB28.70308@NTLworld.com> Cross-posted and edited from RGB... IMO, guidelines for directors in the law book should include... When a player is alleged to have used unauthorised information, then, ideally, the director should poll an adequate representative sample of the player's peers, asking them *two questions*... [A] What are the call (or play) *options* (and how do you mark them out of 10). [B] What calls (plays) does the unauthorised information *suggest* to you (marks out of 10 again). If the poll is logistically impracticable, then the the director should present the auction or play to a colleague, carefully omitting the suspect call or play, and ask the same two questions. Unless the director takes care to ask the *second* question, there is a danger that the alleged law-breaker will be ruled against whatever action he chose. A tiger may lurk behind *all* the doors. There seem to be drawbacks even to this approach that I hope will be discussed in this topic. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 9 22:56:38 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:56:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nigel Message-ID: <466B1406.80002@aol.com> As far as I know, a decision based on ?12C3 can be appealed to a committee. And you write, "...a knowledgeable director may be able to determine the winner of an event...by tinkering with the plausible weights that he gives to different possible outcomes....Although it is hard to imagine what anybody could do about it." I find it hard to imagine that any director would do this. Ciao, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 9 22:59:26 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nigel, more law tigers Message-ID: <466B14AE.9090603@aol.com> In my experience this is standard operating procedure for the TD in such cases (not necessarily on a basis of 1 to 10). JE From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 10 00:18:23 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:18:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nigel, more law tigers In-Reply-To: <466B14AE.9090603@aol.com> References: <466B14AE.9090603@aol.com> Message-ID: <466B272F.4080804@NTLworld.com> [nigel] ideally, the director should poll an adequate representative sample of the player's peers, asking them *two questions*... [A] What are the call (or play) *options* (and how do you mark them out of 10). [B] What calls (plays) does the unauthorised information *suggest* to you (marks out of 10 again). [Jeff Easterson] In my experience this is standard operating procedure for the TD in such cases (not necessarily on a basis of 1 to 10). [nige2] I'm surprised but glad to learn that is so, Jeff. Where in the law-book -- or its interpretations -- or in local regulations -- or in their interpretations -- is this standard operating procedure *including some variant of the second question* described? In real life, I have once or twice been polled by a director about logical alternatives but never been asked which would be suggested be the break in tempo. I also find it strange that neither in RGB or BLML has anybody mentioned the second question in a ruling or appeals report. Finally, when unauthorised information cases are posted in discussion groups ... -- we are often polled to discover what we judge to be logical alternatives :) but -- we are always told the action that was in fact chosen by the alleged law-breaker -- *before* we are asked what action we judge to be suggested by the unauthorised information :( -- a rather pointless exercise from the Tiger's point of view :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jun 10 01:56:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:56:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46690B4E.6060200@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>I support the Majority School because of the Endicott/Kooijman >>logically valid argument. Herman De Wael: >Would you care to enlighten me as to what that argument is? > >I have not really grasped Ton's and Grattan's point of view on >this. [snip] * * * >From the parallel "DeWael School and WBFLC" thread -> Herman De Wael: >>Please point me to any sentence in that Code of Practice that >>is relevant to these cases. Do you mean the one below? I think >>I have already answered that one. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am sure that Herman does think this. It is a matter of >opinion. In my view he has responded to the point, but not >answered it. And, as both Ton and I have noted, there are no >attractions in debate to no end. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * * * Richard Hills: I am (perhaps foolishly) more optimistic than Grattan, in that I believe a significant part of this debate can come to an end. "Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} I do not expect Herman to eat his words about the _desirability_ of the De Wael School interpretation vis-a-vis the Majority School interpretation, so I am not going to debate Herman's Famous Five reasons advocating dWs washes whiter than white. :-) Instead, I will restrict this post to attempting to prove that the Majority School is a logical consequence of the Code of Practice. 1. The Golden Rule - whoever has the gold, makes the rules. Under WBF By-Law 8.8 the WBF Laws Committee has been given "the gold" to interpret the Laws. 2. Herman admits that following De Wael School advice is contrary to the Laws. His justifying argument is that following Majority School advice is also contrary to the Laws, so a player might as well choose the lesser of two weevils. 3. As De Wael School acolyte Alain Gottcheiner has noted, a key Law suggesting that Majority School advice is contrary to the Laws is Law 73B1, Gratuitous Information. "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." 4. The Scope of the Laws states "headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws". Therefore the word "gratuitous" in the heading of Law 73B1 is not relevant to its interpretation. But..... 5. The WBF LC has used its Golden Rule power to reinterpret the text of Law 73B1 to be consistent with the "gratuitous" heading. Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, makes >>unauthorized information available to his partner does not >>commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of >>that information that is a breach of the laws". There is no >>*design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that >>the laws require him to answer. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael: >Correct Grattan, but what you are doing now is defending the >legality of the Majority School, not explaining the illegality >of the dWs. [snip] 6. Since this Code of Practice interpretation states that the Majority School is not contrary to the Laws, then Herman's justifying argument in clause 2 above has vaporised. 7. Quod erat demonstrandum. 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 hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sun Jun 10 03:19:48 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:19:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466B51B4.5020409@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>I would lead the J of hearts 100 times of 100. But it's bridge, >>not directing :) >> >>cheers >>Laci >> >> > >On the "bridge" issue, I would be interested if any blmler with a >bridge dealing computer program could run a simulation. I still >think that in the long run a spade lead will defeat 3NT more often >than a heart lead would, given North's cards and the information >about the auction that North is entitled to. > >Many years ago, Aussie international player Paul Marston wrote an >article for The Bridge World about his pet theory that if: > >(a) you are on lead against 3NT, and >(b) with no special information on what suit to lead, and >(c) you hold a five card suit, and >(d) you also hold a four card suit, > >then you should lead from your four card suit, not your five card >suit, since you are more likely to find partner with length >opposite your four card suit. > >Unfortunately for Paul Marston, the Editor of The Bridge World - >Jeff Rubens - is not only a top class bridge player, but also a >professor of mathematics. Jeff returned the article with the >terse one-line rejection, "This idea has neither theoretical nor >practical merit." > >:-) > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > > There are two different situation with lot of similar things. In both situation you have two openinglead against a 3N contract. I, You have a 5c suit and a 4c suit. II, You have a 4csuit and a 3c suit. In both case these two suits are the only possible normal opening leads and you have no specific information about these suits. In the situation I, you have a better chance to find a 5c support/4c support/ 3c support in your four card suit than in your 5 card suit, but you have a better chance two find a 9c fit/8c fit/7c fit in your five card suit than in your four card suit. To understand thess two rules you do not need the knowledge of a professoer of mathematics. Of course you can say these two rules in the situation II. A bigger support at partner or a bigger fit are both has advantages. But there is a big different between the two situations. The majority of the 3NTs goes down cos opponents can enlarge the small cards of their long suits. if these suits are 4 card suits, it usually does not help to get 5 tricks. In situation I, you have a 5card suit. In situation II you need a five card support. regards Laci From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 10 11:01:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:01:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466BBDFE.2020702@skynet.be> Well done Richard, but you have made one logical error. Allow me to interpose: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > I am (perhaps foolishly) more optimistic than Grattan, in that I > believe a significant part of this debate can come to an end. > > "Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he > sometimes has to eat them." {Adlai Stevenson} > > I do not expect Herman to eat his words about the _desirability_ > of the De Wael School interpretation vis-a-vis the Majority > School interpretation, so I am not going to debate Herman's > Famous Five reasons advocating dWs washes whiter than white. > > :-) > > Instead, I will restrict this post to attempting to prove that > the Majority School is a logical consequence of the Code of > Practice. > I'm starting here. > > 1. The Golden Rule - whoever has the gold, makes the rules. > Under WBF By-Law 8.8 the WBF Laws Committee has been given "the > gold" to interpret the Laws. > > 2. Herman admits that following De Wael School advice is > contrary to the Laws. His justifying argument is that following > Majority School advice is also contrary to the Laws, so a player > might as well choose the lesser of two weevils. > Let me rephrase: dWS is "against the laws" and MS is "against the laws". > 3. As De Wael School acolyte Alain Gottcheiner has noted, a key > Law suggesting that Majority School advice is contrary to the > Laws is Law 73B1, Gratuitous Information. > > "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which > calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, > through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through > alerts and explanations given or not given to them." > > 4. The Scope of the Laws states "headings are for convenience of > reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the > Laws". Therefore the word "gratuitous" in the heading of Law > 73B1 is not relevant to its interpretation. But..... > > 5. The WBF LC has used its Golden Rule power to reinterpret the > text of Law 73B1 to be consistent with the "gratuitous" heading. > > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>> The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, makes >>> unauthorized information available to his partner does not >>> commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of >>> that information that is a breach of the laws". There is no >>> *design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that >>> the laws require him to answer. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Herman De Wael: > >> Correct Grattan, but what you are doing now is defending the >> legality of the Majority School, not explaining the illegality >> of the dWs. > > [snip] > Let me rephrase : although the MS is "against the Laws", the WBFLC has ruled that the MS is "acceptable". At least that is what Grattan has stated the WBF position on the dWS problem to be. Note however that there is a "without design" in Grattan's phrase above. The player who follows the MS gives UI to his partner "with design". I do not think that this phrase is particularly correct in the course of the discussion we are having. But since Grattan and Richard use it to further their cause, I accept that they are stating that the MS is "acceptable". But not that it is therefore within the laws. It is still "against the laws". > 6. Since this Code of Practice interpretation states that the > Majority School is not contrary to the Laws, then Herman's > justifying argument in clause 2 above has vaporised. > As written above, I accept that the MS is "acceptable" not that it is "within the laws". > 7. Quod erat demonstrandum. > No such thing. The interpretation that Grattan has given us states that a player who is forced to break one law or another, can be excused for breaking one law when following another. If the statement above is considered to be applicable to the dWS problem (which literally it isn't since it contains the words "without design") then that phrase can be interpreted in three ways: 1) we state that the MS is acceptable, we have not stated anything about the dWS; 2) we state that the MS is acceptable, hence the dWS must be unacceptable; 3) we state that in cases of dilemma, breaking one law while following another is acceptable, hens both schools are acceptable. I am willing to concede that 3) is not the case, and that 1) is. I do not read, anywhere in or between the lines, that 2) was the intended interpretation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 10 11:09:26 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:09:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] L12C3, equity, consistency and the field. In-Reply-To: <466A73E8.9060105@NTLworld.com> References: <466A73E8.9060105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <466BBFC6.6070907@skynet.be> Hello Nigel, some interesting points here, but also a whopping great error. Nigel wrote: > Elsewhere, at length, I've argued that, although 12C3 involves less > hassle for directors than 12C2, the former *encourages law-breaking* and > *deters victims from reporting infractions*. > > Most BLMLers reject such arguments out of hand, with no attempt to > explain their flaws. > > Another fault of 12C3 rulings is *structural* inconsistency. Under any > law, a ruling usually requires subjective judgement but the ultimate > decision tends to be *all or none*, so rulings by different people on > the same facts are likely to agree. In contrast, in a L12C3 ruling, it > is likely that two people will disagree on *subjective weightings*. > I don't see that as a fault. If 2 persons disagree on the *all or none*, the discussion is far more heavy than if they disagree whether it is 50% or 60%. In 7 years of EBL appeals, we have never ever discussed percentages with any more than 3 sentences. > A small difference in weighting may have a drastic effect on competition > standings for the disputants. The director has the license to play God > with impunity. Within broad limits nobody will quibble with his > weightings. His decision is virtually unappeallable. > whopping error: 100% or 0% will have a far greater influence than 50% or 60%, won't it? > Sometimes, a L12C3 ruling can effect other player's results. In an > extreme case, a knowledgeable director may be able to determine the > winner of an event, simply by tinkering with the plausible weights that > he gives to different possible outcomes. Would such manipulation be > against director guidelines? I hope so. Although it is hard to imagine > what anybody could do about it. > Of course that would be against guidelines. And so could the ruling along L12C2 be subject to the same considerations by the TD. Since he is bound to rule 0% or 100%, in close cases he cannot be blamed by ruling either way. Far more chances for him to affect the standings in the way he wishes! > For incomprehensible reasons, It is against the principles of law-makers > and law-enforcers to to protect the field -- although to a naive player > that is among the *primary* purposes of the rules of a game -- so I > expect this argument to get short shrift. > > Justice *seen* to be done anyone? > Yes. "We don't know if you'll do A or B, more likely A, so we'll give you 70% of A and 30% of B" seems more justice than "We don't know if you'll do A or B, more likely A, so we'll give you A" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 10 12:06:03 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:06:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Nigel, more law tigers In-Reply-To: <466B14AE.9090603@aol.com> Message-ID: <000b01c7ab46$f42a1ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Consulting a variety of players is indeed standard procedure, at least here in Norway, and I should be very surprised if it is not standard procedure also elsewhere in the world. (We don't ask for scaling, but sure get a feeling from our polls) Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Sent: 9. juni 2007 22:59 > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Subject: [blml] Nigel, more law tigers > > In my experience this is standard operating procedure for the TD in such > cases (not necessarily on a basis of 1 to 10). JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 10 16:52:01 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:52:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] More law tigers In-Reply-To: <000b01c7ab46$f42a1ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c7ab46$f42a1ed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <466C1011.1090305@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] > Consulting a variety of players is indeed standard procedure, at least here > in Norway, and I should be very surprised if it is not standard procedure > also elsewhere in the world. (We don't ask for scaling, but sure get a > feeling from our polls) > [nige1] I know consulting is normal procedure :) My interest is whether there are *written guidelines* that recommend --- not only that the director consult about LA's -- but also that he consult about what *action the unauthorised information suggests* -- *all without revealing the actual action* chosen by the suspected law-breaker. IMO it is important that the second question be asked *before* revealing the action chosen. The point is that the director must do his best to ensure that the suspect is not ruled against, no matter which action he took. It's a subtle point and perhaps I've explained it badly, but so far nobody has addressed it, in this thread I've received interesting and informative private correspondence; but so far it seems that *the second question* is not part of any written guidelines. Furthermore, I have not read an appeal report where such a question is mentioned. If the WBFLC have not incorporated this second question into their written guidelines, I hope they will consider doing so. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 11 07:44:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:44:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466BBDFE.2020702@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, makes >>unauthorized information available to his partner does not >>commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of >>that information that is a breach of the laws". There is no >>*design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that >>the laws require him to answer. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael: >Let me rephrase : although the MS is "against the Laws", the >WBFLC has ruled that the MS is "acceptable". At least that is >what Grattan has stated the WBF position on the dWS problem >to be. >..... >As written above, I accept that the MS is "acceptable" not >that it is "within the laws". Richard Hills: An inaccurate rephrase. The Majority School abides by the Laws in accordance with the reinterpretation of the Lawbook by the WBF Code of Practice. What part of the original phrase quoted by Grattan, "does not commit an infraction of law or propriety", does Herman fail to understand? * * * The One-Sideness Fallacy, by Peter Suber, Philosphy Department, Earlham College http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/inflogic/onesided.htm This is one of the most common and most misleading fallacies. It really ought to have a name. Some writers call it special pleading, but most writers use that term for a slightly different fallacy. Some call it confirmation bias, which is an accurate but little-used term. I like "one-sidedness fallacy" because we are accustomed to calling arguments "one-sided" if they suffer from the limitations we'll describe here. The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons against an opposing view without considering reasons for it. It's easy to say something for virtually any thesis, or to say something against it. So to hear something for or against a thesis doesn't take us very far. To be in a good position to decide the truth of a thesis, we'd like to hear (1) the best that can be said (2) on each side. We'll worry about "the best" elsewhere. This hand-out is about reaching two-sidedness. Note that there may be far more than two sides to a complex issue. So the true alternative to one-sidedness is many- sidedness. But I will refer to the alternative as "two- sidedness" for convenience. The one-sidedness fallacy does not make an argument invalid. It may not even make the argument unsound. The fallacy consists in persuading readers, and perhaps ourselves, that we have said enough to tilt the scale of evidence and therefore enough to justify a judgment. If we have been one-sided, though, then we haven't yet said enough to justify a judgment. The arguments on the other side may be stronger than our own. We won't know until we examine them. So the one-sidedness fallacy doesn't mean that your premises are false or irrelevant, only that they are incomplete. You may have appealed only to relevant considerations, but you haven't yet appealed to all relevant considerations. Some logicians say that an argument is cogent if it is valid and sound and takes all relevant considerations into account. On this usage, one-sidedness does not undermine validity or soundness, but cogency. To become two-sided, you must first make the arguments against your own thesis explicit. Write them out as carefully as you write out the positive arguments for your thesis. But if that were all, your final case would be indecisive or inconsistent. You must take the counter-arguments into account. Demonstrate their weaknesses, admit their strengths, and revise your own argument accordingly. In practice this takes many forms. It might mean answering the counter-arguments and showing their inadequacy. It might mean retracting part of your thesis or one of your arguments for it. It might mean qualifying an unqualified or oversimplified thesis. It might mean acknowledging an exception. It might mean making a concession. It will almost always mean making a simple argument complex. The remedy for one-sidedness is either experience or imagination, or both, and a willingness to use them. Either you've encountered arguments on the other side in your life or your reading, or you must imagine them. You know that you can imagine things that you don't believe - ghosts, gremlins, Godzilla. Do that here. Just as an exercise, imagine that you deny the thesis that you believe. What arguments can be mustered for that denial? Don't let the playfulness of this exercise mislead you about its importance. It opens your mind. Your imagination will give you some of the arguments against your thesis, but perhaps not the best ones. These tend to come from people who are living the circumstances you can't imagine. So expect to strengthen the two-sidedness of your arguments with a lifetime of sensitive listening and observation. Our courts avoid one-sidedness by giving trained professionals on each side of a case a serious interest in making the strongest arguments they can for their side. Each lawyer might make a one-sided argument but the judge and jury get a two- sided body of evidence and reasoning. Even here, however, the lawyer is not only more likely to understand the facts, but to win, if she makes a two-sided argument. An argument for one side that disregarded the strong arguments on the other side leaves the jury to wonder whether you can answer them. This leads to an important point. You might think that one- sidedness is actually desirable when your goal is winning rather than discovering a complex and nuanced truth. If this is true, then it's true of every fallacy. If winning is persuading a decision-maker, then any kind of manipulation or deception that actually works is desirable. But in fact, while winning may sometimes be served by one-sidedness, it is usually better served by two-sidedness. If your argument (say) in court is one-sided, then you are likely to be surprised by a strong counter-argument for which you are unprepared. The lesson is to cultivate two-sidedness in your thinking about any issue. Beware of any job that requires you to truncate your own understanding. * * * 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 11 08:40:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:40:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] More law tigers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466C1011.1090305@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in a judgemental matter, having -> consulted appropriately, <- {RJH emphasis} that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. The desire is that the Director shall not rule automatically in favour of the non-offending side when he is in no doubt that a true judgement requires him to rule otherwise." Nigel Guthrie: >I know consulting is normal procedure :) > >My interest is whether there are *written guidelines* that recommend >- not only that the director consult about LA's - but also that he >consult about what *action the unauthorised information suggests* - >*all without revealing the actual action* chosen by the suspected >law-breaker. > >IMO it is important that the second question be asked *before* >revealing the action chosen. [snip] >It's a subtle point and perhaps I've explained it badly, but so far >nobody has addressed it, in this thread [snip] >If the WBFLC have not incorporated this second question into their >written guidelines, I hope they will consider doing so. Richard Hills: Nigel raises an interesting point on what "consulted appropriately" means. There have been several cases on record in which the Appeals Committee agreed on what logical alternatives were available, but disagreed on what the unauthorised information from one partner demonstrably suggested to the other partner. For one such example, see the episodic "Be prepared!" thread of May 2007 and July 2004. And Nigel's point about "*before* revealing the action chosen" is particularly intelligent. It is all too easy for players, directors and appeals committees to be inadvertently biased by context. For one such example, see the episodic "Groundhog Day" thread of February 2007 and May 2004. 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 Mon Jun 11 09:23:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:23:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>> The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, makes >>> unauthorized information available to his partner does not >>> commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of >>> that information that is a breach of the laws". There is no >>> *design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that >>> the laws require him to answer. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Herman De Wael: > >> Let me rephrase : although the MS is "against the Laws", the >> WBFLC has ruled that the MS is "acceptable". At least that is >> what Grattan has stated the WBF position on the dWS problem >> to be. >> ..... >> As written above, I accept that the MS is "acceptable" not >> that it is "within the laws". > > Richard Hills: > > An inaccurate rephrase. > > The Majority School abides by the Laws in accordance with the > reinterpretation of the Lawbook by the WBF Code of Practice. > > What part of the original phrase quoted by Grattan, "does not > commit an infraction of law or propriety", does Herman fail to > understand? There is nothing I do not understand in that. Allow me to add emphasis: "A player who, _without design_, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." I do not believe that a player who follows the MS in a dws case gives UI _without design_. Rather, he deliberately breaks L75D2 with as only excuse a wish to give systemic correct information, information which is, BTW, totally useless, and wrong! I do not need a CoP reinterpretation to read L73B1. Pleaase find other arguments, this one won't work. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 09:27:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:27:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466CF958.5010309@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > * * * > > The One-Sideness Fallacy, by Peter Suber, > Philosphy Department, Earlham College > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/inflogic/onesided.htm > [snip] I really wish you would follow that advice. There is no-one here who has read and writting more arguments for and against both sides of this story. You have tried very hard, in the past few posts, to "prove" that the MS is not against the law. You have failed. I have studied both parts, and I have concluded that either both schools are against the law, or that none is. Or that both are "acceptable". Don't wave a "one-sided" argument against me. Rather, stick that label on all of you, here on blml, who try and fail to argue your case, but lack the moral bravery to conclude that there must be something to this dWS after all! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 10 00:21:04 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:21:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] More law tigers In-Reply-To: <466AFB28.70308@NTLworld.com> References: <466AFB28.70308@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <466B27D0.9060903@NTLworld.com> [nigel reposting to the correct thread, sorry] ideally, the director should poll an adequate representative sample of the player's peers, asking them *two questions*... [A] What are the call (or play) *options* (and how do you mark them out of 10). [B] What calls (plays) does the unauthorised information *suggest* to you (marks out of 10 again). [Jeff Easterson] In my experience this is standard operating procedure for the TD in such cases (not necessarily on a basis of 1 to 10). [nige2] I'm surprised but glad to learn that is so, Jeff. Where in the law-book -- or its interpretations -- or in local regulations -- or in their interpretations -- is this standard operating procedure *including some variant of the second question* described? In real life, I have once or twice been polled by a director about logical alternatives but never been asked which would be suggested be the break in tempo. I also find it strange that neither in RGB or BLML has anybody mentioned the second question in a ruling or appeals report. Finally, when unauthorised information cases are posted in discussion groups ... -- we are often polled to discover what we judge to be logical alternatives :) but -- we are always told the action that was in fact chosen by the alleged law-breaker -- *before* we are asked what action we judge to be suggested by the unauthorised information :( -- a rather pointless exercise from the Tiger's point of view :( -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070609/1c92ae6a/attachment-0001.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 10 17:14:56 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:14:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C3, equity, consistency and the field. In-Reply-To: <466BBFC6.6070907@skynet.be> References: <466A73E8.9060105@NTLworld.com> <466BBFC6.6070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <466C1570.1010305@NTLworld.com> >> [Nigel] >> Another fault of 12C3 rulings is *structural* inconsistency. Under any >> law, a ruling usually requires subjective judgement but the ultimate >> decision tends to be *all or none*, so rulings by different people on >> the same facts are likely to agree. In contrast, in a L12C3 ruling, it >> is likely that two people will disagree on *subjective weightings*. >> >> > [Herman] > I don't see that as a fault. If 2 persons disagree on the *all or > none*, the discussion is far more heavy than if they disagree whether > it is 50% or 60%. In 7 years of EBL appeals, we have never ever > discussed percentages with any more than 3 sentences. > [nige2] I agree completely with the first point, Herman; and I contend that eventually, they are quite likely to come to the same decision. Whatever close decision at which they arrive, it is likely to be appeallable. The problem is with the weightings in the second case. Few would quibble about a few percent either way in somebody else's weightings. A glance at a magazine biding competition will reveal that it is often a matter of personal whim. The fact remains that a few percent can change the result of a competition. > [nige1] > >> A small difference in weighting may have a drastic effect on competition >> standings for the disputants. The director has the license to play God >> with impunity. Within broad limits nobody will quibble with his >> weightings. His decision is virtually unappeallable. >> >> > [Herman] > whopping error: 100% or 0% will have a far greater influence than 50% > or 60%, won't it? > > [nige2] Herman is right about the percentage differences but the percentage decision can have just as big a *practical* effect (it can win or lose a competition for you). And it is virtually impossible to appeal successfully. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070610/e110a425/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 10:45:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:45:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] More law tigers In-Reply-To: <466B27D0.9060903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001101c7ac04$d8771d00$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Nigel .............. > [B] What calls (plays) does the unauthorised information *suggest* to you (marks out of 10 again). ............... > I also find it strange that neither in RGB or BLML has anybody mentioned the second question in a ruling or appeals report. Would it surprise you to hear that when we "poll" various players we do indeed ask also how other calls not actually made in the present situation should be understood? As a consequence we have no reason for explicitly asking your "second question", we (hopefully) obtain all the needed information from the answers to our primary questions. Having clarified how various relevant calls are to be understood we are usually able ourselves to judge what an unauthorized information could suggest. Regards Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 11 10:59:27 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:59:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > There is nothing I do not understand in that. > Allow me to add emphasis: > > "A player who, _without design_, makes unauthorized information > available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or > propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the > laws." > > I do not believe that a player who follows the MS in a dws case gives > UI _without design_. Herman, how can an act that is called for by a law be deliberate? If I stop at a red traffic light and a firetruck comes up from behind with horns blaring, then I do not commit an infraction of the (German) traffic rules if I cross the stop line under red light to get out of the way (provided there is no other option and I do so without endangering someone), the specific laws tell me so. Have I crossed _with design_? Surely not. I "broke a law" in order to follow another one. So if the lawgivers tell me that I do not commit an infraction if I give UI _under specific circumstances_ , and I now fulfill my obligation by describing my agreements, how have I given UI (if indeed I did so) _with design_ ? > Rather, he deliberately Come on! Following a law is not "deliberate", even if it is a law you would prefer to break. > breaks L75D2 with as only > excuse a wish An obligation, Herman, an obligation. Wishes do not come into it. I do not have to like it, neither have you, but there it is. > to give systemic correct information, information which > is, BTW, totally useless, I have always found use for knowledge about opp`s system, even if one of them doesn`t follow it at the moment, because it tells me why the guy made his bid in the first place. I will find out later that his partner gave him no answer, but the fact that he showed something or asked for something is of interest to me. This I will not find out until later if he now pretends to have done something else, and later may well be too late. > and wrong! > No, it is correct. It does not correspond to the actual hand, true, but that does not make the information about the system wrong. > I do not need a CoP reinterpretation to read L73B1. > > Pleaase find other arguments, this one won't work. > > The trouble with arguments is that the guy you try to argue with must be willing to accept some of your arguments, else it does indeed not work. Grattan has quoted WBFLC, and there can be no doubt that that said body considers UI given by a correct descrition of agreements to be no infraction, only use of such UI. If that were not so that statement would make no sense whatsoever, it then being impossible to give UI _without design_ . This is the one pillar on which everything else rests. It is official interpretation of official law. Now along comes Herman and tells us that it _is_ an infraction, that it _is_ with design, deliberate, and wrong. How can _any_ argument work on that basis? Any argument you are willing to accept seems to have to be based on your interpretation. It so happens that the WBFLC and lots of BLMLers (including me, FWIIW) do not agree with your interpretation. You are in no way obliged to agree with all the BLMLers, as our word on this is no better than yours, but the WBFLC is quite another matter, and nothing you think or say can change that any more than I could. It is the law until it is changed, and you can choose to believe or interpret or whatnot, it does not change a damn thing for the moment. You are free to disagree, of course, anyone is, but someone has to set up the rules. If the rules are bad they should get changed, but they remain the rules nonetheless. I told you before, I tell you again: I think that you jeopardize your chances of being heard with what you have to say (which has some merit, even if I do not agree with a lot of it) by being somewhat stubborn about this. You don`t have to listen to me, of course, but the laws need every thinker about the game to contribute, be it as innovator or as a stone on which they will be sharpened. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 11:09:43 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:09:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c7ac08$402c0110$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Grattan Endicott: > >>> The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, makes > >>> unauthorized information available to his partner does not > >>> commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of > >>> that information that is a breach of the laws". There is no > >>> *design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that > >>> the laws require him to answer. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ............. > > > There is nothing I do not understand in that. > Allow me to add emphasis: > > "A player who, _without design_, makes unauthorized information > available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or > propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the > laws." > > I do not believe that a player who follows the MS in a dws case gives > UI _without design_. Rather, he deliberately breaks L75D2 with as only > excuse a wish to give systemic correct information, information which > is, BTW, totally useless, and wrong! I would consider it the achievement of the decade (wasn't it?) if we could get Herman to accept that: A player who in complying with Law 75C gives a complete and correct (in his own opinion) explanation of his partner's calls and thereby reveals that his partner apparently must previously have given incorrect information does not break Law 75D2 (at least not the intentions of this law). His (correct) response to a question from an opponent does not "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made", the inference that such mistake may have been made is for the opponents to draw from the inconsistencies between the various explanations received. Technically Law 75D2 bans any unsolicited reaction by a player who hears his partner giving an incorrect explanation of his own calls, it does not limit that player's responsibility under Law 75C to give complete information when answering questions from opponents. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 12:19:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:19:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> There is nothing I do not understand in that. >> Allow me to add emphasis: >> >> "A player who, _without design_, makes unauthorized information >> available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or >> propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the >> laws." >> >> I do not believe that a player who follows the MS in a dws case gives >> UI _without design_. > > Herman, how can an act that is called for by a law be deliberate? If I > stop at a red traffic light and a firetruck comes up from behind with > horns blaring, then I do not commit an infraction of the (German) > traffic rules if I cross the stop line under red light to get out of the > way (provided there is no other option and I do so without endangering > someone), the specific laws tell me so. Have I crossed _with design_? > Surely not. I "broke a law" in order to follow another one. > So if the lawgivers tell me that I do not commit an infraction if I give > UI _under specific circumstances_ , and I now fulfill my obligation by > describing my agreements, how have I given UI (if indeed I did so) _with > design_ ? > Matthias, exactly! But do understand that if you cross the red light, you break one law. If you don't, you break another one (not allowing a priority vehicle to go through). Now when having to choose between breaking one law or another, there are two possibilities: either, as in the traffic code, there is a special law that tells us which of the laws is the stronger - in this case, the one about priority vehicles; OR, as in the bridge laws, there is no such laws. In that second case, you cannot use the argument that to break one law in order to follow another is acceptable, without at the same time being able to argue the reverse. I0W, because of the dilemma, it becomes acceptable to break one law in order to follow another. But you cannot transla&te acceptable into legal, and then conclude from that that to break the other law would be illegal. Because there is symmetry. I could argue as follows: Because of L75D2, it is illegal to give correct information; therefore, one must follow the dWS. But I don't. I realize that the laws don't tell us which is the stronger laws (well, I think they do, but that's the next step of my argument). You MUST realize that to follow the MS means breaking L75D2 and L73B1. It may be acceptable to do so, but this does not make it legal; and you certainly cannot use the acceptability as proof that the other option is illegal. >> Rather, he deliberately > > Come on! Following a law is not "deliberate", even if it is a law you > would prefer to break. > Come on! if one has the choice between breaking one law or another, there is certainly a deliberate intent to breaking the one you choose. >> breaks L75D2 with as only >> excuse a wish > > An obligation, Herman, an obligation. Wishes do not come into it. I do > not have to like it, neither have you, but there it is. > Yes, an obligation, and a wish to follow that obligation. Why do you call the one an obligation and not the other one? Don't you see that all your arguments are perfectly symmetric? You defend giving UI by wishing to follow the obligation not to give MI. I defend giving MI by wishing to follow the obligation not to give UI. Why should you be right and not I? And if you now continue by saying that one obligation is stronger than the other (as in the case of the red light and the priority vehicle), then I award you a merit badge for having crossed the second hurdle, and we can tackle the third. But first you must concede that this problem is perfectly symmetric, and you cannot convict the dWS with arguments such as these. >> to give systemic correct information, information which >> is, BTW, totally useless, > > I have always found use for knowledge about opp`s system, even if one of > them doesn`t follow it at the moment, because it tells me why the guy > made his bid in the first place. I will find out later that his partner > gave him no answer, but the fact that he showed something or asked for > something is of interest to me. This I will not find out until later if > he now pretends to have done something else, and later may well be too late. > of course there is use to this information, but the only use comes after clearing up the previous MI, something which L75D2 explicitely prohibits you from doing. >> and wrong! >> > > No, it is correct. It does not correspond to the actual hand, true, but > that does not make the information about the system wrong. > No, but it makes the information wrong, in the way it is most usually put ("he has 2 aces" rather than "he shows 2 aces"). >> I do not need a CoP reinterpretation to read L73B1. >> >> Pleaase find other arguments, this one won't work. >> >> > The trouble with arguments is that the guy you try to argue with must be > willing to accept some of your arguments, else it does indeed not work. No, the arguments that the guy is using are wrong. > Grattan has quoted WBFLC, and there can be no doubt that that said body > considers UI given by a correct descrition of agreements to be no > infraction, only use of such UI. That sentence applies only to information given _without design_. I do not grant the argument any worththerefore. > If that were not so that statement > would make no sense whatsoever, it then being impossible to give UI > _without design_ . This is the one pillar on which everything else > rests. It is official interpretation of official law. Now along comes > Herman and tells us that it _is_ an infraction, that it _is_ with > design, deliberate, and wrong. How can _any_ argument work on that > basis? Any argument you are willing to accept seems to have to be based > on your interpretation. No, all arguments I have heard so far from you seem to be based on your interpretation. There is a lot of circular reasoning going on. > It so happens that the WBFLC and lots of BLMLers > (including me, FWIIW) do not agree with your interpretation. You are in > no way obliged to agree with all the BLMLers, as our word on this is no > better than yours, but the WBFLC is quite another matter, and nothing > you think or say can change that any more than I could. And I do not believe that the WBFLC has said anything in this matter. I certainly do not believe the sentence that is quoted has any bearing on this matter. > It is the law > until it is changed, and you can choose to believe or interpret or > whatnot, it does not change a damn thing for the moment. You are free to > disagree, of course, anyone is, but someone has to set up the rules. If > the rules are bad they should get changed, but they remain the rules > nonetheless. > I told you before, I tell you again: I think that you jeopardize your > chances of being heard with what you have to say (which has some merit, > even if I do not agree with a lot of it) by being somewhat stubborn > about this. You don`t have to listen to me, of course, but the laws need > every thinker about the game to contribute, be it as innovator or as a > stone on which they will be sharpened. > I am not the only one being stubborn. I have consistently refuted the arguments given on this list. You keep coming with other (and very often the same arguments) and I keep saying that the arguments are wrong. My counterarguments are never refuted, except by giving other (usually non-new) arguments. I am not the one being stubborn here. (or at the very least, not the only one). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 12:21:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c7ac08$402c0110$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001201c7ac08$402c0110$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <466D2242.7030807@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I would consider it the achievement of the decade (wasn't it?) if we could > get Herman to accept that: > > A player who in complying with Law 75C gives a complete and correct (in his > own opinion) explanation of his partner's calls and thereby reveals that his > partner apparently must previously have given incorrect information does not > break Law 75D2 (at least not the intentions of this law). > How can you even write this? How can you even believe it yourself? The wording of L75D2 is very very very clear. Following the MS breaks L75D2. And L73B1. And I won't ever accept the contrary. And I would very much like to hear some others agree with me on this one. Breaking L75D2 may well be acceptable under these circumstance, but it remains breaking that Law nevertheless. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 11 13:03:39 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:03:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C3, equity, consistency and the field. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070611104233.028029f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070611104233.028029f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <466D2C0B.1020607@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] > Do you really, really, think, in the deepest of your heart, that in > the deal that lauched this discussion, awarding NS (the NOS) the score > for having found the Heart lead -which they would most probably not > have done- is fair and just to other NS pairs and that it wouldn't > unbalance the competitions standings ? [nigel] Allain raises an excellent point that has been discussed before: it is a potential problem with many rulings that they may drastically effect the results of other players. An extreme example would be an impossible grand-slam that limps home because of an early revoke. This kind of thing occurs in most games, from *objective* application of the rules. Players may complain weakly; but most realise that it is the same for everybody; so is fair; anyway, law-enforcers and law-makers can do nothing sensible about it. If the game needs a rule that relies heavily on *subjective* judgement so that different law-enforcers sometimes rule differently on identical facts, then players rightly regard resulting rulings and their effects on the field as less fair. Fortunately, at Bridge, the appeals committee can provide an important safety net. At least, players can appreciate that an attempt is being made to see justice done. OK. Lets examine L12C3, the law that encourages law-breaking and inhibits the reporting of infractions. It is an unnecessary law that adds no value or enjoyment to the game -- as far as *players* are concerned, anyway. The objection raised to L12C3 in this thread is more subtle. L12C3 completely relies on subjective judgement. For example, in a recent lead case discussed in BLML some ruled a heart lead as 100%, others 20% or less. If you read a magazine lead-poll or bidding-poll. you can confirm that such variations are typical. Occasionally, a panel member mistakenly submits two sets of answers, with little agreement between the two. Herman confirms my worst suspicions about procedures. Herman says that when he shows his weightings to colleague(s), the discussion is over in a minute or two. No surprise there. Any decision will be arbitrary. It is hard to object to another's whims, when you are aware that two poll-groups will hardly ever arrive at the same weightings. The point is that even a small percentage adjustment can drastically effect the results of these and other players. The director may be well be aware of likely *specific* effects. In an extreme case, a fine percentage adjustment may make the difference between winning and losing for a friend or enemy. Of course, no director will ever succomb to such a temptation :) But let us suspend disbelief and think the unthinkable :(. If he did so adjust, there would be no comeback. Nothing could be done about it because it is virtually impossible to successfully appeal a 12C3 ruling. Even if this never happens, as far as affected players are concerned, justice isn't seen to be done :( In summary: it is unfortunate but inevitable that the application of a rule may effect the whole field who play a game; but the introduction of an overly subjective rule into the game of Bridge, that will sometimes affect the field, in accord with the God-like whim of a director -- in a way that is virtually undetectable, unprovable, and unappeallable -- seems unfair and unnecessary. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 13:19:10 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:19:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466D2242.7030807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c7ac1a$55da5e50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > I would consider it the achievement of the decade (wasn't it?) > > if we could get Herman to accept that: > > > > A player who in complying with Law 75C gives a complete and > > correct (in his own opinion) explanation of his partner's calls > > and thereby reveals that his partner apparently must previously > > have given incorrect information does not break Law 75D2 > > (at least not the intentions of this law). > > > > How can you even write this? How can you even believe it yourself? The > wording of L75D2 is very very very clear. Following the MS breaks > L75D2. And L73B1. And I won't ever accept the contrary. And I would > very much like to hear some others agree with me on this one. Did you take the time to read the next parts of my post, the first of which says? His (correct) response to a question from an opponent does not "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made", the inference that such mistake may have been made is for the opponents to draw from the inconsistencies between the various explanations received. Just to elaborate: When your explanation reveals that partner apparently has given incorrect information this is so far technically only an allegation from you; I certainly hope you did not positively state that your partner gave incorrect information? This is of course technicalities, but the way you argue we have to descend to technicalities, and then it is for the opponents to draw their inferences from the various explanations they have received, we do not face any violation of Law 75D2 here. Of course partner has the same possibilities as opponents to draw such inferences from your subsequent explanation; the important difference being that these inferences are unauthorized for him. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 11 13:25:17 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:25:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] More law tigers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466D311D.2040700@NTLworld.com> [nige1] > >My interest is whether there are *written guidelines* that recommend > >- not only that the director consult about LA's - but also that he > >consult about what *action the unauthorised information suggests* - > >*all without revealing the actual action* chosen by the suspected > >law-breaker. > > > >IMO it is important that the second question be asked *before* > >revealing the action chosen. > [Richard Hills] Nigel raises an interesting point on what "consulted appropriately" means. There have been several cases on record in which the Appeals Committee agreed on what logical alternatives were available, but disagreed on what the unauthorised information from one partner demonstrably suggested to the other partner. For one such example, see the episodic "Be prepared!" thread of May 2007 and July 2004. And Nigel's point about "*before* revealing the action chosen" is particularly intelligent. It is all too easy for players, directors and appeals committees to be inadvertently biased by context. For one such example, see the episodic "Groundhog Day" thread of February 2007 and May 2004. [nige1] I knew we shared these views and I hoped that Richard would pop his had above the parapet to defend them. Thank you! No doubt, enlightened directors have implemented this procedure from time immemorial :) This good practice is never mentioned, however, either in RGB and BLML UI polls or in appeal reports :( Hence, IMO, for the benefit of the less enlightened, WBFLC guidelines should officially specify and recommend such a protocol :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070611/8f920841/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 13:35:24 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:35:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c7ac1c$9a190060$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Matthias Berghaus wrote: ............... > > Herman, how can an act that is called for by a law be deliberate? If I > > stop at a red traffic light and a firetruck comes up from behind with > > horns blaring, then I do not commit an infraction of the (German) > > traffic rules if I cross the stop line under red light to get out of the > > way (provided there is no other option and I do so without endangering > > someone), the specific laws tell me so. Have I crossed _with design_? > > Surely not. I "broke a law" in order to follow another one. > > So if the lawgivers tell me that I do not commit an infraction if I give > > UI _under specific circumstances_ , and I now fulfill my obligation by > > describing my agreements, how have I given UI (if indeed I did so) _with > > design_ ? > > > > Matthias, exactly! > > But do understand that if you cross the red light, you break one law. > If you don't, you break another one (not allowing a priority vehicle > to go through). Now when having to choose between breaking one law or > another, there are two possibilities: either, as in the traffic code, > there is a special law that tells us which of the laws is the stronger > - in this case, the one about priority vehicles; Do your traffic laws explicitly state that a free way shall be given to emergency vehicles when requested by them even when you must break another law (e.g. drive through a red light) in order to do so? Our Norwegian laws include no such explicit requirement; still nobody has to my knowledge ever argued that there is any conflict in the laws on this matter. We all know the intention of those laws: Every effort shall be taken to assist as far as possible and by all reasonable means (whether technically lawful or unlawful) emergency vehicles signaling for free road. So why can it be so difficult for dWS to understand and accept the intentions of Laws 75C and 75D2? Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 14:46:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:46:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401c7ac1c$9a190060$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c7ac1c$9a190060$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <466D440B.90500@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > ............... >>> Herman, how can an act that is called for by a law be deliberate? If I >>> stop at a red traffic light and a firetruck comes up from behind with >>> horns blaring, then I do not commit an infraction of the (German) >>> traffic rules if I cross the stop line under red light to get out of the >>> way (provided there is no other option and I do so without endangering >>> someone), the specific laws tell me so. Have I crossed _with design_? >>> Surely not. I "broke a law" in order to follow another one. >>> So if the lawgivers tell me that I do not commit an infraction if I give >>> UI _under specific circumstances_ , and I now fulfill my obligation by >>> describing my agreements, how have I given UI (if indeed I did so) _with >>> design_ ? >>> >> Matthias, exactly! >> >> But do understand that if you cross the red light, you break one law. >> If you don't, you break another one (not allowing a priority vehicle >> to go through). Now when having to choose between breaking one law or >> another, there are two possibilities: either, as in the traffic code, >> there is a special law that tells us which of the laws is the stronger >> - in this case, the one about priority vehicles; > > Do your traffic laws explicitly state that a free way shall be given to > emergency vehicles when requested by them even when you must break another > law (e.g. drive through a red light) in order to do so? > > Our Norwegian laws include no such explicit requirement; still nobody has to > my knowledge ever argued that there is any conflict in the laws on this > matter. We all know the intention of those laws: Every effort shall be taken > to assist as far as possible and by all reasonable means (whether > technically lawful or unlawful) emergency vehicles signaling for free road. > > So why can it be so difficult for dWS to understand and accept the > intentions of Laws 75C and 75D2? > But who are you to be saying that you know the intentions of L75D2? I read in L75D2 a very strong injunction _NOT_ to give UI, and _NOT_ to correct MI, _in any manner_!!! Why is it so difficult for Sven Pran to understand and accept the intentions of Law 75D2? You can't argue this without starting with something like "since Herman is a silly Belgian, he must be wrong". See what your last argument here is: we all know that we are right, therefore, we must be right! Surely you understand that this is not a valid argument. And I know what will happen now : Sven will quit, thinking I'm a silly Belgian, and he'll think he'll have won. He hasn't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 14:51:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:51:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001301c7ac1a$55da5e50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c7ac1a$55da5e50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <466D455B.2060208@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> I would consider it the achievement of the decade (wasn't it?) >>> if we could get Herman to accept that: >>> >>> A player who in complying with Law 75C gives a complete and >>> correct (in his own opinion) explanation of his partner's calls >>> and thereby reveals that his partner apparently must previously >>> have given incorrect information does not break Law 75D2 >>> (at least not the intentions of this law). >>> >> How can you even write this? How can you even believe it yourself? The >> wording of L75D2 is very very very clear. Following the MS breaks >> L75D2. And L73B1. And I won't ever accept the contrary. And I would >> very much like to hear some others agree with me on this one. > > Did you take the time to read the next parts of my post, the first of which > says? > > His (correct) response to a question from an opponent does not "indicate in > any manner that a mistake has been made", the inference that such mistake > may have been made is for the opponents to draw from the inconsistencies > between the various explanations received. > But of course it indicates that a mistake has been made? 4NT - what's that? - Blackwood - 5Di - what's that? - diamond preference. If you honestly want to say that this is not "indicating in some manner that a mistake has been made", then I'm stopping this discussion. > Just to elaborate: When your explanation reveals that partner apparently has > given incorrect information this is so far technically only an allegation > from you; I certainly hope you did not positively state that your partner > gave incorrect information? > But it's always only an allegation from you. When you shout at partner "you silly idiot, of course this 4NT is not Blackwood", that is only an allegation. Do you not believe that sentence breaks L75D2? Sven, you are guilty of only one crime. You believe you are right and you are trying to find arguments for it. Your arguments are invvalid. Maybe it's time to consider the outlandish idea that your preconceived notions were wrong all along? > This is of course technicalities, but the way you argue we have to descend > to technicalities, and then it is for the opponents to draw their inferences > from the various explanations they have received, we do not face any > violation of Law 75D2 here. Of course partner has the same possibilities as > opponents to draw such inferences from your subsequent explanation; the > important difference being that these inferences are unauthorized for him. > Of course these are techicalities, but you are using a non-literal interpretations, a blatantly wrong interpretation, to argue for your case. Then when I use that same text, using a perfectly normal interpretation, you call that technicalities! You are the one claiming that the actions of the dWS are illegal and wrong. It's up to you to prove your point. Don't go using interpretations that are only valid if you start with your preconceived ideas. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 11 15:34:18 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:34:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> The situation: the old, old conflict between the dWs and what Herman has termed the MS. We should now make good use of our time by discussing whether the _next_ version should look like the old one or whether the dWs works better, or whether the two can somehow be combined. I do not think that anybody denies that Herman has a point, so we should devote ourselves to how the next laws should be. Grattan and Ton (and probably others involved in that) are listening, even if they should (understandably, in my view) prefer not to express their opinions in this forum. In order to steer us in that direction I open this new thread. To get some system into this we should try to collect advantages and disadvantages for both positions (and maybe discover some new positions), discuss the effects on play and the players, and find out what is desirable, how to effect that, what is undesirable, and how to get rid of that. For a start I try my hand at some advantages and disadvantages. This will by necessity be inclompete as I have only one brain and have not thought about all the details. So please no catcalls from either side for leaving something out that has already be mentioned, or something I have simply overlooked. MS: Advantages - Easy to follow. Don`t worry, just tell the system, let the TD handle the rest - Easy to spot a difference between the (alleged) system and the hand Disadvantages - Lots of UI - Results prone to be 12C2 or C3 rulings if UI may have been used dWs: Advantages - More boards can be scored as played in relevant cases (if the description really matches the hand) Disadvantages - More cheating potential? I have not really digested this aspect yet, but it seems to me that a lot of abuse can be done, especially in the lower echelons of (opponent`s) bridge ability.You cannot cheat a good plaer twice with abuse of dWs, but in the clubs? - More difficult to follow. What should I tell opps if I can see that partner has not replied to RKCB, but I have no idea what he has done? If I guesss wrong the UI impact is no smaller than in MS OK, so much for my first run. I have tried to point out the pretty obvious things for now. Even if I only find just one advantage of dWs (at the moment), the advantage I see is a major one. Whatever the WBFLC comes up with, two things should IMO be foremost in all considerations: Is it easy to understand and apply for the player (never mind the TDs, we can manage), and does it help to score boards normally. Furthermore any decisions should be explainable more or less by reading the laws to the players, without any comments, notes etc whenever possible. Regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 11 16:06:35 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:06:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <466D56EB.6020904@t-online.de> This is more or less in response to Herman`s reply to my mail, but keeping everything in is way to cumbersome now, so I deleted it all. Herman, we have a judicative power (TDs, ACs) and a legislative power (WBF, meaning more or less the WBFLC in this case). TDs and ACs don`t make the rules, the WBFLC does. Now the official word is: If - by following L75C - you happen to generate UI, then (and only then) there is no infraction of law or propriety. They have set out correct procedure for as long as the 1997 rules are in force. You can argue about the wording, but Grattan`s quote is quite clear, as _without design_ only makes sense if there is such an animal, whereas your interpretation would not make it possible for such a case t occur. (Just as an aside: Since no law is broken as per WBFLC comment, there can be no question of choosing something over something else. Following correct procedure is always OK) Now you and me and my landlady can agree with them or disagree with them, nobody cares, _because it is the law_ . Period. I happen to disagree strongly with the death penalty as for example in California (picked more or less at random because I am sure that Californa has the death penalty, while I am unsure with regard to others. No offence to California or Californians intended). Does Governor Schwarzenegger care? I would heavily bet against it. He has other things to worry about (yes, I have heard the one about the Cuban cigar...) And even if he cared? Did he make those laws? No, but he has to enforce them. The Californian laws as set down by the legislative body are in effect. He can try to make that body change the law, but he bound by it as long as it is in force. We can try to make our legislative body change it (I am not sure whether that would be wise in this case, but I have started a new thread to find out), but at the moment we are bound by it. Regards Matthias From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 16:13:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:13:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466D587F.4060903@skynet.be> Hello Matthias, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > The situation: the old, old conflict between the dWs and what Herman has > termed the MS. > > We should now make good use of our time by discussing whether the _next_ > version should look like the old one or whether the dWs works better, or > whether the two can somehow be combined. I do not think that anybody > denies that Herman has a point, so we should devote ourselves to how the > next laws should be. Grattan and Ton (and probably others involved in > that) are listening, even if they should (understandably, in my view) > prefer not to express their opinions in this forum. In order to steer us > in that direction I open this new thread. > Thanks. You are the first to accept all four of my merit badges and you are about to go for a fifth. I have found five arguments, and have once put them on this forum, but I'll go along with you and follow your line of reasoning. > To get some system into this we should try to collect advantages and > disadvantages for both positions (and maybe discover some new > positions), discuss the effects on play and the players, and find out > what is desirable, how to effect that, what is undesirable, and how to > get rid of that. > > For a start I try my hand at some advantages and disadvantages. This > will by necessity be inclompete as I have only one brain and have not > thought about all the details. So please no catcalls from either side > for leaving something out that has already be mentioned, or something I > have simply overlooked. > > MS: > Advantages - Easy to follow. Don`t worry, just tell the system, let the > TD handle the rest Well, actually, this is not true. We are always talking about one type of cases, but there is a second and a third type. The first type is the one we are always talking of. A player makes a call, and his partner misexplains. The second type is totally uninteresting, since both sides of the debate will give the same explanation: this is the case where a player misbids, and realizes that he has misbid when he hears his partner give a (correct) explanation. In this case the player needs to bid on as if he had the correct system all along, and he should explain his partners bids in the way partner intended them (dWs) or in the way the system goes (MS), which is the same explanation. But there is a third type of case. This occurs when the player hears an explanation which does not confirm to what he thought the system was, but now he is uncertain what the real system is. He cannot ask to see the CC, or call the TD, for fear of breaking L75D2. So, under the MS, he has a huge problem: does he continue with partner's explanation, which might be MI, or does he tell his own version, which is certainly UI and might also be MI? OTOH, the dWS really is simple: just explain his bid in the way he obviously intended it, even if that might be MI. > - Easy to spot a difference between the (alleged) > system and the hand > I don't think there can be any problems about spotting the cases. After all, the previous bid has been misexplained, and this is bound to come accross. So I don't think this is an advantage. > Disadvantages - Lots of UI Major disadvantage, that! > - Results prone to be 12C2 or C3 rulings if UI > may have been used > Well, considering that L12C3 is not usually used in UI cases, L12C2 is enough. But indeed, the MI issue will not go away (even if the MI is corrected, this is at least one bid too late), while the UI is huge, and in both directions now. > > dWs: > Advantages - More boards can be scored as played in relevant cases (if > the description really matches the hand) > Indeed, the second MI is hardly ever damaging. > Disadvantages - More cheating potential? I have not really digested this > aspect yet, but it seems to me that a lot of abuse can be done, > especially in the lower echelons of (opponent`s) bridge ability.You > cannot cheat a good plaer twice with abuse of > dWs, but in the clubs? This is one I have never before considered. I don't think we are talking about cheats here. Of course a player who explains partners bids consistently might more easily claim misbid afterwards, whereas a player who explains conforming his own system can no longer do so. But does that open the way to cheats? I don't think so, since the cheat is the one that will claim his partner geve the correct explanation. If he does, he is bound to follow the advice of both schools, which are giving the same explanation (see above). So if the MS wins the debate, a cheat will still act in the same manner, while a dWs adept might cheat in a different way: he could still explain according to former explanation and then claim that partner had convinced him that his was the correct explanation. He will accept that the TD does not rule misbid, but he cannot be blamed for explaining the way he did, since he was not able to consult the CC and see who was right. > - More difficult to follow. What should I tell > opps if I can see that partner has not replied to RKCB, but I have no > idea what he has done? If I guesss wrong the UI impact is no smaller > than in > MS > Usually in cases like this the meaning of partner's next call is clear from his explanation of the previous one. Many cases never get to the dilemma stage because the opponents don't have to ask. If 4NT is explained as for minors, it is clear what 5Di means. Very occasionally, a partner will explain a bid according to a system that the bidder has never played before. But I think this is so very occasional that we don't really need to worry about it. Just explain what you think it means and if you're wrong, well, then at least your partner will think you have forgotten, but not that he has misinterpreted the previous bid. > OK, so much for my first run. I have tried to point out the pretty > obvious things for now. Even if I only find just one advantage of dWs > (at the moment), the advantage I see is a major one. Whatever the WBFLC > comes up with, two things should IMO be foremost in all considerations: > Is it easy to understand and apply for the player (never mind the TDs, > we can manage), and does it help to score boards normally. Furthermore > any decisions should be explainable more or less by reading the laws to > the players, without any comments, notes etc whenever possible. > Well, I have explained the dWS to many players, and they don't seem to have problems with it. It sounds strange at first, but if you tell them: "well, you know you should not shout at imbecile partner, so playing along with him should not be so difficult, should it?", they usually understand. The dWS advice is very simple: whenever your partner has explained your bid in a different manner than how you intended it, you should: a) interpret his bids and select your calls according to what you thought the system was; b) explain his calls at the table according to what he apparently thought the system was; c) call the TD and explain everything at the first legal opportunity - before the opening lead if your declaring side, after the board if you're defending. None of this advice is in any way dependent on the "real" meaning of the call, which is something which is known only to the TD after the end of the deal. > > Regards > Matthias > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 11 18:01:55 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:01:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466D587F.4060903@skynet.be> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <466D587F.4060903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <466D71F3.1090202@t-online.de> Hello Herman, Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> >> MS: >> Advantages - Easy to follow. Don`t worry, just tell the system, let the >> TD handle the rest >> > > Well, actually, this is not true. We are always talking about one type > of cases, but there is a second and a third type. > That is not what I actually meant, even though I agree with most of what you write below. At the moment (if the player does it correctly, but that applies always) the player just has to explain the system. That is fairly easy to do, even if the consequences may get a bit complicated - for the TD. > The first type is the one we are always talking of. A player makes a > call, and his partner misexplains. > May I point out (without making a judgement about it) that a player has to use UI to apply the dWs? That is a clear infraction (even if the intentions are honest). > The second type is totally uninteresting, since both sides of the > debate will give the same explanation: this is the case where a player > misbids, and realizes that he has misbid when he hears his partner > give a (correct) explanation. In this case the player needs to bid on > as if he had the correct system all along, and he should explain his > partners bids in the way partner intended them (dWs) or in the way > the system goes (MS), which is the same explanation. > I disagree (on two counts): It is not uninteresting, and what the player has to do depends on whether he misbid (knowing what the system is, but miscounting steps or whatever), or whether he forgot what the system is and is woken up by partner. Looks like two different cases to me. In the first variation the UI only focuses on one bid, in the second variation he has to bid on according to his first view what the system is, which may or may not make a difference. > But there is a third type of case. This occurs when the player hears > an explanation which does not confirm to what he thought the system > was, but now he is uncertain what the real system is. He cannot ask to > see the CC, or call the TD, for fear of breaking L75D2. So, under the > MS, he has a huge problem: does he continue with partner's > explanation, which might be MI, or does he tell his own version, which > is certainly UI and might also be MI? > OTOH, the dWS really is simple: just explain his bid in the way he > obviously intended it, even if that might be MI. > That looks good on paper, and could certainly work with players who understand and follow their responsibilities, but that is a very small minority, isn`t it? Most people do not understand what the laws ask them to do. The majority would probably do what is proper (and some may not, if they can get away with it), if only they understood what that is. The percentage of would-be-cheats would be small (I hope), but the drawback ( I agree with the advantages you list, to be sure) is that _it does not show_! You have UI (partner does not understand the bid the way I intended), you have to use that UI to recover, if you can recover the opps will never know, so your use of UI will not be questioned. Very dangerous ground. The current laws make it very difficult to cheat if the TD is competent, and that is the way I would like it to remain. Do not tempt human beings. They may be better than we sometimes think, but they are worse than we want them to be, being only human. In most cases infractions are based on ignorance or oversight, the very small rest we can handle with disciplinary penalties, but giving them license to do something like that and have them expect to get away with it is something I advise very strongly indeed. What works with Herman at the table (who knows the laws, being a TD and all that) does not necessarily have to work with Mrs Guggenheim or Mr Smug, for whatever reason. One more type of case: Some bidding without someone asking, now partner does something which cannot be right according to system (wrong number of aces, fourth step in a yes/no situation, that sort of thing) and you know a wheel has come off. What now? > >> - Easy to spot a difference between the (alleged) >> system and the hand >> >> > > I don't think there can be any problems about spotting the cases. > After all, the previous bid has been misexplained, and this is bound > to come accross. So I don't think this is an advantage. > Well, see above. I think that is a marked advantage. The dWs may be well and good with players who are all ethical ( I know some who are not, and I am sure so do you. We can hope, but we shouldn`t put our faith in inside straights...) and knowledgable (fat chance below a certain level), but the percentage is way too low for my comfort. I think there is no sense in making rules for the ideal player. < snipped > >> Disadvantages - More cheating potential? I have not really digested this >> aspect yet, but it seems to me that a lot of abuse can be done, >> especially in the lower echelons of (opponent`s) bridge ability.You >> cannot cheat a good plaer twice with abuse of >> dWs, but in the clubs? >> > > This is one I have never before considered. I don't think we are > talking about cheats here. I hope not, but then hope springs eternal. See above. Better make it watertight. Even if the player is honest, there may be room for doubt, and then you have to rule against him anyway, because what he did (in all innocence) was what a cheat would do..... So in order to protect him from being called a cheat behind his back we have to rule against him. See current L72B1 and others. > Of course a player who explains partners > bids consistently might more easily claim misbid afterwards, whereas a > player who explains conforming his own system can no longer do so. But > does that open the way to cheats? I don't think so, since the cheat is > the one that will claim his partner geve the correct explanation. Or the one who catches his partner`s "misbids" because partner tells him so. There are lots of ways. This is even true of the current laws, but I fear dWs would make it more... shall we say flexible? This will not work on higher levels where people pick such things up pretty fast, but further down? I am not so sure. Maybe I am a bit paranoid, but not being paranoid is no guarantee that they are not out to get you.... > If > he does, he is bound to follow the advice of both schools, which are > giving the same explanation (see above). So if the MS wins the debate, > a cheat will still act in the same manner, while a dWs adept might > cheat in a different way: he could still explain according to former > explanation and then claim that partner had convinced him that his was > the correct explanation. He will accept that the TD does not rule > misbid, but he cannot be blamed for explaining the way he did, since > he was not able to consult the CC and see who was right. > The problem I see lies in not having to explain anything. Explanation matched the hand, no questions asked, next board. In MS the explanation does _not_ match the hand, so questions will be asked. My fear is that those hands will not arouse the tinest suspicion, so it will work once more. In fact, the longer I think about it the cheating potential turns out to be my major grievance with the whole idea. If the AC found cause to throw a pair out of a championship not long ago, who can say what would happen at the club level where a few cheats can hide among lots of people who simply don`t know enough of the laws to get it right, and lots of people who do not know enough about bridge to catch them out? > >> - More difficult to follow. What should I tell >> opps if I can see that partner has not replied to RKCB, but I have no >> idea what he has done? If I guesss wrong the UI impact is no smaller >> than in >> MS >> >> > > Usually in cases like this the meaning of partner's next call is clear > from his explanation of the previous one. Many cases never get to the > dilemma stage because the opponents don't have to ask. If 4NT is > explained as for minors, it is clear what 5Di means. And if the UI is used and the situation is not cleared up? I may sound somewhat repetitive, but I have serious doubts about that. What if 5D is passed or raised and the 4NT hand makes the explanation somewhat plausible? > Very > occasionally, a partner will explain a bid according to a system that > the bidder has never played before. But I think this is so very > occasional that we don't really need to worry about it. Just explain > what you think it means and if you're wrong, well, then at least your > partner will think you have forgotten, but not that he has > misinterpreted the previous bid. > In which case there is UI both ways, which is no better than the current situation. > > Well, I have explained the dWS to many players, and they don't seem to > have problems with it. It sounds strange at first, but if you tell > them: "well, you know you should not shout at imbecile partner, so > playing along with him should not be so difficult, should it?", they > usually understand. > > The dWS advice is very simple: > > whenever your partner has explained your bid in a different manner > than how you intended it, you should: > a) interpret his bids and select your calls according to what you > thought the system was; > b) explain his calls at the table according to what he apparently > thought the system was; > c) call the TD and explain everything at the first legal opportunity - > before the opening lead if your declaring side, after the board if > you're defending. > If I look at the number of players who can not remember (or be bothered with) when they have to clear up some MI declaring/defending..... Maybe your experiences have made you less pessimistic than me. Tell you what,Herman: I have to leave now (and may or may not be back today). How about listing all possible cases (forgotten system, misbid, MI) in relation to when the questions started (so more or less the cases we listed above, and any we didn`t come up with yet), followed by an analysis about UI, MI, possible cheating, probable ruling under both schools? Maybe you can get started. I suspect I will not be back before tomorrow afternoon. Maybe someone else takes it up here, too. Regards Matthias From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 18:02:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:02:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466D440B.90500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c7ac41$e2a9f7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > But who are you to be saying that you know the intentions of L75D2? > I read in L75D2 a very strong injunction _NOT_ to give UI, and _NOT_ > to correct MI, _in any manner_!!! One that has read understood and accepted the statement from WBFLC on this matter as presented to us by Grattan. > Why is it so difficult for Sven Pran to understand and accept the > intentions of Law 75D2? I find it not difficult at all, especially because this (my) understanding conforms to everything I have been told from authoritative sources. And I think that shall be my last contribution to this thread. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 18:32:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:32:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466D56EB.6020904@t-online.de> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D56EB.6020904@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466D792A.3040106@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > This is more or less in response to Herman`s reply to my mail, but > keeping everything in is way to cumbersome now, so I deleted it all. > > Herman, we have a judicative power (TDs, ACs) and a legislative power > (WBF, meaning more or less the WBFLC in this case). TDs and ACs don`t > make the rules, the WBFLC does. I agree. > Now the official word is: is it? I wonder. > If - by following L75C - you happen to > generate UI, then (and only then) there is no infraction of law or > propriety. Where did you read that? the CoP? Let's take it and see. I just went through it and could not find the text Grattan was referring to. > They have set out correct procedure for as long as the 1997 > rules are in force. You can argue about the wording, but Grattan`s quote > is quite clear, as _without design_ only makes sense if there is such an > animal, whereas your interpretation would not make it possible for such > a case t occur. Of course there are many cases: any hesitation, any question asked, everything transmits UI to partner. But all of this is done _without design_, therefore it is not judged an infraction per se of L73B1, only the use of the UI is judged illegal. Perfectly logical piece of interpretation, I should guess. > (Just as an aside: Since no law is broken as per WBFLC > comment, there can be no question of choosing something over something > else. Following correct procedure is always OK) > Now you and me and my landlady can agree with them or disagree with > them, nobody cares, _because it is the law_ . Period. I happen to > disagree strongly with the death penalty as for example in California > (picked more or less at random because I am sure that Californa has the > death penalty, while I am unsure with regard to others. No offence to > California or Californians intended). Does Governor Schwarzenegger care? > I would heavily bet against it. He has other things to worry about (yes, > I have heard the one about the Cuban cigar...) And even if he cared? Did > he make those laws? No, but he has to enforce them. The Californian laws > as set down by the legislative body are in effect. He can try to make > that body change the law, but he bound by it as long as it is in force. > We can try to make our legislative body change it (I am not sure whether > that would be wise in this case, but I have started a new thread to find > out), but at the moment we are bound by it. > Well, I still haven't seen any evidence of the WBF trying to give guidelines in the dwS cases. And you're right, we are not the lawmakers. But we are in their earshot. And I urge them to listen to my 5 reasons why, if they decide that something must be done to get rid of this problem (and I don't believe that is very necessary), then it is imperative that they choose the dWS approach. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 11 18:35:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:35:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c7ac41$e2a9f7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c7ac41$e2a9f7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <466D79BC.2080403@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> But who are you to be saying that you know the intentions of L75D2? >> I read in L75D2 a very strong injunction _NOT_ to give UI, and _NOT_ >> to correct MI, _in any manner_!!! > > One that has read understood and accepted the statement from WBFLC on this > matter as presented to us by Grattan. > I have read it, I have understood it, I have failed to see what it brings to the problem at hand. I have stated so. Please don't repeat previous arguments, that way lie circles. >> Why is it so difficult for Sven Pran to understand and accept the >> intentions of Law 75D2? > > I find it not difficult at all, especially because this (my) understanding > conforms to everything I have been told from authoritative sources. > And I dare to say all authorative sources are wrong. I do not use authority, Sven, I use logic. Comment on my logic, don't use authority. > And I think that shall be my last contribution to this thread. > And you're the nth person to do so. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 11 19:14:37 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:14:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466D82FD.8070806@NTLworld.com> My tuppence worth on DISCLOSURE 1. What are our agreements? Are they [A] What we currently remember of our discussions? That is the interpretation favoured by Richard Hills but IMO it is too subjective. [B] What is on our convention card? OK in so far as it goes but IMO it does not go far enough. [C] What we have verbally agreed plus what is is in our system notes plus other agreed and implicit sources (books or whatever). IMO yes. For example, to me (but not to Richard) the fact that one of us is lazy and has never actually read the system notes is irrelevant -- they remain part of our agreement. 2. De Wael dilemma: Unauthorised information or Misinformation? [A] IMO, You should always try to explain your agreement as defined in [1] above. [B] In particular, if you reckon that partner is on a different wavelength. IMO you must *not* try to explain his misunderstanding. {I disagree with Herman here} [C] To placate Herman The UI law should mention this disclosure law as a specific exception. [D] I agree with Herman, however, that *if you don't know, then you must guess*. I'm a typical player and I'm rarely sure what our agreements are. To divulge our agreements to opponents, I must sometimes guess. I do try to keep to the law. I say something like "I'm not absolutely sure. It's probably on our card. If not I am happy to guess. You can send partner away from the table if you like." All this takes ages and is not really satisfactory. Few of our opponents waste time like this. Many have a hazy idea of their methods. Whenever they are at all unsure, Most just answer "no agreement" and refuse to budge. While that may be literally true, I wish that the law would make them guess. After even a few minutes of discussion and a few boards of play their guess is likely to be so much better than ours. Manifestly, insisting that you must guess if you don't know would *reduce prevarication*. {To anticipate a daft quibble. This law change would not force you *to lie to opponents*. Opponents would be well aware that a guess can sometimes be wrong. For example, a 4S bid is a contract to make 10 tricks. If you fail in that commitment, you have not told a lie. Your 4S bid was at best a *guess*} [E] If there is a "must guess" law, then sometimes you guess wrong: not as often as you think: but sometimes. IMO the law should treat misguesses as *misinformation*. That may seem draconian but at least it is simple. IMO misinformation would be only a tiny bit more common than it is now. Such a law would delight Wolff :) IMO, the law should exonerate players playing a designated standard system [see 5 below] to allow some slack for learners and pick-up partners. 3. Alerts or Announcements or Both? [A] IMO the law-book should contain a *default* disclosure protocol. Local legislators would be allowed to introduce their own variants -- but they would not be forced to do so as they are now. Perhaps our EBU protocol would serve as a template... [A] In the UK, we now announce the meaning of most two openers, notrump openers and notrump responses (Stayman and red suit transfers). We alert other unusual or conventional understandings. We rarely alert above 3NT. Doubles are a peculiar and uncomfortable exception to the alert rules. [B] Many players opine that *doubles should be announced* "penalty" or "take-out" or whatever. [C] IMO we should go further than this: you should *announce all calls that are currently alerted*: this would save the time taken by the alert and question; it would also *eliminate unauthorised information* engendered by selective questioning. [D] It would be ideal if you had an option to *switch off* opponents alerts/announcements altogether. This would save even more time and eliminate even more unauthorised information. [E] You could still ask for an *explanation* of each call *at the end* of the auction. [F] To efficiently elicit information, IMO the law-book should specifically recommend *Sven Pran's form of question* "What do your partner's calls tell you about his hand (strength, shape an so on)" 4. What about "General knowledge and experience"? Of course, in practice, when asked a question about your hand, you don't start from first principles. "My hand contains thirteen rectangular pieces of cardboard with identical backs but different symbols on the front...", Nevertheless IMO... [A] you should make *minimal* assumptions about what opponents already know. [B] If even those minimal assumptions seem optimistic, then you should be prepared to "teach Granny to suck eggs". [C] All the references to "General knowledge" should be expunged from the law book. In practice, they are cited only to rationalise prevarication. 5. Standard system anyone? [A] I've left this proposal to near the end because so far nobody agrees with it. Note that proposals 1-4 don't depend on 5. [B] The standard could be local (for example Simple English in the UK) or better global (so far SAYC is the most likely candidate). [C] A standard system would be easy for beginners to learn, perfect for pick-up partners, and an automatic choice for no-fear competition and individuals. [D] The standard would be great for PR. You could organise events that spectators could understand with the help of an ordinary sports commentator. [E] It would simplify universal disclosure laws. You would disclose (announce or alert) only departures from the standard system. 6. Advantages and disadvantages. [A] Advantages have been trumpeted by me, so often and at such length, that even I am bored. Most are obvious to a child of three. [B] Disadvantages are more subtle. [C] Most BLMLERS ignore proposals Some reject them out of hand. A few add a personal attack. There are welcome exceptions: Frances Hinden kindly criticised the *standard system* proposal in detail. Thank you Frances. Below are some of the many drawbacks that she and others raised {with my defences in curly brackets} [a] It would be impossible to agree a universal "standard system". {Fair enough but the WBF could suggest a global default. Local legislators could over-ride that default. In practice, events have overtaken legislation at big on-line sites, where SAYC is virtually standard} [b] Beginners would find it hard to learn two systems {The standard system is a prime candidate to teach to beginners. This would simplify life for beginners because they would not need to alert/announce} [c] Players would refuse to learn another system {I contend that local alerting rules, for example the EBU Orange book, implicitly define a complex system from which you alert. This system is a kind of "local standard" but it is nearly unplayable -- which is one reason so few players read or comply with local regulations. In comparison with most alert rules, the standard system is simple and coherent. It would also be useful for playing with pick-up partners, anywhere. In practice, on-line, almost everybody has SAYC as a second language} [d] If the standard system were suitable for beginners it would be inadequate for experts. {The system could be modular. Modular extensions would be of the form: normally we proceed naturally here; but if you want a conventional interpretation then this is it; this could result in a fully fledged system -- like 2/1 say. Such extensions would require a brief announcement or alert in low-level competition but would be implicit in top level competition} [e] If your system is completely non-standard, then you must alert/announce almost every call, even if the meaning is completely logical and natural in context. {true I'm afraid :( } From mustikka at charter.net Mon Jun 11 23:01:40 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:01:40 -0700 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de><466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:34 AM Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws > The situation: the old, old conflict between the dWs and what Herman has > termed the MS. > > We should now make good use of our time by discussing whether the _next_ > version should look like the old one or whether the dWs works better, or > whether the two can somehow be combined. I do not think that anybody > denies that Herman has a point, so we should devote ourselves to how the > next laws should be. Grattan and Ton (and probably others involved in > that) are listening, even if they should (understandably, in my view) > prefer not to express their opinions in this forum. In order to steer us > in that direction I open this new thread. > > To get some system into this we should try to collect advantages and > disadvantages for both positions (and maybe discover some new > positions), discuss the effects on play and the players, and find out > what is desirable, how to effect that, what is undesirable, and how to > get rid of that. > > For a start I try my hand at some advantages and disadvantages. This > will by necessity be inclompete as I have only one brain and have not > thought about all the details. So please no catcalls from either side > for leaving something out that has already be mentioned, or something I > have simply overlooked. > > MS: > Advantages - Easy to follow. Don`t worry, just tell the system, let the > TD handle the rest > - Easy to spot a difference between the (alleged) > system and the hand > > Disadvantages - Lots of UI > - Results prone to be 12C2 or C3 rulings if UI > may have been used > > > dWs: > Advantages - More boards can be scored as played in relevant cases (if > the description really matches the hand) Just a comment: It is possible that neither the systemic explanation nor the explainer's guess matches the hand. Maybe explainer wasn't such a good diagnostic of partner's thoughts. Or, maybe the bid has more three logically possible meanings instead of just two. But the clearest disadvantage is HdW interpretation forces the explainer to tell a lie, ie. give a false explanation of the pair's AGREEMENTS. Explainer is not asked to describe his partner's hand, he is asked to explain what the AGREED meaning of partner's call is. I cannot believe that any Law in bridge or elsewhere forces a person to deliberately tell a lie, nor that we should implement a change in the Laws that forces a person to tell a lie = give false explanation of one's AGREEMENTS. Raija (Snipped rest) > > Regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 12 09:56:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:56:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c7ac69$b3df5510$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <001401c7ac1c$9a190060$6400a8c0@WINXP> <466D440B.90500@skynet.be> <000901c7ac69$b3df5510$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <466E51B8.90308@skynet.be> raija wrote: > > Herman writes: to Sven: >> But who are you to be saying that you know the intentions of L75D2? >> I read in L75D2 a very strong injunction _NOT_ to give UI, and _NOT_ >> to correct MI, _in any manner_!!! > > Raija, already regretting having written, writes: > It says not to correct MI (which I understand that if partner gives a > wrong explanation, one must not correct it until at the proper time > after auction or after hand is played) because that would give UI to > partner. No Law says one must give MI = false explanation about one's > AGREEMENTS - which is what Herman recommends. > Do you think I do not know this, Raija? The whole point about this debate is that you all seem to know what you should and should not do. When I point out that what you think you should do, breaks a law that I consider very strong, your only reply is that this law cannot mean what it says, because YOU KNOW that the other laws are stronger. This is circular reasoning. Face it Raija, the MS advises people to break two laws. As such, it is no worse than the dWS, which advises people to break one other law. If you want to argue that either law is stronger, please do so. But don't continue to hammer that my recommendations are illegal. So are yours. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 12 10:10:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:10:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466CF864.4010103@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>>The WBF has stated that "a player who, without design, makes >>>unauthorized information available to his partner does not >>>commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of >>>that information that is a breach of the laws". There is no >>>*design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that >>>the laws require him to answer. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: [snip] >>The Majority School abides by the Laws in accordance with the >>reinterpretation of the Lawbook by the WBF Code of Practice. >> >>What part of the original phrase quoted by Grattan, "does not >>commit an infraction of law or propriety", does Herman fail >>to understand? Herman De Wael: >I do not use authority, Sven, I use logic. Comment on my logic, >don't use authority. Richard Hills: Inventing a new oxymoron "illegal but acceptable" is logical? Herman De Wael: >I do not need a CoP reinterpretation to read L73B1. >Please find other arguments, this one won't work. >..... >Where did you read that? the CoP? Let's take it and see. >I just went through it and could not find the text Grattan was >referring to. >..... >Well, I still haven't seen any evidence of the WBF trying to >give guidelines in the dwS cases. Richard Hills: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Page seven of the WBF Code of Practice: "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws. "If it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that a player has intended to act in a way that will give unauthorized information to his partner, the Chief Director should be consulted as to the provisions of Law 73B1. If it is proven that such action has been prearranged with partner the committee consults the Chief Director concerning Law 73B2. Herman De Wael: >I do not believe that a player who follows the MS in a dws case >gives UI _without design_. Richard Hills: In my opinion Herman has made a grammatical error by taking "without design" out of the context of the sentence it was embedded in. The complete phrase is "a player who, without design," so it is referring to the player's design, not to an external design imposed by Law 75C and the Code of Practice. Herman's quibble that Grattan, one of the authors of the Code of Practice, has misinterpreted "without design", is clearly wrong when placed in the context of the above extended extract from page seven. (Of course, I am using "clearly wrong" on the assumption that the CoP page seven reader is the man on the Clapham omnibus, not the oxymoronic Herman De Wael.) Wikipedia, The man on the Clapham Omnibus: "The man on the Clapham omnibus is a descriptive formulation of a reasonably educated and intelligent but non-specialist person - a reasonable man [snip] In Australia, the "Clapham omnibus" expression inspired a local equivalent, "the man on the Bondi tram"." 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 Tue Jun 12 10:23:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:23:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466D71F3.1090202@t-online.de> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <466D587F.4060903@skynet.be> <466D71F3.1090202@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466E580C.7080501@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hello Herman, > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> MS: >>> Advantages - Easy to follow. Don`t worry, just tell the system, let the >>> TD handle the rest >>> >> Well, actually, this is not true. We are always talking about one type >> of cases, but there is a second and a third type. >> > > That is not what I actually meant, even though I agree with most of what > you write below. At the moment (if the player does it correctly, but > that applies always) the player just has to explain the system. That is > fairly easy to do, even if the consequences may get a bit complicated - > for the TD. > My point is that it is not always fairly easy to do - because a player does not necessarily know what the system is. After all, there are already two versions out there, and he is not allowed to go and check his system notes. And even if he is "fairly certain", he is not 100% certain, nor can he know what the TD will rule the actual system is. And whatever you may think the majority of cases is, there will always be cases where the player is absolutely uncertain. What is the MS advice for players like that? >> The first type is the one we are always talking of. A player makes a >> call, and his partner misexplains. >> > > May I point out (without making a judgement about it) that a player has > to use UI to apply the dWs? That is a clear infraction (even if the > intentions are honest). > No, it is not. As I have very often stated! A player is not allowed to base his calls or plays on UI, but other actions can be cased on UI. After all, the player is required to correct the MI before the lead, so that is also making use of UI. >> The second type is totally uninteresting, since both sides of the >> debate will give the same explanation: this is the case where a player >> misbids, and realizes that he has misbid when he hears his partner >> give a (correct) explanation. In this case the player needs to bid on >> as if he had the correct system all along, and he should explain his >> partners bids in the way partner intended them (dWs) or in the way >> the system goes (MS), which is the same explanation. >> > > I disagree (on two counts): It is not uninteresting, and what the player > has to do depends on whether he misbid (knowing what the system is, but > miscounting steps or whatever), or whether he forgot what the system is > and is woken up by partner. Looks like two different cases to me. In the > first variation the UI only focuses on one bid, in the second variation > he has to bid on according to his first view what the system is, which > may or may not make a difference. > Anyway, the MS and the dWS have no quarrel in this case, which is why it is never mentioned. >> But there is a third type of case. This occurs when the player hears >> an explanation which does not confirm to what he thought the system >> was, but now he is uncertain what the real system is. He cannot ask to >> see the CC, or call the TD, for fear of breaking L75D2. So, under the >> MS, he has a huge problem: does he continue with partner's >> explanation, which might be MI, or does he tell his own version, which >> is certainly UI and might also be MI? >> OTOH, the dWS really is simple: just explain his bid in the way he >> obviously intended it, even if that might be MI. >> > > That looks good on paper, and could certainly work with players who > understand and follow their responsibilities, but that is a very small > minority, isn`t it? I would not think so. > Most people do not understand what the laws ask them > to do. That is very harsh. Why are we then bothering to tell them what they should do. Let's forget about MS or dWS and simply tell them to shout at their partner that he's an idiot. We'll solve the UI issues ourselves. > The majority would probably do what is proper (and some may not, > if they can get away with it), if only they understood what that is. Which is precisely why we should give them advice. My advice is (IMO) the simpler one. I find it very disturbing to hear you say that a majority of players cannot follow advice, as an argument against the particular kind of advice that I give. Specifically after i've just argued that my advice is simpler than the other one. > The > percentage of would-be-cheats would be small (I hope), but the drawback > ( I agree with the advantages you list, to be sure) is that _it does not > show_! You have UI (partner does not understand the bid the way I > intended), you have to use that UI to recover, if you can recover the > opps will never know, so your use of UI will not be questioned. Very > dangerous ground. I don't see what this means - I don't think there is anything the opps won't know, since they will see your hand, which does not conform to the first explanation. If the first explanation does conform somewhat to your hand, you do have the option to try and cover up, but that option remains whether you use MS or dWS afterwards! > The current laws make it very difficult to cheat if the TD is competent, > and that is the way I would like it to remain. Do not tempt human > beings. They may be better than we sometimes think, but they are worse > than we want them to be, being only human. In most cases infractions are > based on ignorance or oversight, the very small rest we can handle with > disciplinary penalties, but giving them license to do something like > that and have them expect to get away with it is something I advise > very strongly indeed. What works with Herman at the table (who knows the > laws, being a TD and all that) does not necessarily have to work with > Mrs Guggenheim or Mr Smug, for whatever reason. > You seem to believe as if players are at the same time too stupid to follow simple advice and smart enough to cheat. If that is not your point, then why drag in Mrs Guggenheim. Your argument lacks clarity, Matthias. > One more type of case: Some bidding without someone asking, now partner > does something which cannot be right according to system (wrong number > of aces, fourth step in a yes/no situation, that sort of thing) and you > know a wheel has come off. What now? > You have nothing but AI, so, you can bid what you want. Sometimes it may be very tricky if they only ask about the second bid, and not about the first. My advice would be to treat the first question as the first one. It is then up to your partner to apply the dWS. example : 4NT (intended as minors) - (no question) pass - 5Di - (how many aces?) The reply should now be "diamond preference". You have not corrected partner's error, because you cannot know that he has made an error. If you can tell from your hand that he has made an error, and you reveal this, you have just given him more UI than in the first example. I believe that it is now up to partner to continue to explain 4NT as asking for minors, even if he is certain that this is not your system. >> >>> - Easy to spot a difference between the (alleged) >>> system and the hand >>> >>> >> I don't think there can be any problems about spotting the cases. >> After all, the previous bid has been misexplained, and this is bound >> to come accross. So I don't think this is an advantage. >> > > Well, see above. I think that is a marked advantage. The dWs may be well > and good with players who are all ethical ( I know some who are not, and > I am sure so do you. We can hope, but we shouldn`t put our faith in > inside straights...) and knowledgable (fat chance below a certain > level), but the percentage is way too low for my comfort. I think there > is no sense in making rules for the ideal player. > I think there is eminent sense in making this rule - if we cannot agree on what the advice should be, how then the ideal player? As for the cheating: I think you should need to clarify that argument. I do not see how following the dWS could be any more prone to cheating than the MS. > > < snipped > > >>> Disadvantages - More cheating potential? I have not really digested this >>> aspect yet, but it seems to me that a lot of abuse can be done, >>> especially in the lower echelons of (opponent`s) bridge ability.You >>> cannot cheat a good plaer twice with abuse of >>> dWs, but in the clubs? >>> >> This is one I have never before considered. I don't think we are >> talking about cheats here. > > I hope not, but then hope springs eternal. See above. Better make it > watertight. Even if the player is honest, there may be room for doubt, > and then you have to rule against him anyway, because what he did (in > all innocence) was what a cheat would do..... So in order to protect him > from being called a cheat behind his back we have to rule against him. > See current L72B1 and others. > I agree with the general argument. But I fail to see what a cheat could do in these circumstances? Both a player using the MS and the dWS will be able to claim that their previous bid was a misbid. Both will then explain partner's bid in the same manner (as he intended it, because that has now become the "correct" system). So there is no difference in the MS or the dWS as far as possible cheating is concerned. Is there? >> Of course a player who explains partners >> bids consistently might more easily claim misbid afterwards, whereas a >> player who explains conforming his own system can no longer do so. But >> does that open the way to cheats? I don't think so, since the cheat is >> the one that will claim his partner geve the correct explanation. > > Or the one who catches his partner`s "misbids" because partner tells him > so. There are lots of ways. This is even true of the current laws, but I > fear dWs would make it more... shall we say flexible? This will not work > on higher levels where people pick such things up pretty fast, but > further down? I am not so sure. Maybe I am a bit paranoid, but not being > paranoid is no guarantee that they are not out to get you.... > ;) Again, I think you are being paranoid. I have taught this dWS to many players in Antwerp, and they seem to understand it. The cases do not come up very frequently, that's true. >> If >> he does, he is bound to follow the advice of both schools, which are >> giving the same explanation (see above). So if the MS wins the debate, >> a cheat will still act in the same manner, while a dWs adept might >> cheat in a different way: he could still explain according to former >> explanation and then claim that partner had convinced him that his was >> the correct explanation. He will accept that the TD does not rule >> misbid, but he cannot be blamed for explaining the way he did, since >> he was not able to consult the CC and see who was right. >> > > The problem I see lies in not having to explain anything. Explanation > matched the hand, no questions asked, next board. In MS the explanation > does _not_ match the hand, so questions will be asked. My fear is that > those hands will not arouse the tinest suspicion, so it will work once > more. In fact, the longer I think about it the cheating potential turns > out to be my major grievance with the whole idea. If the AC found cause > to throw a pair out of a championship not long ago, who can say what > would happen at the club level where a few cheats can hide among lots of > people who simply don`t know enough of the laws to get it right, and > lots of people who do not know enough about bridge to catch them out? > Both in MS and in dWS the first explanation does not match the first hand. It is therefore not hard to catch these cases. And if the first explanation is sufficiently close to the hand, it is easier for a MS to "cheat" (by giving a dWS-type explanation) than for the dWS adept (who will give the explanation but also the correction afterwards). >> >>> - More difficult to follow. What should I tell >>> opps if I can see that partner has not replied to RKCB, but I have no >>> idea what he has done? If I guesss wrong the UI impact is no smaller >>> than in >>> MS >>> >>> >> Usually in cases like this the meaning of partner's next call is clear >> from his explanation of the previous one. Many cases never get to the >> dilemma stage because the opponents don't have to ask. If 4NT is >> explained as for minors, it is clear what 5Di means. > > And if the UI is used and the situation is not cleared up? I may sound > somewhat repetitive, but I have serious doubts about that. What if 5D is > passed or raised and the 4NT hand makes the explanation somewhat plausible? > But that is cheating with use of either school. My advice is not to cheat. Your advice makes cheating possible. >> Very >> occasionally, a partner will explain a bid according to a system that >> the bidder has never played before. But I think this is so very >> occasional that we don't really need to worry about it. Just explain >> what you think it means and if you're wrong, well, then at least your >> partner will think you have forgotten, but not that he has >> misinterpreted the previous bid. >> > > In which case there is UI both ways, which is no better than the current > situation. > >> Well, I have explained the dWS to many players, and they don't seem to >> have problems with it. It sounds strange at first, but if you tell >> them: "well, you know you should not shout at imbecile partner, so >> playing along with him should not be so difficult, should it?", they >> usually understand. >> >> The dWS advice is very simple: >> >> whenever your partner has explained your bid in a different manner >> than how you intended it, you should: >> a) interpret his bids and select your calls according to what you >> thought the system was; >> b) explain his calls at the table according to what he apparently >> thought the system was; >> c) call the TD and explain everything at the first legal opportunity - >> before the opening lead if your declaring side, after the board if >> you're defending. >> > > If I look at the number of players who can not remember (or be bothered > with) when they have to clear up some MI declaring/defending..... Maybe > your experiences have made you less pessimistic than me. > Well, it does not do us any harm to get good advice out there. If you are saying that 90% of players would not remember either advice, then perhaps it is best if we don't waste our breath. But that also means that there are 10% of players out there who are dying to know which of the 2 schools they should follow. > Tell you what,Herman: I have to leave now (and may or may not be back > today). How about listing all possible cases (forgotten system, misbid, > MI) in relation to when the questions started (so more or less the cases > we listed above, and any we didn`t come up with yet), followed by an > analysis about UI, MI, possible cheating, probable ruling under both > schools? Maybe you can get started. I suspect I will not be back before > tomorrow afternoon. Maybe someone else takes it up here, too. > by tomorrow, I will be leaving for Turkey. I hope to see many of you there, so that we can continue this interesting discussion over a beer or two ... hundred. I would offer to buy the beer, but I hear it won't cost anything. > Regards > Matthias > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 12 10:33:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:33:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage In-Reply-To: <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de><466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <466E5A71.7060503@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:34 AM > Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws > > >> The situation: the old, old conflict between the dWs and what Herman has >> termed the MS. >> >> We should now make good use of our time by discussing whether the _next_ >> version should look like the old one or whether the dWs works better, or >> whether the two can somehow be combined. I do not think that anybody >> denies that Herman has a point, so we should devote ourselves to how the >> next laws should be. Grattan and Ton (and probably others involved in >> that) are listening, even if they should (understandably, in my view) >> prefer not to express their opinions in this forum. In order to steer us >> in that direction I open this new thread. >> >> To get some system into this we should try to collect advantages and >> disadvantages for both positions (and maybe discover some new >> positions), discuss the effects on play and the players, and find out >> what is desirable, how to effect that, what is undesirable, and how to >> get rid of that. >> >> For a start I try my hand at some advantages and disadvantages. This >> will by necessity be inclompete as I have only one brain and have not >> thought about all the details. So please no catcalls from either side >> for leaving something out that has already be mentioned, or something I >> have simply overlooked. >> >> MS: >> Advantages - Easy to follow. Don`t worry, just tell the system, let the >> TD handle the rest >> - Easy to spot a difference between the (alleged) >> system and the hand >> >> Disadvantages - Lots of UI >> - Results prone to be 12C2 or C3 rulings if UI >> may have been used >> >> >> dWs: >> Advantages - More boards can be scored as played in relevant cases (if >> the description really matches the hand) > > Just a comment: > > It is possible that neither the systemic explanation nor the explainer's > guess matches the hand. Maybe explainer wasn't such a good diagnostic of > partner's thoughts. Or, maybe the bid has more three logically possible > meanings instead of just two. > > But the clearest disadvantage is HdW interpretation forces the explainer to > tell a lie, ie. give a false explanation of the pair's AGREEMENTS. > Explainer is not asked to describe his partner's hand, he is asked to > explain what the AGREED meaning of partner's call is. > I know that. But the clearest disadvantage in MS interpretation forces the explainer to give UI to partner, and clear up the misinformation in clear breach of L75D2. As to the second sentence: the agreed meaning is totally irrelevant to opponents. They prefer to know what partner's hand is. And incidentally, they are entitled to that knowledge! example: 4NT (intended as minors) - ? / Blackwood / pass - 5Di - ? how many aces / diamond preference. Do you really think that the opponents are interested in knowing that 5Di shows diamond preference, when it is clear that partner never intended that. And do you not agree that the opponents are entitled to know what your Blackwood responses are, so that they can learn that he has shown 1 ace? So you may call it a disadvantage that the dWS forces people to lie - I find that a very small disadvantage. Especially as opposed to the symmetric disadvantage to the MS. > I cannot believe that any Law in bridge or elsewhere forces a person to > deliberately tell a lie, nor that we should implement a change in the Laws > that forces a person to tell a lie = give false explanation of one's > AGREEMENTS. > I cannot believe that any Law in bridge forces a person to deliberately give his partner UI, nor that we should implement a change in the Laws that forces a person to give UI. There are already 2 laws that tell the player not to give this UI. Why should we now write a third law saying just the opposite of L73B1 and L75D2. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 12 11:11:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:11:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466E6342.8000608@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > Inventing a new oxymoron "illegal but acceptable" is logical? > Yes, I do think that - how do you want to call it? I though you had received the second merit badge, Richard, for realizing that the dWS does give a valid response to a dilemma. Neither of the 2 schools manages not to break at least one law in the lawbook, yet we accept that this is to avoid beaking another. Neither of the schools presents a fully legal solution, yet rather than calling them illegal, I coin the term "illegal but acceptable". I have stated that the actions of a MS follower are "illegal but acceptable". Please accept the same for the actions of a follower of the dWS. > Herman De Wael: > >> I do not need a CoP reinterpretation to read L73B1. >> Please find other arguments, this one won't work. >> ..... >> Where did you read that? the CoP? Let's take it and see. >> I just went through it and could not find the text Grattan was >> referring to. >> ..... >> Well, I still haven't seen any evidence of the WBF trying to >> give guidelines in the dwS cases. > > Richard Hills: > > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Page seven of > the WBF Code of Practice: > > "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information > available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or > propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of > the laws. > Aha, found it. Sorry. This is the penultimate sentence of a long paragraph entitled "use of unauthorized information". It deals with all sorts of UI, listed are 8 pieces, not one of which specifically relevant to our discussion. The sentence immediately above the cited sentence reads : "It is important to keep in mind which member of the partnership has the unauthorized information and to consider only that player?s actions when following the path to a judgement." I maintain that this paragraph is in no way specifically related to the discussion we are having. Which does not mean the sentence is invalid, of course. But it does shed a new light on the use of the words "without design" in the phrase. What are intended are cases such as pauses for thinking, relevant questions being asked, a whole range of real reasons why one should, accidentally, give UI. In that context is must be clear that what is intended is a reinforcement of what is written in L73B1: you are not allowed to communicate UI to partner, unless that is done _without design_. I therefore do not accept that this sentence can be used as proof that the actions of the MS become legal in the sense of not breaking L73B1. To add to which, nothing is said about L75D2. The actions of the MS are still in clear breach of L75D2. > "If it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that a player has > intended to act in a way that will give unauthorized information > to his partner, the Chief Director should be consulted as to the > provisions of Law 73B1. If it is proven that such action has > been prearranged with partner the committee consults the Chief > Director concerning Law 73B2. > Indeed - and any MS following is clearly an intentional giving of UI; perhaps I am being too lenient in my treatment of the MS as acceptable. > Herman De Wael: > >> I do not believe that a player who follows the MS in a dws case >> gives UI _without design_. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion Herman has made a grammatical error by taking > "without design" out of the context of the sentence it was > embedded in. > IMO Richard has made a logical error by omitting the words "without design" from his argument that makes the MS "legal". > The complete phrase is "a player who, without design," so it is > referring to the player's design, not to an external design > imposed by Law 75C and the Code of Practice. > Indeed, design, as in intent, reason, willing. Surely you do not call "diamond preference" as unintentional giving of UI? (when the player fully well realizes that the partner intended 5Di as meaning 1 ace). > Herman's quibble that Grattan, one of the authors of the Code of > Practice, has misinterpreted "without design", is clearly wrong > when placed in the context of the above extended extract from > page seven. (Of course, I am using "clearly wrong" on the > assumption that the CoP page seven reader is the man on the > Clapham omnibus, not the oxymoronic Herman De Wael.) > I am not commenting on the CoP, I am commenting on your use of that paragraph on a case where it wasn't intended, and with wrong results because YOU are omitting 2 words from the sentence to prove your point. > Wikipedia, The man on the Clapham Omnibus: -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 12 14:00:15 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:00:15 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__L12C3=2C_equity=2C_cons?= =?iso-8859-1?q?istency_and_the_field=2E?= References: <466D2C0B.1020607@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <466E8ACE.000004.47537@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Nigel In summary: it is unfortunate but inevitable that the application of a rule may effect the whole field who play a game; but the introduction of an overly subjective rule into the game of Bridge, that will sometimes affect the field, in accord with the God-like whim of a director -- in a way that is virtually undetectable, unprovable, and unappeallable -- seems unfair and unnecessary. AG : And ... ? When you have to decide between all or nothing, do you avoid subjectivity ? Will other TDs decide the same ? Do you avoid affecting the field by changing one result from -2 to made or the other way round ? Say you're uncertain about whether the right defense would have been found, that some persons you questioned found it, while others of the same level didn't. Please explain why giving down two, instead of a weighted score, will avoid inequity. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070612/5b7cff45/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/20070612/5b7cff45/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/20070612/5b7cff45/attachment-0001.gif From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 12 14:32:50 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:32:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <466E6342.8000608@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > Inventing a new oxymoron "illegal but acceptable" is logical? > Yes, I do think that - how do you want to call it? *** The purpose of law is to provide solutions to the problems of players with an emphasis on avoiding the creation of problems. Since the inception of blml [with there being one possible exception] no one who has posted has in anyway suggested that they have any inkling as the issue. And not only that, they hold the deepest belief that the issue is an invalid one and thus will never address it. The issue is providing a way that the game can be played where it is possible to bid and play without creating UI. To be succinct and to start, it is imperative for the law to state that a player?s last resort for obtaining disclosure during a hand is the question. To be less succinct, complete convention cards that have useful information [written in consistent locations], are exchanged and perused at the beginning of the round- asking questions before the round for clarification, players learn their own good tempo and maintain it, etc. etc, etc, etc????.and foremost, answer the question, ?how little disclosure is enough?? Of course that means players will need to devote adequate time to learn their system and prepare their CC. Perish the thought that players need to exert some effort in order to have a fair contest. How filthy that players are expected to read so as to minimize the creation of UI. And you know what, we?re going to have players not only become skillful more quickly but play in a manner that calls for less litigation. How terribly horrible. The questions are hard ones. And the answers are even harder because they call for judgments that man is afraid to make- those judgments are not merely difficult but require the greatest of wisdom. regards roger pewick -- Herman DE WAEL From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 12 14:42:30 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:42:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?utf-8?b?UsOpZi4gOiBSZTogIEwxMkMzLCBlcXVpdHksIGNvbnNpc3Rl?= =?utf-8?q?ncy_and_the_field=2E?= In-Reply-To: <466E8ACE.000004.47537@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <466D2C0B.1020607@NTLworld.com> <466E8ACE.000004.47537@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <466E94B6.6070001@NTLworld.com> [Alain GottcHeiner] AG : And ... ? When you have to decide between all or nothing, do you avoid subjectivity ? Will other TDs decide the same ? Do you avoid affecting the field by changing one result from -2 to made or the other way round ? Say you're uncertain about whether the right defense would have been found, that some persons you questioned found it, while others of the same level didn't. Please explain why giving down two, instead of a weighted score, will avoid inequity. [nige1] Two people will independently arrive at the same (subjective) all-or-none decision much more often than they will allocate the same percentage weightings. If we don't agree on that then let us just agree to differ. A difference in percentage weighting can have a drastic effect on the competition. Inconsistent rulings on the same facts are rightly perceived as unfair. 12C3 rulings are virtually unappeallable. If you deem an all-or-none ruling to be unfair, you can usually appeal it with some chance of success. Whatever the result of that appeal, justice is more likely to be perceived to be done. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 12 16:55:28 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:55:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466E6342.8000608@skynet.be> References: <466E6342.8000608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <466EB3E0.5040701@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > This is the penultimate sentence of a long paragraph entitled "use of > unauthorized information". It deals with all sorts of UI, listed are 8 > pieces, not one of which specifically relevant to our discussion. > The sentence immediately above the cited sentence reads : > "It is important to keep in mind which member of the partnership > has the unauthorized information and to consider only that player?s > actions when following the path to a judgement." > > I maintain that this paragraph is in no way specifically related to > the discussion we are having. It doesn`t have to. It says what it says, it does not have to "specifically relate" to something. > Which does not mean the sentence is > invalid, of course. > But it does shed a new light on the use of the words "without design" > in the phrase. What are intended are cases such as pauses for > thinking, relevant questions being asked, a whole range of real > reasons why one should, accidentally, give UI. In that context is must > be clear that what is intended is a reinforcement of what is written > in L73B1: you are not allowed to communicate UI to partner, unless > that is done _without design_. > Herman, has it ever dawned on you that doing something to follow a specific law may be _without design_ on the part of the player? If a certain law tells me to do this and that, and furthermore the WBFLC tell me that giving UI in that case is no infraction, what more do you need? Two members of the WBFLC have said on this list that this is so. If you need a voice out of burning bush I cannot help you. > I therefore do not accept that this sentence can be used as proof that > the actions of the MS become legal in the sense of not breaking L73B1. > Proof does not come into it. The legisative powers of my country do not have to prove to me that what they do is right. They may have to prove it in court if someone takes it to Bundesverfassungsgericht (sorry, no translation. The court for laws and such). Since the WBF has no such court the laws and what the WBFLC says about them is final until the law is changed or the WBFLC changes its mind. What I, you, my neighbour and Mrs. Guggenheim accept or not does not matter at all. > To add to which, nothing is said about L75D2. The actions of the MS > are still in clear breach of L75D2. > If I explain my system I do not "indicate" that a misunderstanding or error has occured. If my opps are intelligent enough to figure out what has happened, more power to them. > Indeed, design, as in intent, reason, willing. Surely you do not call > "diamond preference" as unintentional giving of UI? (when the player > fully well realizes that the partner intended 5Di as meaning 1 ace). > No, I call it a correct explanation of my agreement. Intention does not come into it, the law forces me to do so. 75C. No design, intent, whatever on my part. And the CoP tells anyone who cares to read it that there is no infraction on my part. There may well be an infraction by my partner later, but that is in the future, and for the TD to decide. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 12 17:27:27 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:27:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466D82FD.8070806@NTLworld.com> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <466D82FD.8070806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <466EBB5F.7080804@t-online.de> Nigel schrieb: > My tuppence worth on DISCLOSURE > > 1. What are our agreements? Are they > [A] What we currently remember of our discussions? That is the > interpretation favoured by Richard Hills but IMO it is too subjective. > [B] What is on our convention card? OK in so far as it goes but IMO it > does not go far enough. > [C] What we have verbally agreed plus what is is in our system notes > plus other agreed and implicit sources (books or whatever). IMO yes. > For example, to me (but not to Richard) the fact that one of us is lazy > and has never actually read the system notes is irrelevant -- they > remain part of our agreement. > I think you got Richard slightly wrong there. Anyway. I think (and I believe that Richard is with me here) that the agreements are everything agreed explicitly and implicitly, including everything _both_ knew at any stage has been put down in the notes or CC. If one forgets it still is an agreement, if you never were aware of it then it isn`t. For the last league match I gave our notes a work-over, and I put in something from another source which he could have seen, but I was quite sure he hadn`t. I sent it to him by mail. Guess what, he didn`t look into his inbox for 3 days. Did we have a new agreement superseding the old one? I don`t think so. Promptly it came up in the next match. I suddenly realized that I didn`t know whether he had read it (I know that he is somewhat unreliable when it comes to checking his email. He has to switch from telephone to modem by getting the thing out of the cupboard, switching connections, and then pray it actually works. It is not actually older than he is, it just feels that way, and he hates doing it. So I told my screenmate what the old system was, what the new system should be, and what odds I would apply. > > 5. Standard system anyone? > Not me :-) > [A] I've left this proposal to near the end because so far nobody agrees > with it. Note that proposals 1-4 don't depend on 5. > [B] The standard could be local (for example Simple English in the UK) > or better global (so far SAYC is the most likely candidate). > [C] A standard system would be easy for beginners to learn, perfect for > pick-up partners, and an automatic choice for no-fear competition and > individuals. > [D] The standard would be great for PR. You could organise events that > spectators could understand with the help of an ordinary sports commentator. > [E] It would simplify universal disclosure laws. You would disclose > (announce or alert) only departures from the standard system. > While I do not really disagree with the above I think it unworkable. Various federations have invested a lot of money in their own standard system (which makes all of them not standard at all, since they are not identical. My own federation has devised _two_ versions of the standard system....), and they want some return for that. They will never agree. > 6. Advantages and disadvantages. > [A] Advantages have been trumpeted by me, so often and at such length, > that even I am bored. Most are obvious to a child of three. > [B] Disadvantages are more subtle. > [C] Most BLMLERS ignore proposals Some reject them out of hand. A few > add a personal attack. There are welcome exceptions: > Frances Hinden kindly criticised the *standard system* proposal in > detail. Thank you Frances. Below are some of the many drawbacks that she > and others raised {with my defences in curly brackets} > [a] It would be impossible to agree a universal "standard system". {Fair > enough but the WBF could suggest a global default. Local legislators > could over-ride that default. In practice, events have overtaken > legislation at big on-line sites, where SAYC is virtually standard} > Please observe that online-bridge is a microcosmos of its own. People were more or less forced to agree on basic standards to play at all outside set games. If you look at the systems each player proposes it is no longer very standard. > [b] Beginners would find it hard to learn two systems {The standard > system is a prime candidate to teach to beginners. This would simplify > life for beginners because they would not need to alert/announce} > See further above. Literature on the system to be taught to beginners would become obsolete in quite a number of federations. > [c] Players would refuse to learn another system {I contend that local > alerting rules, for example the EBU Orange book, implicitly define a > complex system from > which you alert. This system is a kind of "local standard" but it is > nearly unplayable -- which is one reason so few players read or comply > with local regulations. In comparison with most alert rules, the > standard system is simple and coherent. It would also be useful for > playing with pick-up partners, anywhere. In practice, on-line, almost > everybody has SAYC as a second language} > [d] If the standard system were suitable for beginners it would be > inadequate for experts. {The system could be modular. Nice idea, but would that not force everyone to learn all modules to understand what opps are doing, or be where we started in the first place? > Modular extensions > would be of the form: > normally we proceed naturally here; but if you want a conventional > interpretation then this is it; this could result in a fully fledged > system -- like 2/1 say. > Such extensions would require a brief announcement or alert in low-level > competition but would be implicit in top level competition} > [e] If your system is completely non-standard, then you must > alert/announce almost every call, even if the meaning is completely > logical and natural in context. {true I'm afraid :( } > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jun 12 19:10:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:10:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466EB3E0.5040701@t-online.de> References: <466E6342.8000608@skynet.be> <466EB3E0.5040701@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466ED37C.1080405@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > Herman, has it ever dawned on you that doing something to follow a > specific law may be _without design_ on the part of the player? If a > certain law tells me to do this and that, and furthermore the WBFLC tell > me that giving UI in that case is no infraction, what more do you need? > Two members of the WBFLC have said on this list that this is so. If you > need a voice out of burning bush I cannot help you. > Now you are clutching at very tiny straws. you take a sentence which reinterprets a law in a way that we know how it works, and interpret that same sentence to say some other part of the laws mean some other thing altogether. And then you say I should rest my case because the WBF have issued a proclamation? The sentence in the CoP says nothing about L75D2. The MS actions break L75D2. My points remain. >> I therefore do not accept that this sentence can be used as proof that >> the actions of the MS become legal in the sense of not breaking L73B1. >> > > Proof does not come into it. The legisative powers of my country do not > have to prove to me that what they do is right. They may have to prove > it in court if someone takes it to Bundesverfassungsgericht (sorry, no > translation. The court for laws and such). Since the WBF has no such > court the laws and what the WBFLC says about them is final until the law > is changed or the WBFLC changes its mind. What I, you, my neighbour and > Mrs. Guggenheim accept or not does not matter at all. > If the WBFLC have decided this, so be it. I have not seen anything from Ton or Grattan except some derogatory remarks and a sentence from the CoP that barely reflects on this matter and that I may well use in defence of my positions. >> To add to which, nothing is said about L75D2. The actions of the MS >> are still in clear breach of L75D2. >> > > If I explain my system I do not "indicate" that a misunderstanding or > error has occured. If my opps are intelligent enough to figure out what > has happened, more power to them. > Sorry but "indicate in any manner" seems very strong to me. I don't want to have that discussion again and again. >> Indeed, design, as in intent, reason, willing. Surely you do not call >> "diamond preference" as unintentional giving of UI? (when the player >> fully well realizes that the partner intended 5Di as meaning 1 ace). >> > > No, I call it a correct explanation of my agreement. Intention does not > come into it, the law forces me to do so. 75C. No design, intent, > whatever on my part. And the CoP tells anyone who cares to read it that > there is no infraction on my part. There may well be an infraction by my > partner later, but that is in the future, and for the TD to decide. > No design of your part? When you've been having this discussion and you know that there is an alternative: shutting up - you don't think that explaining your so-called "agreements" is not a designed way of giving UI to partner? I really don't see how you can live with yourself when reading L75D2. What would you think of a player who does this: - he bids 4NT, intending minors - LHO asks for an explanation and partner says "Blackxood" - partner bids 5Di - the player now says, "actually, opponents, 4NT was not Blackwood at all" Is that a breach of L75D2 or not? Now, instead of saying it like this, the player waits for his RHO to look at the CC, and before he can read it, the guy says "diamond preference". Is that a breach of L75D2? Or then the third version: RHO asks how many aces there are, and he replies "diamond preference". I really don't see how the third cannot be a breach of L75D2. Now maybe the WBFLC wishes to do away with L75D2 altogether, and change the way bridge is played. But until then, I maintain that the dWS comes closer to the intentions of the WBF when they wrote L75D2, than does the MS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 12 19:36:11 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:36:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466EBB5F.7080804@t-online.de> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <466D82FD.8070806@NTLworld.com> <466EBB5F.7080804@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466ED98B.5060800@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] > My tuppence worth on DISCLOSURE > 1. What are our agreements? Are they > [A] What we currently remember of our discussions? That is the > interpretation favoured by Richard Hills but IMO it is too subjective. > [B] What is on our convention card? OK in so far as it goes but IMO it > does not go far enough. > [C] What we have verbally agreed plus what is is in our system notes > plus other agreed and implicit sources (books or whatever). IMO yes. > For example, to me (but not to Richard) the fact that one of us is lazy > and has never actually read the system notes is irrelevant -- they > remain part of our agreement. [Matthias Berghaus] I think you got Richard slightly wrong there. Anyway. I think (and I believe that Richard is with me here) that the agreements are everything agreed explicitly and implicitly, including everything _both_ knew at any stage has been put down in the notes or CC. If one forgets it still is an agreement, if you never were aware of it then it isn`t. For the last league match I gave our notes a work-over, and I put in something from another source which he could have seen, but I was quite sure he hadn`t. I sent it to him by mail. Guess what, he didn`t look into his inbox for 3 days. Did we have a new agreement superseding the old one? I don`t think so. Promptly it came up in the next match. I suddenly realized that I didn`t know whether he had read it (I know that he is somewhat unreliable when it comes to checking his email. He has to switch from telephone to modem by getting the thing out of the cupboard, switching connections, and then pray it actually works. It is not actually older than he is, it just feels that way, and he hates doing it. So I told my screenmate what the old system was, what the new system should be, and what odds I would apply. [nige2] Thank you for all the comments Miatthias. Apologies to Richard Hill for misrepresenting his position. I accept that implicit agreements and discussions must be disclosed; but, IMO, the convention card and system notes are objective evidence. That is why I'm so keen on them being accurate. > [Nigel] > > 5. Standard system anyone? > > [A] I've left this proposal to near the end because so far nobody agrees > > with it. Note that proposals 1-4 don't depend on 5. > > [B] The standard could be local (for example Simple English in the UK) > > or better global (so far SAYC is the most likely candidate). > > [C] A standard system would be easy for beginners to learn, perfect for > > pick-up partners, and an automatic choice for no-fear competition and > > individuals. > > [D] The standard would be great for PR. You could organise events that > > spectators could understand with the help of an ordinary sports > commentator. > > [E] It would simplify universal disclosure laws. You would disclose > > (announce or alert) only departures from the standard system. > > [Matthias] Not me :-) While I do not really disagree with the above I think it unworkable. Various federations have invested a lot of money in their own standard system (which makes all of them not standard at all, since they are not identical. My own federation has devised _two_ versions of the standard system....), and they want some return for that. They will never agree. [nige2] You may be right and that is a pity. Whatever the default standard, however, a legislature can over-ride it with its local preference. It would lose some of the benefits of a standard system. But disclosure laws would still be simple and global -- you would alert/announce departures from your *local* standard. > [Nigel] > > 6. Advantages and disadvantages. > > [A] Advantages have been trumpeted by me, so often and at such length, > > that even I am bored. Most are obvious to a child of three. > > [B] Disadvantages are more subtle. > > [C] Most BLMLERS ignore proposals. Some reject them out of hand. A few > > add a personal attack. There are welcome exceptions: > > Frances Hinden kindly criticised the *standard system* proposal in > > detail. Thank you Frances. Below are some of the many drawbacks that she > > and others raised {with my defences in curly brackets} > > [a] It would be impossible to agree a universal "standard system". {Fair > > enough but the WBF could suggest a global default. Local legislators > > could over-ride that default. In practice, events have overtaken > > legislation at big on-line sites, where SAYC is virtually standard} [Matthias] Please observe that online-bridge is a microcosmos of its own. People were more or less forced to agree on basic standards to play at all outside set games. If you look at the systems each player proposes it is no longer very standard. [nige2] Most young players play on-line. So what may be be partially true of the current generation of Bridge-players is unlikely to be true for the next generation. > [Nigel] > > [b] Beginners would find it hard to learn two systems {The standard > > system is a prime candidate to teach to beginners. This would simplify > > life for beginners because they would not need to alert/announce} [Matthias] See further above. Literature on the system to be taught to beginners would become obsolete in quite a number of federations. [nige2] Standard system documentation could be kept up-to-date on line. With any luck it would not change too much. For example Culbertson would find few surprises in 2/1. > [Nigel] > > [c] Players would refuse to learn another system {I contend that local > > alerting rules, for example the EBU Orange book, implicitly define a > > complex system from > > which you alert. This system is a kind of "local standard" but it is > > nearly unplayable -- which is one reason so few players read or comply > > with local regulations. In comparison with most alert rules, the > > standard system is simple and coherent. It would also be useful for > > playing with pick-up partners, anywhere. In practice, on-line, almost > > everybody has SAYC as a second language} > > [d] If the standard system were suitable for beginners it would be > > inadequate for experts. {The system could be modular. [Matthias] Nice idea, but would that not force everyone to learn all modules to understand what opps are doing, or be where we started in the first place? [nige2] That is a problem, Mathias, but I attempted a partial answer in the next paragraph. > [Nigel] > > Modular extensions would be of the form: > > normally we proceed naturally here; but if you want a conventional > > interpretation then this is it; this could result in a fully fledged > > system -- like 2/1 say. > > Such extensions would require a brief announcement or alert in low-level > > competition but would be implicit in top level competition} > > [e] If your system is completely non-standard, then you must > > alert/announce almost every call, even if the meaning is completely > > logical and natural in context. {true I'm afraid :( } > > [nige2] Anyway, thank you again for your comments, Matthias. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 12 21:40:23 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:40:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466ED37C.1080405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c7ad29$852c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> Somehow against my interest I shall give you these single answers to your very precise questions: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > What would you think of a player who does this: > - he bids 4NT, intending minors > - LHO asks for an explanation and partner says "Blackxood" > - partner bids 5Di > - the player now says, "actually, opponents, 4NT was not Blackwood at all" > > Is that a breach of L75D2 or not? That is a clear violation of L75D2. > Now, instead of saying it like this, the player waits for his RHO to > look at the CC, and before he can read it, the guy says "diamond > preference". Is that a breach of L75D2? No, it is not a breach of L75D2, it is a much more severe violation of Law 74, particularly L74A3 and L74B2, maybe also other laws. Nobody has asked him for any explanation or comment on the auction and it is highly illegal for him to give any such explanation or comment without being asked. I assume of course that we are not under any jurisdiction where "announcements" of certain calls, possibly including 4NT and responses, are required by regulation. > Or then the third version: RHO asks how many aces there are, and he > replies "diamond preference". > > I really don't see how the third cannot be a breach of L75D2. To quote Perry Mason: "Maybe this is caused by legal astigmatism?" OK, so you are unable to see the difference between commenting on your partner's explanation and giving your own explanation. But this time you do not say in so many words that your partner's explanation was incorrect; you give the (in your opinion) correct explanation of the 5D bid exactly as Law 75C requires you to do. Then you just leave it to your opponents to draw their own inferences that either you or your partner, or maybe even both of you, have given incorrect explanations. Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 12 22:38:58 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:38:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466ED37C.1080405@skynet.be> References: <466E6342.8000608@skynet.be> <466EB3E0.5040701@t-online.de> <466ED37C.1080405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <466F0462.60201@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Herman, has it ever dawned on you that doing something to follow a >> specific law may be _without design_ on the part of the player? If a >> certain law tells me to do this and that, and furthermore the WBFLC tell >> me that giving UI in that case is no infraction, what more do you need? >> Two members of the WBFLC have said on this list that this is so. If you >> need a voice out of burning bush I cannot help you. >> >> > > Now you are clutching at very tiny straws. you take a sentence which > reinterprets a law in a way that we know how it works, and interpret > that same sentence to say some other part of the laws mean some other > thing altogether. And then you say I should rest my case because the > WBF have issued a proclamation? > > The sentence in the CoP says nothing about L75D2. The MS actions break > L75D2. My points remain. > > And so any discussion must necessarily come to an end. We will not come any nearer, there is no sense whatsoever to continue. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 12 23:27:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:27:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (ancient posting): >Therefore, I prefer to use a dictionary definition of >"rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would >rule that the cards should be arranged from the least >rancid to the most rancid. Richard Hills (current posting): As the above "reductio ad absurdum" posting shows, it is easy to recklessly misinterpret Law if one chooses to abandon the principle that words and Laws should be interpreted in context. Herman De Wael has abandoned principle by his reckless misinterpretation of Law 75D. He misinterpreted some disputed words in the second paragraph of Law 75D in an attempt to justify an action which was directly contrary to indisputable words in the first paragraph of Law 75D: "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)." Although Herman De Wael recklessly misclaimed that he applied logic as the basis of his De Wael School, he ignored the ancient Euclidean logical principle of "reductio ad absurdum". The De Wael School ignored the first paragraph of Law 75D by asserting the absurd proposition that not only is the Lawbook and the specific Law 75D written in an inconsistent way, but also the Laws _must be interpreted_ in such an inconsistent way. That is, the De Wael School absurdly asserted that in a routine situation in which there has been no prior infraction, not only are there two equally valid interpretations of the Lawbook, but also _both_ of those valid interpretations cause a player to infract Law. In order to minimise reckless misinterpretations of the Lawbook by Appeal Committees and Directors (and for other good reasons, such as, for example, helping players discover proper procedure), the Lausanne Group created the Code of Practice on behalf of the World Bridge Federation. One of the Lausanne Group authors, Ton Kooijman, noted: "I should have known, this is not interesting at all and Herman is wrong saying that the LC has not answered this question. We did not give his answer and that for sure is unforgivable." Another of the Lausanne Group authors, Grattan Endicott, quoted the specific words in the Code of Practice which refuted the De Wael School. But - surprise, surprise - Herman then recklessly misinterpreted the Code of Practice, showing chutzpah by arguing that he understood what the Lausanne Group had written better than two Lausanne Group members did themselves. Definition of chutzpah: "A person who has murdered both parents pleads for leniency from the judge on the grounds of being an orphan." :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 13 08:44:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:44:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D 2C(1) Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, with at least 5/5 in the majors You, South, hold: J6 A972 AK984 J4 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 13 09:32:06 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:32:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070613092656.02802030@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:44 13/06/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1D >2C(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, >with at least 5/5 in the majors > >You, South, hold: > >J6 >A972 >AK984 >J4 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I call "over 1D ? Are you sure ?". Then I look once again at my partner's card (or ask for a review of the auction). As for my bid : it depends on the system you are playing - or rather it doesn't. Classical bidding calls for 2H, showing a stopper there. "Unusual vs unusual" calls, by chance, for 2H, showing limit+ raise in diamonds. One might double, classically showing an intent to penalize, but that would be a bizarre assessment. If double means "they've stolen my bid", it might be considered. But I'll stick with my 2H, whatever it means. Best regards Alain From tzimnoch at comcast.net Wed Jun 13 10:21:57 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:21:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466FA925.5020503@comcast.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I am passing. I consider double. -Todd From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 13 10:05:27 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:05:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070613092656.02802030@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070613092656.02802030@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <015201c7ad91$9a6daa90$9b00000a@bridge.corp> I am afraid Alain mislooked at the hand. It is South again to bid, after pd and rho pass. I agree with Alain though. I would ask some very strong questions before I believe what is going on here. If after this grilling the explanations stay the same I would probably pass. I actually see no real alternative to pass, but if you wrestle my arm I would bid 2D. If the explanations are correct this is a gigantic misfit. If the explanations are not correct the TD will have to sort out the mess. I cannot at this point. But wait, I suddenly realize this might be with screens. Is it? If so it makes sense, West is just confused, and North might now have a penalty pass over 2C(which for him of course will not be alerted), in which case my normal bid just might be dbl. That bid is normally already dangerous(suppose pd bids 2S) but given the explanation I have now it becomes almost suicidal. Hans -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens Alain Gottcheiner Verzonden: woensdag 13 juni 2007 9:32 Aan: richard.hills at immi.gov.au; blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] At 16:44 13/06/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1D >2C(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, >with at least 5/5 in the majors > >You, South, hold: > >J6 >A972 >AK984 >J4 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I call "over 1D ? Are you sure ?". Then I look once again at my partner's card (or ask for a review of the auction). As for my bid : it depends on the system you are playing - or rather it doesn't. Classical bidding calls for 2H, showing a stopper there. "Unusual vs unusual" calls, by chance, for 2H, showing limit+ raise in diamonds. One might double, classically showing an intent to penalize, but that would be a bizarre assessment. If double means "they've stolen my bid", it might be considered. But I'll stick with my 2H, whatever it means. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 13 10:14:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:14:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466FA74F.3000407@skynet.be> Richard, where do you think you are heading with this? richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills (ancient posting): > >> Therefore, I prefer to use a dictionary definition of >> "rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would >> rule that the cards should be arranged from the least >> rancid to the most rancid. > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > As the above "reductio ad absurdum" posting shows, it > is easy to recklessly misinterpret Law if one chooses > to abandon the principle that words and Laws should be > interpreted in context. > It is easy to talk about something else and then let it appear that I have been guilty of the above crime. Unless you care to tell me which sections I have misinterpreted, I refuse to allow anyone to believe I have done so. This is the first paragraph of this post that tells us nothing interesting. > Herman De Wael has abandoned principle by his reckless > misinterpretation of Law 75D. He misinterpreted some > disputed words in the second paragraph of Law 75D in > an attempt to justify an action which was directly > contrary to indisputable words in the first paragraph > of Law 75D: > > "If a player subsequently realises that his own > explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must > immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 > or Law 40C)." > The only person who has given a wrong explanation is the partner, and he realises nothing. So that paragraph is not worth anything in that respect. There is indeed a second misexplanation, but there is no "subsequent" realisation of it. You criticise me for telling a person to give misinformation, and I accept that criticism. There is no sense in dragging another law in that merely continues the first breaking of law. We know the player of the dWS has broken one law. Get on with it. OK, this second paragraph of Richard's has a small interesting point. > Although Herman De Wael recklessly misclaimed that he > applied logic as the basis of his De Wael School, he > ignored the ancient Euclidean logical principle of > "reductio ad absurdum". The De Wael School ignored > the first paragraph of Law 75D by asserting the absurd > proposition that not only is the Lawbook and the > specific Law 75D written in an inconsistent way, but > also the Laws _must be interpreted_ in such an > inconsistent way. That is, the De Wael School > absurdly asserted that in a routine situation in which > there has been no prior infraction, not only are there > two equally valid interpretations of the Lawbook, but > also _both_ of those valid interpretations cause a > player to infract Law. > Well, you have just summarised my position, which can be said in one sentence, in three long sentences that no-one understands. Third paragraph to be thrown out. > In order to minimise reckless misinterpretations of > the Lawbook by Appeal Committees and Directors (and > for other good reasons, such as, for example, helping > players discover proper procedure), the Lausanne Group > created the Code of Practice on behalf of the World > Bridge Federation. One of the Lausanne Group authors, > Ton Kooijman, noted: > > "I should have known, this is not interesting at all > and Herman is wrong saying that the LC has not > answered this question. We did not give his answer > and that for sure is unforgivable." > Quoting other people is not bringing anything new. Especially when quoting people when they are telling untruths. I have never received, from Ton or Grattan, any reply in which they told us the dWS is unacceptable. I urge them to do so, but I urge them even more to avoid doing so, as the bridge laws deserve better. > Another of the Lausanne Group authors, Grattan > Endicott, quoted the specific words in the Code of > Practice which refuted the De Wael School. > A theory which I have subsequently three times refuted. The sentence in the CoP does not refer to the dWS, and brings nothing to the discussion at hand. > But - surprise, surprise - Herman then recklessly > misinterpreted the Code of Practice, showing chutzpah > by arguing that he understood what the Lausanne Group > had written better than two Lausanne Group members did > themselves. misinterpreted? sorry - I read the same words than you, but I did not hear what I wanted to hear so I did not interpret it that way. > > Definition of chutzpah: > > "A person who has murdered both parents pleads for > leniency from the judge on the grounds of being an > orphan." > > :-) > This post is yet another ad hominem attack. Since the attacks on the points of law have failed, Richard now attacks the messenger, and calls in experts who have not said what Richard thinks they have. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 13 10:18:15 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:18:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c7ad29$852c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c7ad29$852c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <466FA847.5080005@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Somehow against my interest I shall give you these single answers to your > very precise questions: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> What would you think of a player who does this: >> - he bids 4NT, intending minors >> - LHO asks for an explanation and partner says "Blackxood" >> - partner bids 5Di >> - the player now says, "actually, opponents, 4NT was not Blackwood at all" >> >> Is that a breach of L75D2 or not? > > That is a clear violation of L75D2. > Thank you. >> Now, instead of saying it like this, the player waits for his RHO to >> look at the CC, and before he can read it, the guy says "diamond >> preference". Is that a breach of L75D2? > > No, it is not a breach of L75D2, it is a much more severe violation of Law > 74, particularly L74A3 and L74B2, maybe also other laws. Nobody has asked > him for any explanation or comment on the auction and it is highly illegal > for him to give any such explanation or comment without being asked. > > I assume of course that we are not under any jurisdiction where > "announcements" of certain calls, possibly including 4NT and responses, are > required by regulation. > Correct Assumption. But how can you say that this is not a violation of L75D2? Only because you want to reinterpret L75D2 can you say such a thing. This really is incredible. According to Sven, the sentences "4NT was not Blackwood" and "5Di shows diamond preference" do not mean the same thing! This really makes me wanna throw up. I'm not going to comment any further on Sven's reply. If you want to misinterpret like this, there is no point discussing with you. >> Or then the third version: RHO asks how many aces there are, and he >> replies "diamond preference". >> >> I really don't see how the third cannot be a breach of L75D2. > > To quote Perry Mason: "Maybe this is caused by legal astigmatism?" > > OK, so you are unable to see the difference between commenting on your > partner's explanation and giving your own explanation. > > But this time you do not say in so many words that your partner's > explanation was incorrect; you give the (in your opinion) correct > explanation of the 5D bid exactly as Law 75C requires you to do. Then you > just leave it to your opponents to draw their own inferences that either you > or your partner, or maybe even both of you, have given incorrect > explanations. > Incredible! I hope most of you see through this silly argumentation. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jun 12 15:38:15 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:38:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000801c7ac41$e2a9f7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <466D79BC.2080403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c7ad9c$3a72e460$129d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Words are but the signs of ideas; I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent like the things they denote. " (Samuel Johnson) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> I find it not difficult at all, especially because this (my) >> understanding conforms to everything I have been told >. from authoritative sources. >> > > And I dare to say all authorative sources are wrong. > I do not use authority, Sven, I use logic. Comment on > my logic, don't use authority. > +=+ And that is it really. For Herman his 'logic' is superior to any interpretation authorized by the Statutes and ByLaws of the Federations, Zones, World Federation, under whose auspices the tournaments are organized in which he plays. 'Nuff said - no point in arguing with a brick wall. At the same time it is not by the application of Herman's 'logic' that the Directors and appeals committees will determine the law in those tournaments. +=+ < +=+ Did I see somewhere a question whether the following extract is in fact taken from the CoP? "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." The doubter should read the last two paragraphs of the section headed 'Use of unauthorized information'. In the obedience to the law on disclosure there is no 'design' of the compliant player; the 'design' is that of the legislator. (I say this not for Herman's benefit - that will not accrue - but for the record.) +=+ < +=+ I read, too, that : "The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons against an opposing view without considering reasons for it." With respect to the author of that sophistry, I respond quite simply that the fallacy lies in the suggestion that reasons, opinions, other than those of authority, have any importance. We are dealing with a game that has rules and also Directors empowered to determine their application in play, authorities with power to determine the principles and the interpretations of the rules that the Directors and appeals committees, like the players, are subject to. One can discuss preferences, desirability, but not the fact of a law when that fact is laid down by an authority empowered to say how it shall be construed. +=+ < +=+ Lastly, from time to time in this thread there have been mentions of the members of the WBF drafting committee who read what appears here. There are four of the seven members who reveal that they do so, to what extent I am unsure. The opinions expressed here may sometimes become lodged in the mind of at least one of those four - this has something to do with a judgement each of us makes as to the realism of the author (some contributors are perhaps judged to be more 'with the game' than others). If we have a common concern it may be lest some of what is written here could lead the inexperienced reader to award a semblance of gravitas to assertions and propositions that are at variance with the laws and interpretations by which the game is currently ordered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 13 11:31:03 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:31:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <466FA847.5080005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c7ad9d$8fdb8eb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > >> Now, instead of saying it like this, the player waits for his RHO to > >> look at the CC, and before he can read it, the guy says "diamond > >> preference". Is that a breach of L75D2? > > > > No, it is not a breach of L75D2, it is a much more severe violation > > of Law 74, particularly L74A3 and L74B2, maybe also other laws. > > Nobody has asked him for any explanation or comment on the auction > > and it is highly illegal for him to give any such explanation or > > comment without being asked. > > > > I assume of course that we are not under any jurisdiction where > > responses, "announcements" of certain calls, possibly including > > 4NT and are required by regulation. > > > > Correct Assumption. > But how can you say that this is not a violation of L75D2? Because it is primarily a much more severe violation of Law 74 (as I said) and should be penalized as such. The violation would have been be the same also if his remark had been something like "one ace" (confirming that partner's explanation was correct and that the remark therefore definitely could not be a violation of L75D2). ........ Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 13 11:37:04 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:37:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c7ad9c$3a72e460$129d87d9@Hellen> References: <000801c7ac41$e2a9f7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <466D79BC.2080403@skynet.be> <000901c7ad9c$3a72e460$129d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <466FBAC0.7050508@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > " Words are but the signs of ideas; > I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and > that signs might be permanent like the things they denote. " > (Samuel Johnson) > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> I find it not difficult at all, especially because this (my) >>> understanding conforms to everything I have been told >> . from authoritative sources. >>> >> >> And I dare to say all authorative sources are wrong. >> I do not use authority, Sven, I use logic. Comment on my logic, don't >> use authority. >> > +=+ And that is it really. For Herman his 'logic' is superior to any > interpretation authorized by the Statutes and ByLaws of the > Federations, Zones, World Federation, under whose auspices the > tournaments are organized in which he plays. 'Nuff said - no point in > arguing with a brick wall. At the same time it is not by the > application of Herman's 'logic' that the Directors and appeals > committees will determine the law in those tournaments. +=+ > < I'm really very sorry, Grattan, but I have never seen anything from your sources that directly concerns this problem. I would very much like to talk this out with you and Ton. Maybe sometime next week, over dinner? > +=+ Did I see somewhere a question whether the following extract is in > fact taken from the CoP? "A player who, without design, makes > unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an > infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that > is a breach of the laws." Did you read my reply to that one, Grattan? That paragraph deals with the player who needs to think, or needs to ask a question. Although both those things are UI, the player has given that "without design". The player faced with the dWS dilemma, however, does have a valid choice (*), and so if he choses to follow the MS, he gives UI, _with design_. I don't think that this particular phrase was written with the dWS in mind, and this is why I don't "accept" it as "proof". Anyway, the player who choses to follow the MS not only breaks L73B1 (or not, if your interpretation holds), but he also breaks L75D2. That still leaves his actions to be illegal. (*) You might think the dWS is not a valid alternative, and that therefore the UI is given _without design_. However, you use this phrase as proof for the invalidity of the dWS, which is circular reasoning. > The doubter should read the last two paragraphs of the > section headed 'Use of unauthorized information'. In the obedience to > the law on disclosure there is no 'design' of the compliant player; the > 'design' is that of the legislator. (I say this not for Herman's benefit > - that will not accrue - but for the record.) +=+ < +=+ I read, too, > that : > "The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis > without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons against > an opposing view without considering reasons for it." I don't remember who wrote this, certainly not I. > With respect to the author of that sophistry, I respond quite > simply that the fallacy lies in the suggestion that reasons, opinions, > other than those of authority, have any importance. We are dealing with > a game that has rules and also Directors empowered to determine their > application in play, authorities with power to determine the principles > and the interpretations of the rules that the Directors and appeals > committees, like the players, are subject to. OK, Grattan, but up until now I dare you to show me any piece written by anyone with a reasoned NO to the dWS. I don't mean Ton's one liner at the start of this new set of argumentation. > One can discuss preferences, desirability, but not the fact of a > law when that fact is laid down by an authority empowered to say how it > shall be construed. +=+ I have been faithful to the lawbook at every stage of my expose. Do you not agree that L75D2 is broken by a follower of the MS? Some people find that this is not so - I should urge them to read the Lawbook. > < > +=+ Lastly, from time to time in this thread there have been mentions of > the members of the WBF drafting committee who > read what appears here. There are four of the seven members > who reveal that they do so, to what extent I am unsure. The opinions > expressed here may sometimes become lodged in the mind of at least one > of those four - this has something to do with a judgement each of us > makes as to the realism of the author (some contributors are perhaps > judged to be more 'with the game' than others). If we have a > common concern it may be lest some of what is written here could lead > the inexperienced reader to award a semblance of gravitas to assertions > and propositions that are at variance with the laws and interpretations > by which the game is currently ordered. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If you believe that the dWS is to be totally written off, then please express that belief, Grattan. But not before you take note of my 5 grave reasons in favor of the dWS, please. Those 5 are reasons that have nothing to do with the current acceptability of the dWS, but are reasons why the WBF should _NOT_ settle this debate by outlawing the dWS altogether. I'm not really advocating they outlas the MS either, but it would be a grave mistake to change the laws in such a way that it becomes obligatory for a player to reveal mistakes and give UI. That way ahead lies madness. I mean it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed Jun 13 13:08:38 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:08:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466FD036.7010503@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dlr: South >Vul: Nil > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1D >2C(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, >with at least 5/5 in the majors > >You, South, hold: > >J6 >A972 >AK984 >J4 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > > I pass. I consider double or 2D. I have close to minimal opening strength and they have misfit. There is an important question: what's in our system, the 1D open? 3+ or 4+ or 4+ UNBAL, etc? I see, partner did not raise my diamonds, but don't know why. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jun 13 12:31:55 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:31:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Chutzpah - was Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002f01c7ada6$6a3086d0$beb987d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Words are but the signs of ideas; I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent like the things they denote. " (Samuel Johnson) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Definition of chutzpah: > > "A person who has murdered both parents > pleads for leniency from the judge on the > grounds of being an orphan." > +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibilty of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 13 13:09:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:09:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c7ad9d$8fdb8eb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c7ad9d$8fdb8eb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <466FD05E.9060709@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >>>> Now, instead of saying it like this, the player waits for his RHO to >>>> look at the CC, and before he can read it, the guy says "diamond >>>> preference". Is that a breach of L75D2? >>> No, it is not a breach of L75D2, it is a much more severe violation >>> of Law 74, particularly L74A3 and L74B2, maybe also other laws. >>> Nobody has asked him for any explanation or comment on the auction >>> and it is highly illegal for him to give any such explanation or >>> comment without being asked. >>> >>> I assume of course that we are not under any jurisdiction where >>> responses, "announcements" of certain calls, possibly including >>> 4NT and are required by regulation. >>> >> Correct Assumption. >> But how can you say that this is not a violation of L75D2? > > Because it is primarily a much more severe violation of Law 74 (as I said) > and should be penalized as such. The violation would have been be the same > also if his remark had been something like "one ace" (confirming that > partner's explanation was correct and that the remark therefore definitely > could not be a violation of L75D2). > ........ But I was not asking which was the worst infraction - I was asking if it was an infraction of L75D2. And you answered emphatically NO. And that is wrong. OK? So then go on and ask the third question again - if the question is asked "how many aces" (note that there is now no longer an infraction of L74), is there then still an infraction of L75D2 when the 4NT bidder answers "4NT was not Blackwood". And don't tell me that "4NT was not Blackwood" and "5Di shows diamond preference" are not the same thing. They are. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed Jun 13 13:35:44 2007 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:35:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] reserve rights Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070613/35c2768c/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 13 13:43:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:43:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Chutzpah - was Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01c7ada6$6a3086d0$beb987d9@Hellen> References: <002f01c7ada6$6a3086d0$beb987d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <466FD86A.9080103@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ********************** > " Words are but the signs of ideas; > I wish, however, that the instrument > might be less apt to decay, and that > signs might be permanent like the > things they denote. " > (Samuel Johnson) > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:27 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 1 - mephitic order > (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Definition of chutzpah: >> >> "A person who has murdered both parents >> pleads for leniency from the judge on the >> grounds of being an orphan." >> > +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by > the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. > Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This > is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes > repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not > as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing > an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - > authorized - interpretation, the value and credibilty of > the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, > noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not > persevering with research of the wholesome parts > for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie > there. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Indeed, if people, who should be the treasurers of those pearls, call the perseverers of other ideas "stench", instead of investigating, and maybe discovering golden truths, then the majority will continue to believe stench where maybe pearls of wisdom might be found. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 13 14:01:33 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:01:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466ED98B.5060800@NTLworld.com> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <466D82FD.8070806@NTLworld.com> <466EBB5F.7080804@t-online.de> <466ED98B.5060800@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <466FDC9D.4060003@t-online.de> Nigel schrieb: > [Nigel] > > > I accept that implicit agreements and > discussions must be disclosed; but, IMO, the convention card and system > notes are objective evidence. That is why I'm so keen on them being > accurate. > As should everybody else, to be sure. My only "problem" here are borderline cases, where one player does not know what is on the CC or in the notes because of very recent changes or the documents being new. It is borderline, and a very thin line to boot. Only when there is _no_ doubt (which will only very rarely be the case) can the verdict be "no actual agreement". > [Matthias] > Please observe that online-bridge is a microcosmos of its own. People > were more or less forced to agree on basic standards to play at all > outside set games. If you look at the systems each player proposes it is > no longer very standard. > > [nige2] > Most young players play on-line. So what may be be partially true of the > current generation of Bridge-players is unlikely to be true for the next > generation. > A valid point. I am not sure which way it will take, but the future may well prove you right. > > [nige2] > Standard system documentation could be kept up-to-date on line. With any > luck it would not change too much. For example Culbertson would find few > surprises in 2/1. > This could work as well, especially if either the WBF or an individual gets going fast and comprehensively, so that no need for diversification (i.e. different websites with different content) is felt. I am still sceptical, but I have been wrong with predictions before. Regards Matthias From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 13 14:18:05 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:18:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chutzpah - was Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01c7ada6$6a3086d0$beb987d9@Hellen> References: <002f01c7ada6$6a3086d0$beb987d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by > the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. > Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This > is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes > repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not > as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing > an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - > authorized - interpretation, the value and credibilty of > the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, > noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not > persevering with research of the wholesome parts > for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie > there. Grattan has just explained why I have been seriously considering dropping my subscription to this list. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 13 14:51:32 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:51:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] reserve rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8B49415D-2DD2-4656-90A5-E5DDA8D1476B@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 13, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Koen Grauwels wrote: > MP: E/None > KQxxx > xx > Kxxx > xx > x Jxx > AQxxx xx > xxx Ax > Kxxx AQxxxx > Axxx > KJxx > QJxx > x > 1C-(DBL)-1D-(2S) > Pas-(2S)-DBL-(P) > 3C-All Pass This bidding doesn't match the narrative below. I suspect the second (2S) is supposed to be (P). > East deals and opens 1C (5-card Majors and 4-card Diamonds > openings. 1C = 2+card). > South Doubles and West bids 1D, alerted by East (1D = transfer to > Hearts; T-Walsh), but no explanation asked at this moment. > North bids 2S, East and South pass. > After South has passed he asks what 1D is (no answer as it is not > his turn to bid/ask) immediatly followed by DBL of West and > explanation asked by North of 1D bid. South's question at the wrong time is extraneous and may convey UI. > East explains: both Majors (incorrect explanation). > North passes and East bids 3C, Followed by Pass of South. According to East's explanation, his side has a fit in a suit bid at the two level by opponents, and his partner made a (presumably) penalty double. Why did he take it out? > Now West says to East that 2D is not both majors, but transfer to > Hearts and passes. > North says that West is not allowed to say this. He's right, for the moment. > He says that he wants to reserve his rights (In Dutch: 'onder > voorbehoud'- not sure how to translate this) and passes. Reserve what rights? According to Law 75D2, West is required to call the TD after the final pass, and at that time give the correct explanation. Nothing about reserving rights in that law. > 3C makes +2 and 3S would have made also. This is MP's and 3C+2 is a > bad result for NS. > Now the TD is called. > ==> How do you rule? Well, usually I consult the law book. :-) > - Note that West never told to NS that explanation of 1D was not > correct. He told East with the intention to inform NS, but he > didn't actually tell it directly to NS. Nonsense. He may have addressed his comment to East, but the whole table surely heard it. > - Is it correct to reserve your rights? If North had called the TD > immediatly - or immedialty after the bidding- then he could have > changed his final pass. I don't see what rights North has to reserve. Sounds to me like he knows, or should know, that *he* doesn't have to call the TD - West has already indicated that the situation is such that West will be required to do so in time for North's final pass to be changed. > - Would the following knowledge change your ruling?: North said > after the tournement - at the bar - that he didn't bid 3S or didn't > call the TD immediatly because he did not do anything wrong and > wanted to take advantage of the situation. EW errored and therefor > should get the worst result of 3C and 3S. He prefered to call TD > after play if 3S would be better then 3C. Feh. He's playing games with the laws. On the evidence, technically West erred in not calling the TD after the final pass and correcting East's erroneous explanation. Nonetheless, North had the correct information before he made his final pass, so I'm not giving him a change to it after the fact. I'm suspicious of East's 3C bid - it looks to me like even though he explained West's bid as both majors, he doesn't believe it. I'd like to know why not. But absent evidence, I'll let it go. NS were damaged not by a misexplanation by EW, but by North's attempt to manipulate the laws to his advantage. This is not the same as taking advantage of a legal situation, which is of course legal - he's clearly trying for a double shot. Even more clearly after his comment in the bar. So, no damage from misexplanation, no adjustment. Result stands. Stern lecture to North. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 13 14:53:24 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:53:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466FDC9D.4060003@t-online.de> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <466D82FD.8070806@NTLworld.com> <466EBB5F.7080804@t-online.de> <466ED98B.5060800@NTLworld.com> <466FDC9D.4060003@t-online.de> Message-ID: <466FE8C4.7090108@NTLworld.com> >> [Nigel] >> I accept that implicit agreements and >> discussions must be disclosed; but, IMO, the convention card and system >> notes are objective evidence. That is why I'm so keen on them being >> accurate. >> [Matthias2] >> As should everybody else, to be sure. My only "problem" here are >> borderline cases, where one player does not know what is on the CC or in >> the notes because of very recent changes or the documents being new. It >> is borderline, and a very thin line to boot. Only when there is _no_ >> doubt (which will only very rarely be the case) can the verdict be "no >> actual agreement". >> >> [Matthias1] >> Please observe that online-bridge is a microcosmos of its own. People >> were more or less forced to agree on basic standards to play at all >> outside set games. If you look at the systems each player proposes it is >> no longer very standard. >> >> [nige2] >> Most young players play on-line. So what may be be partially true of the >> current generation of Bridge-players is unlikely to be true for the next >> generation. >> >> [Matthias2] >> A valid point. I am not sure which way it will take, but the future may >> well prove you right >> [nige2] >> Standard system documentation could be kept up-to-date on line. With any >> luck it would not change too much. For example Culbertson would find few >> surprises in 2/1. >> [Matthias2] >> This could work as well, especially if either the WBF or an individual >> gets going fast and comprehensively, so that no need for diversification >> (i.e. different websites with different content) is felt. I am still >> sceptical, but I have been wrong with predictions before. [nige3] Thank you Mathias for your qualified approval of some of the Standard system arguments. I would value your criticisms of the other disclosure proposals -- in particular --[1] replacing alerting with announcing? [2] allowing opponents to switch it off ?[3] The Sven Pran form of question? IMO the last is a great idea as it severely curtails scope for prevarication [a possible disadvantage would be that a naive player might divulge deductions that he makes from the contents of his own hand {but I reckon that players would soon learn to guard against that}] From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 13 15:02:15 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:02:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c7ad9c$3a72e460$129d87d9@Hellen> References: <000801c7ac41$e2a9f7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <466D79BC.2080403@skynet.be> <000901c7ad9c$3a72e460$129d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <0BABA0C4-DAD6-4C4A-9AA3-17F86312E524@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I read, too, that : > "The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis > without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons > against an opposing view without considering reasons > for it." > With respect to the author of that sophistry, I respond > quite simply that the fallacy lies in the suggestion that reasons, > opinions, other than those of authority, have any importance. > We are dealing with a game that has rules and also Directors > empowered to determine their application in play, authorities > with power to determine the principles and the interpretations > of the rules that the Directors and appeals committees, like the > players, are subject to. > One can discuss preferences, desirability, but not the > fact of a law when that fact is laid down by an authority > empowered to say how it shall be construed. +=+ Herman asserts, essentially, that "the Law is an ass", as one of Grattan's countrymen originally opined. Then he goes on to agree with American radical revolutionary Samuel Adams: "When the Law is an ass, the best thing to do is ignore it." I submit that while Mr. Adams may have had a point regarding laws designed to direct human behavior, we're not talking about that here, we're talking about a game. Herman, do you brew? Whatever the opinion may be of Sam Adams' politics, he brewed a pretty good beer. :-) From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 15:08:23 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:08:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <466FE8C4.7090108@NTLworld.com> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <466D82FD.8070806@NTLworld.com> <466EBB5F.7080804@t-online.de> <466ED98B.5060800@NTLworld.com> <466FDC9D.4060003@t-online.de> <466FE8C4.7090108@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706130608x2ce933aavef4543cc05a5756e@mail.gmail.com> As other folks have noted, Online Bridge is a unique playing environment. The presence of automated applications like Full Disclosure allows some rather interesting options. I would argue that the alert / announcement system for online bridge will (ultimately) end up as a configuration option. Some players will prefer an alert system in which all artificial bids are alerted. These individuals will be able configure Full Disclosure Mark IV to alert all artificial bids. Some players will prefer an alert system in which all deviations from a standard system are alerted. These individuals will be able to configure the FD application to compare the opponent's announcement to an FD file documenting the "standard system". The FD system will automatically generate an alert if the two explanations do not match. Some players might prefer an alert system in which all deviations from their own system are alerted. I just don't see any benefit to regulation a one size fits all solution. It's going to take some time before any of this comes about. Right now, the FD system can't even generate alerts. (It is only designed to announce agreements). However, this is a relatively simple enhancement. More importantly, its going to take some time before the use of the FD system becomes widespread. I don't think that this will happen until there is a concerted effort to integrate this into various educational programs. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 13 16:01:33 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:01:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6695E869-B5F1-417F-AFC2-4542B6414DC8@starpower.net> On Jun 8, 2007, at 11:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Note that using a _conditionally_ illegal convention, one > that is illegal unless notified to the opponents some weeks > in advance, is an infraction of Law 40D, not of Law 40B. > Therefore any score adjustment should be predicated on the > assumption that the convention was not used, rather than > predicated on the assumption that the convention was used > but explained in advance. Such a Law 40D ruling was very > famously used in the semi-final of the 1994 Rosenblum Cup. I don't buy the concept of a "conditionally illegal convention". If it can be played in the event it is "legal"; if it is not permitted in the event (for anyone) it is "illegal". Failure to provide required notice is a failure to disclose per regulation -- and should be adjudicated as such -- whether the regulations require that notice be given at the start of the round or some number of weeks in advance. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 13 16:09:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:09:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] L12C3, equity, consistency and the field. In-Reply-To: <466A73E8.9060105@NTLworld.com> References: <466A73E8.9060105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <76B3DBCC-7B9E-4C02-A30D-AF537A89882D@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Nigel wrote: > Elsewhere, at length, I've argued that, although 12C3 involves less > hassle for directors than 12C2, the former *encourages law- > breaking* and *deters victims from reporting infractions*. > > Most BLMLers reject such arguments out of hand, with no attempt to > explain their flaws. > > Another fault of 12C3 rulings is *structural* inconsistency. Under > any law, a ruling usually requires subjective judgement but the > ultimate decision tends to be *all or none*, so rulings by > different people on the same facts are likely to agree. In > contrast, in a L12C3 ruling, it is likely that two people will > disagree on *subjective weightings*. > > A small difference in weighting may have a drastic effect on > competition standings for the disputants. The director has the > license to play God with impunity. Within broad limits nobody will > quibble with his weightings. His decision is virtually unappeallable. > > Sometimes, a L12C3 ruling can effect other player's results. In an > extreme case, a knowledgeable director may be able to determine the > winner of an event, simply by tinkering with the plausible weights > that he gives to different possible outcomes. Would such > manipulation be against director guidelines? I hope so. Although it > is hard to imagine what anybody could do about it. > > For incomprehensible reasons, It is against the principles of law- > makers and law-enforcers to to protect the field -- although to a > naive player that is among the *primary* purposes of the rules of a > game -- so I expect this argument to get short shrift. > > Justice *seen* to be done anyone? I understand Nigel's concern, although I think the problem is far more one of perception than reality. But it can be easily avoided without having to throw out L12C3 with the bathwater. All it takes is that the adjudicator who assigns the weights to various outcomes not be informed of the identities of the players. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 13 16:33:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:33:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C3, equity, consistency and the field. In-Reply-To: <76B3DBCC-7B9E-4C02-A30D-AF537A89882D@starpower.net> References: <466A73E8.9060105@NTLworld.com> <76B3DBCC-7B9E-4C02-A30D-AF537A89882D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46700026.2070205@NTLworld.com> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 9, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Nigel wrote: > >> Elsewhere, at length, I've argued that, although 12C3 involves less >> hassle for directors than 12C2, the former *encourages law- >> breaking* and *deters victims from reporting infractions*. >> >> Most BLMLers reject such arguments out of hand, with no attempt to >> explain their flaws. >> >> Another fault of 12C3 rulings is *structural* inconsistency. Under >> any law, a ruling usually requires subjective judgement but the >> ultimate decision tends to be *all or none*, so rulings by >> different people on the same facts are likely to agree. In >> contrast, in a L12C3 ruling, it is likely that two people will >> disagree on *subjective weightings*. >> >> A small difference in weighting may have a drastic effect on >> competition standings for the disputants. The director has the >> license to play God with impunity. Within broad limits nobody will >> quibble with his weightings. His decision is virtually unappeallable. >> >> Sometimes, a L12C3 ruling can effect other player's results. In an >> extreme case, a knowledgeable director may be able to determine the >> winner of an event, simply by tinkering with the plausible weights >> that he gives to different possible outcomes. Would such >> manipulation be against director guidelines? I hope so. Although it >> is hard to imagine what anybody could do about it. >> >> For incomprehensible reasons, It is against the principles of law- >> makers and law-enforcers to to protect the field -- although to a >> naive player that is among the *primary* purposes of the rules of a >> game -- so I expect this argument to get short shrift. >> >> Justice *seen* to be done anyone? > [Eric landau] > I understand Nigel's concern, although I think the problem is far > more one of perception than reality. > > But it can be easily avoided without having to throw out L12C3 with > the bathwater. All it takes is that the adjudicator who assigns the > weights to various outcomes not be informed of the identities of the > players. [nige1] Eric Landau has cracked it :) For the other reasongs I've stated, I hope that L12C3 is dropped from the new edition of TFLB. If it remains however, I feel that Eric's suggested protocol should be made law. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 13 16:43:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:43:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] reserve rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c7adc9$3cfaf560$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Koen Grauwels MP: E/None ??KQxxx ??xx?? ??Kxxx ??xx x?????? Jxx AQxxx?? xx xxx?????Ax Kxxx????AQxxxx ??Axxx ??KJxx ??QJxx ??x 1C-(DBL)-1D-(2S) Pas-(2S)-DBL-(P) <<<<<<<< (2S) is obviously wrong for (P) - Sven 3C-All Pass East deals and opens 1C (5-card Majors and 4-card Diamonds openings. 1C = 2+card). South Doubles and West bids 1D, alerted by East (1D = transfer to Hearts; T-Walsh), but no explanation asked at this moment. North bids 2S, East and South pass. After South has passed he asks what 1D is (no answer as it is not his turn to bid/ask) immediatly followed by DBL of West and explanation asked by North of 1D bid. East explains: both Majors (incorrect explanation). North passes and East bids 3C, Followed by Pass of South. Now West says to East that 2D is not both majors, but transfer to Hearts and passes. North says that West is not allowed to say this. He says that he wants to reserve his rights (In Dutch: 'onder voorbehoud'- not sure how to translate this) and passes. 3C makes +2 and 3S would have made also. This is MP's and 3C+2 is a bad result for NS. Now the TD is called. ==> How do you rule? - Note that West never told to NS that explanation of 1D was not correct. He told East with the intention to inform NS, but he didn't actually tell it directly to NS. Sven: This is completely irrelevant; West has drawn attention to misexplanation (at a time when this is improper and illegal). --------------- - Is it correct to reserve your rights? If North had called the TD immediatly - or immedialty after the bidding- then he could have changed his final pass. Sven: The fact that a player "reserves his rights" has absolutely no effect. A player can (and should) ask acceptance by the other players that there has been a break in tempo when relevant so that this fact is established in case he later wants to call the Director for a judgment of possible damage. In all other cases when a player feels reason to suspect an irregularity (including alleged break in tempo that is denied by opponents) he can only "protect his rights" by immediately calling the Director. A presumed Declarer or his partner should notify their opponents on possible misinformation during the auction immediately after the closing PASS and before the opening lead is faced. Failing to do so can worsen their case. In this case North/South has received such information from the illegal remark by West during the auction. Both North and South made a major error when neither of them called the Director immediately after West drew attention to the incorrect explanation. Had either of them done so the Director should have offered South the option to withdraw his pass over the 3C bid from East, and with the new information (illegally presented by West but still authorized for North/South) South would have no excuse for not changing his PASS to 3S. Once North passes in this turn that door is however closed for South. ------------------ - Would the following knowledge change your ruling?: North said after the tournement - at the bar - that he didn't bid 3S or didn't call the TD immediatly because he did not do anything wrong and wanted to take advantage of the situation. EW errored and therefor should get the worst result of 3C and 3S. He prefered to call TD after play if 3S would be better then 3C. Sven: North "incriminated himself" with this statement which confirms that he was taking a "double shot". No, I would let the table result stand. North/South has not been damaged by the incorrect explanation; they have been damaged from their own (lack of) action and failure to abide by Law 9B. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jun 13 17:10:32 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:10:32 -0700 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003201c7adcc$fda79360$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:44 PM Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > 2C(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, > with at least 5/5 in the majors > > You, South, hold: > > J6 > A972 > AK984 > J4 > > What call do you make? I pass. LHO has majors, CHO had nothing to say (although I'd like to know what agreements we had over the described 2C), and RHO has long clubs. > What other calls do you consider making? None. Dbl briefly entered my mind, but rationally it isn't an option. The auction sounds peculiar. If everyone has what they promised then both sides have a misfit, the opponents have about 23HCP, and I want no chance of our side declaring. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 13 18:15:05 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:15:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage In-Reply-To: <466E5A71.7060503@skynet.be> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de><466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466E5A71.7060503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <153C94F5-41F4-4832-AD55-EEA7B22A6A67@starpower.net> On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > raija wrote: >> >> But the clearest disadvantage is HdW interpretation forces the >> explainer to >> tell a lie, ie. give a false explanation of the pair's AGREEMENTS. >> Explainer is not asked to describe his partner's hand, he is asked to >> explain what the AGREED meaning of partner's call is. > > I know that. But the clearest disadvantage in MS interpretation forces > the explainer to give UI to partner, and clear up the misinformation > in clear breach of L75D2. > > As to the second sentence: the agreed meaning is totally irrelevant to > opponents. They prefer to know what partner's hand is. And > incidentally, they are entitled to that knowledge! example: > 4NT (intended as minors) - ? / Blackwood / pass - 5Di - ? how many > aces / diamond preference. > Do you really think that the opponents are interested in knowing that > 5Di shows diamond preference, when it is clear that partner never > intended that. And do you not agree that the opponents are entitled to > know what your Blackwood responses are, so that they can learn that he > has shown 1 ace? > So you may call it a disadvantage that the dWS forces people to lie - > I find that a very small disadvantage. I call it cheating. Not because Herman lies about his agreements (as he argues, one can never be entirely certain of one's actual agreements) but because *he lies about his hand* (no possibility of being less than entirely certain about that!). He believes that 4NT is for minors by agreement. He intended his 4NT bid to elicit a minor-suit preference. He has a hand which is consistent with the desire to elicit a minor-suit preference. By saying "one ace" rather than "diamond preference" he tells his opponents that he intended 4NT as Blackwood, from which they are entitled to infer that he has a hand consistent with wanting to know how many aces partner has. The opponents may indeed want to know how many aces his partner has, but they know that his partner, who has already misdescribed 4NT as Blackwood, is showing aces, and they know that they are fully entitled to ascertain the meaning of a 5D reply to Blackwood, regardless of how 5D was described at the table. An outright cheat will happily say "one ace", thus preventing his opponents from learning anything that might (in this case will) give rise to the inference that he is having a bidding misunderstanding with his partner. Apparently, so will Herman. Of course Herman, unlike a hypothetical outright cheat, will attempt to "make it better" by later admitting ("at the appropriate time") that he was cheating earlier. But that doesn't make it any less cheating at the time. Finally, even if we were to grant Herman's entire argument, and agree (despite the pronouncements of the WBFLC and all those other silly non-Belgians) that we must choose between committing one infraction or another, and that we are thus free to choose which infraction to commit, given that we are prepared to take the consequences, we can still recognize that this means choosing between: (a) providing true EI to partner, which would be to his advantage were he to attempt to use it, but which he is legally constrained not to, and (b) providing false and misleading EI to the opponents, which will be to their disadvantage to attempt to use, as they are freely entitled to -- precisely what the outright cheat hopes will happen! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 13 18:44:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:44:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0BABA0C4-DAD6-4C4A-9AA3-17F86312E524@rochester.rr.com> References: <000801c7ac41$e2a9f7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <466D79BC.2080403@skynet.be> <000901c7ad9c$3a72e460$129d87d9@Hellen> <0BABA0C4-DAD6-4C4A-9AA3-17F86312E524@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <46701EDE.3080708@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ I read, too, that : >> "The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis >> without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons >> against an opposing view without considering reasons >> for it." >> With respect to the author of that sophistry, I respond >> quite simply that the fallacy lies in the suggestion that reasons, >> opinions, other than those of authority, have any importance. >> We are dealing with a game that has rules and also Directors >> empowered to determine their application in play, authorities >> with power to determine the principles and the interpretations >> of the rules that the Directors and appeals committees, like the >> players, are subject to. >> One can discuss preferences, desirability, but not the >> fact of a law when that fact is laid down by an authority >> empowered to say how it shall be construed. +=+ > > Herman asserts, essentially, that "the Law is an ass", as one of > Grattan's countrymen originally opined. Then he goes on to agree with > American radical revolutionary Samuel Adams: "When the Law is an ass, > the best thing to do is ignore it." I can assure you that I do not believe the law is an ass. I believe the laws are beautifully constructed, but they have, in this situation, a little flaw. There are two laws that contradict oneanother, if a player is faced with this particular situation. If you call a situation in which a player has no option but to break one law or another an "ass" law, yes then the law is an ass. As regards to ignoring it, I don't. I advice one course of action, knowing full well that it breaks one law. I cite as excuse that I want to follow another one. If that is called ignoring, then you and I have a different opinion of the word ignoring. > I submit that while Mr. Adams may have had a point regarding laws > designed to direct human behavior, we're not talking about that here, > we're talking about a game. > > Herman, do you brew? Whatever the opinion may be of Sam Adams' > politics, he brewed a pretty good beer. :-) > OK, I'll drink to his health (a bit late, probably) in Turkey starting tomorrow. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 13 19:11:16 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:11:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage In-Reply-To: <153C94F5-41F4-4832-AD55-EEA7B22A6A67@starpower.net> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de><466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466E5A71.7060503@skynet.be> <153C94F5-41F4-4832-AD55-EEA7B22A6A67@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46702534.6020701@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I call it cheating. [nige1] Please don't. Cheating implies intent. Many other BLMLers rationalise rule-breaking without being so labelled. [Eric Landau] [SNIP] Not because Herman lies about his agreements (as he argues, one can never be entirely certain of one's actual agreements) but because *he lies about his hand* (no possibility of being less than entirely certain about that!). He believes that 4NT is for minors by agreement. He intended his 4NT bid to elicit a minor-suit preference. He has a hand which is consistent with the desire to elicit a minor-suit preference. By saying "one ace" rather than "diamond preference" he tells his opponents that he intended 4NT as Blackwood, from which they are entitled to infer that he has a hand consistent with wanting to know how many aces partner has. [SNIP] [nige1] Sorry Herman but Eric's argument is a clincher. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 13 19:11:40 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:11:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage In-Reply-To: <153C94F5-41F4-4832-AD55-EEA7B22A6A67@starpower.net> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de><466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466E5A71.7060503@skynet.be> <153C94F5-41F4-4832-AD55-EEA7B22A6A67@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4670254C.6020109@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I call it cheating. [nige1] Please don't. Cheating implies intent. Many other BLMLers rationalise rule-breaking without being so labelled. [Eric Landau] [SNIP] Not because Herman lies about his agreements (as he argues, one can never be entirely certain of one's actual agreements) but because *he lies about his hand* (no possibility of being less than entirely certain about that!). He believes that 4NT is for minors by agreement. He intended his 4NT bid to elicit a minor-suit preference. He has a hand which is consistent with the desire to elicit a minor-suit preference. By saying "one ace" rather than "diamond preference" he tells his opponents that he intended 4NT as Blackwood, from which they are entitled to infer that he has a hand consistent with wanting to know how many aces partner has. [SNIP] [nige1] Sorry Herman but Eric's argument is a clincher. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 13 17:59:10 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:59:10 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Sergeant_Pepper____=5BS?= =?iso-8859-1?q?EC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <003201c7adcc$fda79360$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4670144D.000004.85461@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > 2C(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, > with at least 5/5 in the majors > > You, South, hold: > > J6 > A972 > AK984 > J4 > > What call do you make? I pass. LHO has majors, CHO had nothing to say (although I'd like to know what agreements we had over the described 2C) I'd say they're the same as over any 2-suited bid. For me this means 2H = sound D raise, 2S = strong C bid, double = nail them in at least one major. The problem could be that partner showed surprise about the meaning (because he holds long spades), and UI now exists. However, the fact that *this* 2C is surprizing isn't UI. (BTW, this 2C overcall would be pre-alertable IMNSHO) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070613/e2462fc6/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/20070613/e2462fc6/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/20070613/e2462fc6/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 13 19:58:42 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:58:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] She sells sea shalls In-Reply-To: <466FA847.5080005@skynet.be> References: <000201c7ad29$852c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> <466FA847.5080005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3466C013-0ABE-4861-BAB1-D590BA81888A@starpower.net> On Jun 13, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > This really is incredible. > According to Sven, the sentences "4NT was not Blackwood" and "5Di > shows diamond preference" do not mean the same thing! In precisely the same sense, according to Herman, the sentences "4NT was Blackwood" and "5D shows one ace" do not mean the same thing! And given the choice, while everyone else chooses the sentence that works to their own detriment and to the advantage of their opponents, Herman chooses the sentence that works to his advantage and to the detriment of his opponents. > This really makes me wanna throw up. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 13 19:58:53 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:58:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage In-Reply-To: <4670254C.6020109@NTLworld.com> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466E5A71.7060503@skynet.be> <153C94F5-41F4-4832-AD55-EEA7B22A6A67@starpower.net> <4670254C.6020109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4EB301F3-DCFC-4A8D-95F0-70C5B20C3592@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Nigel wrote: > [Eric Landau] > I call it cheating. > > [nige1] > Please don't. Cheating implies intent. Many other BLMLers rationalise > rule-breaking without being so labelled. > > [Eric Landau] > [SNIP] > Not because Herman lies about his agreements (as he argues, one can > never be entirely certain of one's actual agreements) but because *he > lies about his hand* (no possibility of being less than entirely > certain > about that!). He believes that 4NT is for minors by agreement. He > intended his 4NT bid to elicit a minor-suit preference. He has a hand > which is consistent with the desire to elicit a minor-suit > preference. > By saying "one ace" rather than "diamond preference" he tells his > opponents that he intended 4NT as Blackwood, from which they are > entitled to infer that he has a hand consistent with wanting to > know how > many aces partner has. > [SNIP] > > [nige1] > Sorry Herman but Eric's argument is a clincher. Nigel, you make no sense. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 13 21:58:56 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:58:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage In-Reply-To: <4EB301F3-DCFC-4A8D-95F0-70C5B20C3592@rochester.rr.com> References: <466CF864.4010103@skynet.be> <466D0EEF.9040903@t-online.de> <466D21B2.4050204@skynet.be> <466D4F5A.7090303@t-online.de> <001101c7ac6b$b5e5c180$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <466E5A71.7060503@skynet.be> <153C94F5-41F4-4832-AD55-EEA7B22A6A67@starpower.net> <4670254C.6020109@NTLworld.com> <4EB301F3-DCFC-4A8D-95F0-70C5B20C3592@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <46704C80.4060607@NTLworld.com> [Ed Reppert] Nigel, you make no sense. [nige1] Thank you. From you Ed, that may be a compliment :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 14 06:00:03 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:00:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Chutzpah - was Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by >>the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. >>Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This >>is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes >>repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not >>as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing >>an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - >>authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility >>of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, >>noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not >>persevering with research of the wholesome parts >>for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie >>there. Ed Reppert: >Grattan has just explained why I have been seriously >considering dropping my subscription to this list. Richard Hills: I personally think it would be a great shame if Ed left this list, since he is a Pearl of Great Price who is willing to listen to contrary views and change his mind if presented with a cogent reason to do so. For example, in a recent thread Ed modified his view on when a revoke was established after his attention was drawn to the provisions of Law 63A2. Furthermore, I think it would be a great shame if Herman's long-winded postings on the De Wael School caused other blmlers to automatically delete Herman's postings. On other issues Herman quite frequently presents Golden Truths. For example, a posting by Herman in the April thread "Swiss Teams formats" caused me to change my mind about the validity of my Accelerated Swiss movement for Swiss team events which use the WBF victory point scale. I now realise that an Accelerated Swiss movement is only valid for those Swiss team events scored on a simple win-loss scale (which form of scoring is still popular for some ACBL Swisses). Edward Montagu, Second Earl of Manchester (1602-1671): "If we beat the king 99 times he is still king, and so will his posterity be after him; but if the king beat us once, we shall all be hanged, and our posterity be made slaves." Richard Hills: If Herman De Wael beats the WBF LC in debate 99 times, they are still the WBF LC. Like the Earl of Manchester during the English Civil War, I am obeying a Self-Denying Ordinance to retire from battle against the De Wael School for the next six months. I suggest that Herman also adopts a Self-Denying Ordinance for the next six months on discussion of his De Wael School, but I do give Herman permission for a valedictory 21-gun salute by allowing him a (single) response to this posting. :-) 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 14 07:39:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:39:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D 2C(1) Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, with at least 5/5 in the majors You, South, hold: J6 A972 AK984 J4 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? * * * The complete deal -> 92 K4 T KQT98752 AKT53 Q874 QJT63 85 J73 Q652 --- A63 J6 A972 AK984 J4 The winning action was to pass, and then collect +300 the hard way, since North held a Club Band worthy of Sergeant Pepper. Of course, what actually happened at the table was that East forget the partnership's idiosyncratic agreement, so did not alert the 2C overcall. Since my Dorothy Acol partnership had agreed to play negative doubles up to and including 2S, as South I chose the technically inferior choice to reopen with a double, just in case North had a club stack sitting over West's club "suit". (In the Master Solvers' Club of The Bridge World magazine I judge that many panellists would take the risk of passing out a natural 2C overcall - South's club holding being a doubleton rather than a singleton suggests pard is unlikely to have a penalty pass, while South's doubleton spade means that a reopening double could cause North- South to play 2S in an inelegant 4-2 fit.) West corrected to 2S, and everyone passed. Before the opening lead, West (one of the Canberra bridge club's directors) correctly summoned the Chief Director, Sergeant Pepper to the table to correct his partner's misinformation. Sergeant Pepper correctly gave me the option to withdraw my final pass, which I declined. 2S was cold for eight tricks, -110. So, after the deal was played out, Sergeant Pepper was again summoned, and an adjusted score was requested. In my usual egregious way, I started quoting the Laws to Sergeant Pepper, who correctly put me in my place with pepperish words to the effect of teaching grandmothers to suck eggs. North, Dorothy, asserted that if the 2C convention had been alerted, she could have inserted a lead-directing double, followed by a non-forcing 3C bid over 2S. After checking the hand record, Sergeant Pepper accepted Dorothy's argument, so gave us an adjusted score of +130. But should we have been entitled to an adjusted score of +300? Could Sergeant Pepper have ruled that East might correct their misinformation just before I chose to reopen with a marginal double, which would allow me (on the new and correct information) to have a clearcut pass? Or, more radically, were we entitled to an adjusted score of +1400? Due to East's failure to alert, West had unauthorised information that North, rather than East, held the eight-card club suit. Was passing 2Cx a logical alternative for West, given that his initial call had theoretically defined his hand within narrow limits? 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Thu Jun 14 08:59:35 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:59:35 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <24224538.1181804375981.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: Jun 13, 2007 10:39 PM >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Imps >Dlr: South >Vul: Nil > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1D >2C(1) Pass Pass ? > >(1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, >with at least 5/5 in the majors > >You, South, hold: > >J6 >A972 >AK984 >J4 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > >* * * > >The complete deal -> > > 92 > K4 > T > KQT98752 >AKT53 Q874 >QJT63 85 >J73 Q652 >--- A63 > J6 > A972 > AK984 > J4 > >The winning action was to pass, and then >collect +300 the hard way, since North held >a Club Band worthy of Sergeant Pepper. > >Of course, what actually happened at the >table was that East forget the partnership's >idiosyncratic agreement, so did not alert the >2C overcall. > >Since my Dorothy Acol partnership had agreed >to play negative doubles up to and including >2S, as South I chose the technically inferior >choice to reopen with a double, just in case >North had a club stack sitting over West's >club "suit". (In the Master Solvers' Club of >The Bridge World magazine I judge that many >panellists would take the risk of passing out >a natural 2C overcall - South's club holding >being a doubleton rather than a singleton >suggests pard is unlikely to have a penalty >pass, while South's doubleton spade means >that a reopening double could cause North- >South to play 2S in an inelegant 4-2 fit.) > >West corrected to 2S, and everyone passed. [snip lengthy Hillsian blather.] > >Or, more radically, were we entitled to an >adjusted score of +1400? Due to East's >failure to alert, West had unauthorised >information that North, rather than East, >held the eight-card club suit. Was passing >2Cx a logical alternative for West, given >that his initial call had theoretically >defined his hand within narrow limits? Yes? I mean, this is a non-problem, no? 1400, next hand. Passing 2Cx is not just a logical alternative, it's abundantly clear. Adjust to 1400, and have a conversation about one's duties. Is there something I'm not seeing? The MI problem seems difficult and unwieldy, but the UI's a slam dunk. --JRM From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 14 09:33:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <6695E869-B5F1-417F-AFC2-4542B6414DC8@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > I don't buy the concept of a "conditionally illegal convention". If > it can be played in the event it is "legal"; if it is not permitted > in the event (for anyone) it is "illegal". Have a look at the Brown Sticker regulations for category 2 events (http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp) I'd say that the principle of conditional legality (lack of prior disclosure or the filing of a non-viable defence) is well represented. I'd expect a procedural penalty to be issued for such usages irrespective of any redress for damage. I suppose the "crime" is illegal use of a convention rather than use of an illegal convention but I'd not expect the penalties for the two offences to differ. Tim From mustikka at charter.net Thu Jun 14 09:35:17 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:35:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007401c7ae56$8f412460$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > 2C(1) Pass Pass ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as 8-11 hcp, > with at least 5/5 in the majors > > You, South, hold: > > J6 > A972 > AK984 > J4 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > * * * > > The complete deal -> > > 92 > K4 > T > KQT98752 > AKT53 Q874 > QJT63 85 > J73 Q652 > --- A63 > J6 > A972 > AK984 > J4 > > The winning action was to pass, and then > collect +300 the hard way, since North held > a Club Band worthy of Sergeant Pepper. > > Of course, what actually happened at the > table was that East forget the partnership's > idiosyncratic agreement, so did not alert the > 2C overcall. > > Since my Dorothy Acol partnership had agreed > to play negative doubles up to and including > 2S, as South I chose the technically inferior > choice to reopen with a double, just in case > North had a club stack sitting over West's > club "suit". (In the Master Solvers' Club of > The Bridge World magazine I judge that many > panellists would take the risk of passing out > a natural 2C overcall - South's club holding > being a doubleton rather than a singleton > suggests pard is unlikely to have a penalty > pass, while South's doubleton spade means > that a reopening double could cause North- > South to play 2S in an inelegant 4-2 fit.) > > West corrected to 2S, and everyone passed. West was under UI constraints and IMO Pass is a logical alternative. Imagine East with the clubs that North actually held. > Before the opening lead, West (one of the > Canberra bridge club's directors) correctly > summoned the Chief Director, Sergeant Pepper > to the table to correct his partner's > misinformation. Sergeant Pepper correctly > gave me the option to withdraw my final pass, > which I declined. > > 2S was cold for eight tricks, -110. > > So, after the deal was played out, Sergeant > Pepper was again summoned, and an adjusted > score was requested. In my usual egregious > way, I started quoting the Laws to Sergeant > Pepper, who correctly put me in my place with > pepperish words to the effect of teaching > grandmothers to suck eggs. > > North, Dorothy, asserted that if the 2C > convention had been alerted, she could have > inserted a lead-directing double, followed by > a non-forcing 3C bid over 2S. > > After checking the hand record, Sergeant > Pepper accepted Dorothy's argument, so gave > us an adjusted score of +130. > > But should we have been entitled to an > adjusted score of +300? Could Sergeant > Pepper have ruled that East might correct > their misinformation just before I chose to > reopen with a marginal double, which would > allow me (on the new and correct information) > to have a clearcut pass? > > Or, more radically, were we entitled to an > adjusted score of +1400? Due to East's > failure to alert, West had unauthorised > information that North, rather than East, > held the eight-card club suit. Was passing > 2Cx a logical alternative for West, given > that his initial call had theoretically > defined his hand within narrow limits? I believe Pass was a logical alternative and if UI from lack of alert was present, the only alternative because the 2C bid described the West hand in full. I don't like the adjustment to +130 as it does not address the UI problem. Still, I am a bit confused: In the original posting you said 2C was "Alerted and explained as 8-11 etc." . Was this played with screens? Were West and North screenmates? Was it West who alerted to North? If so, then West has no UI as he does not know whether East did or did not alert 2C to South, and subsequently, is free to make whatever call he wants to. Raija From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 14 11:00:20 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:00:20 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Sergeant_Pepper____=5BS?= =?iso-8859-1?q?EC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <007401c7ae56$8f412460$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <467103A3.000001.20041@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : raija Date : 14/06/2007 09:34:20 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Still, I am a bit confused: In the original posting you said 2C was "Alerted and explained as 8-11 etc." . Was this played with screens? Were West and North screenmates? Was it West who alerted to North? If so, then West has no UI as he does not know whether East did or did not alert 2C to South, and subsequently, is free to make whatever call he wants to. AG : methinks Richard wanted to know what would have happened without the misinformation, by presenting us the deal as it should have been. As for the ruling, I would make a L12C2 distinguo : - the OS scores -1400, the most unfavorable result that could have happened as John told us, there is no problem at all with that one ; - but I don't consider North's pass over 2C probable, having been given the right explanation, hence : - the NOS would score +400 IMHO, the most favorable probable result, for bidding 5C directly over 2C (why not ?) and making that contract on a Heart lead. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070614/7e299401/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/20070614/7e299401/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/20070614/7e299401/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 14 15:42:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:42:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84DF8C87-153D-4CF9-95FA-4D22AF81E61B@starpower.net> On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> I don't buy the concept of a "conditionally illegal convention". If >> it can be played in the event it is "legal"; if it is not permitted >> in the event (for anyone) it is "illegal". > > Have a look at the Brown Sticker regulations for category 2 events > (http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp) > > I'd say that the principle of conditional legality (lack of prior > disclosure or the filing of a non-viable defence) is well represented. > I'd expect a procedural penalty to be issued for such usages > irrespective of any redress for damage. > > I suppose the "crime" is illegal use of a convention rather than > use of > an illegal convention but I'd not expect the penalties for the two > offences to differ. At the level this occurred, I, like Tim, would expect a procedural penalty to be imposed. For a L12C adjustment, though, I would, as a theoretical matter, treat the "offense" as one of failing to disclose per regulation rather than of using the convention per se. I think the regulation Tim cites supports this view, as it says that the preliminary filings "will be deemed to be a part of the Convention Card". But I don't think it matters in practice. The failure to disclose has prevented the NOS from preparing a defense in advance of the event, and we cannot determine what they might have come up with, much less how it would have played out at the table. That will force us to L12C1, under the same rationale that would apply it when an "unconditionally illegal" convention has been used. So Tim and I differ only over the words we would use, not the result we would come to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 14 17:41:19 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:41:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Chutzpah - was Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004201c7ae9a$73e9d790$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Chutzpah - was Law 1 - mephitic order (was DeWael...)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] times, they > are still the WBF LC. but > I do give Herman permission for a valedictory 21-gun salute > by allowing him a (single) response to this posting. > > :-) > "If I wasn't a gunner I wouldn't be here. Fire ONE. BOOM! If I wasn't a gunner I wouldn't be her Fire TWO. BOOM! etc Time it! it is almost spot on the 3 seconds interval :) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 15 02:13:51 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:13:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <200706111501.l5BF1csP023960@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706111501.l5BF1csP023960@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4671D9BF.1030802@cfa.harvard.edu> I was going to respond to several individual posts, but I've decided there's no point. I am very disappointed in the debate on this topic. No one has offered a reasoned argument opposing the dWS, and many of the opponents quite clearly don't understand it. The best anyone has offered is an appeal to authority, but the literal words of the authority quoted don't seem on point, and the next paragraph in the same document seems to support the dWS. Some messages in the thread were, I'm sorry to say, offensive. Herman may be wrong after all, either in logic or because authority has ruled contrary to his suggestion, but I have not seen either possibility demonstrated. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 15 02:20:18 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:20:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200706081614.l58GE85L029248@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706081614.l58GE85L029248@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4671DB42.5020506@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Laszlo Hegedus > Anyway the statement above thet the J of hearts is a logical alternative I hope this was just careless writing, but in case not... This was an MI case, and logical alternatives don't come into it. What the TD (or AC) has to judge is what would have happened with correct information. In a L12C3 jurisdiction, that would be a specific probability of the H-J lead. (The resulting weighted score would probably reflect a small bonus to the NOS.) In other jurisdictions, it would be whether the H-J lead is "likely," "at all probable," or neither of these. As in any judgment ruling, the TD would be wise to consult. Here it seems especially important because opinion is so dramatically split. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 15 03:55:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:55:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4671DB42.5020506@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >In a L12C3 jurisdiction, that would be a specific >probability of the H-J lead. (The resulting >weighted score would probably reflect a small >bonus to the NOS.) [snip] Richard Hills: Exactly how Law 12C3 is applied depends on which of its three versions applies in the particular jurisdiction. A blmler (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) dubbed these three versions of Law 12C3, "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Truth - The NOS get a truthful weighted score, but the OS in addition gets a procedural penalty. Justice - The weighted score is biased with a small bonus in favour of the NOS, so it is not necessary to apply a procedural penalty to the OS. The American Way - If Law 12C3 is ever adopted in the ACBL, local Laws maven Rich Colker suggested that while the NOS gets a Law 12C3 weighted score, the OS gets a Law 12C2 unweighted score. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 15 07:44:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:44:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <24224538.1181804375981.JavaMail.root@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John R. Mayne: [snip] >Is there something I'm not seeing? The MI problem seems >difficult and unwieldy, but the UI's a slam dunk. Richard Hills: The UI problem may or may not be a slam dunk. In the opinion of myself and the Director, West passing 2Cx was not a logical alternative. But the UI problem is rather boring, merely a matter of assessing what logical alternatives exist. The MI problem is much more interesting. If the MI had never occurred, Dorothy, North, would have chosen a lead- directing double, so +300 the hard way for us defending 2C passed out would not have been an option. Alternatively, if the MI had occurred, but was corrected by East after East had called, but before I, South, had called, then again the Director would have allowed North, Dorothy, an option under Law 21B to correct her initial pass to a lead-directing double. The net effect of this reasoning is that the MI caused us damage to the effect of getting -110 instead of +130. The possibility of +300 was a optional bonus of a net of 170 above and beyond our entitlement to +130. But the fact that I did not seize this bonus opportunity does not mean that we were damaged a net of 170. 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 15 09:52:03 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:52:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] opening lead vs 3N [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4671DB42.5020506@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070615094026.02953410@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:55 15/06/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >The American Way - If Law 12C3 is ever adopted in >the ACBL, local Laws maven Rich Colker suggested >that while the NOS gets a Law 12C3 weighted score, >the OS gets a Law 12C2 unweighted score. Note that this is not necessarily wrong. If "the worst result that is at all possible" is obvious, but "the result among plausible results" isn't, this is a way to solve the case. Example : in a MI case, where the normal contract is 3NT (N/S, the NOS), but there was MI about an overcall, you decide that, given the right explanation, N/S could indeed have found their contract. You also decide that, given the error East made in interpreting West"s bid, there was a small possibility that he double 3NT. Give E/W the score for 3NT doubled. You also decide it is too remote to give N/S the benefit of this. Give N/S the score for 3NT undoubled. Now say there are two popular leads against 3NT : Spade (made by 70% of the players that had to lead from that hand against that contract) and Heart (made by 30%). A Spade means 9 tricks, a Heart means 11. Give E/W the score for 11 tricks, but give N/S 50% of the score for 11 and 50 % of the score for 9 (or is it 60 % of 9 and 40 % of 11 ?). (note that if some lead makes 3NT down, you don't take this into account : see the word "favourable") I don't see why this should be deemed wrong. It goes along with TFLB. Best regards Alain See the "Sergeant Pepper" thread. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 15 09:55:00 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:55:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <24224538.1181804375981.JavaMail.root@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070615095236.02954560@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:44 15/06/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >The MI problem is much more interesting. If the MI had >never occurred, Dorothy, North, would have chosen a lead- >directing double, so +300 the hard way for us defending >2C passed out would not have been an option. That isn't very ambitious from you. Many Norths would have jumped all the way to the most probable end contract, 5C. East (with the knowledge of the meaning of West's bid) could have led a Heart. So the best result for N/S, among reasonably plausible results, is + 400. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 15 13:48:21 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:48:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <4671D9BF.1030802@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706111501.l5BF1csP023960@cfa.harvard.edu> <4671D9BF.1030802@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46727C85.7020709@NTLworld.com> [Steve Willner wrote] > I was going to respond to several individual posts, but I've decided > there's no point. I am very disappointed in the debate on this topic. > No one has offered a reasoned argument opposing the dWS, and many of the > opponents quite clearly don't understand it. The best anyone has > offered is an appeal to authority, but the literal words of the > authority quoted don't seem on point, and the next paragraph in the same > document seems to support the dWS. Some messages in the thread were, > I'm sorry to say, offensive. > > Herman may be wrong after all, either in logic or because authority has > ruled contrary to his suggestion, but I have not seen either possibility > demonstrated. [nigel] I agree with Steve up to a point. BLML seems to unite in ignoring or rejecting law-reform suggestions (with a few honourable exceptions). Do directors earn Browny points for admiring the Emperor's clothes? You might argue that Herman is lucky to get so many replies even if most do ignore his arguments. Such is the level of resentment, however, that many are ad hominem attacks and some of those are gratuitously offensive. If Steve can force himself to read beyond the *cheating* paragraphs of *Eric Landau's* latest missive, however, Eric presents a strong argument against the *practical effect* of Herman's suggestion. I paraphrase... An opponent opens 4S and Herman bids 4N which systemically shows the minor 2-suiter that he was dealt. Herman's partner explains 4N as Blackwood and responds 5D. Opponents ask Herman what 5D means presenting him with the archetypical De Wael dilemma: rather than give unauthorised information to partner by saying "diamonds" Herman misinforms opponents about partnership methods by saying "one ace". Unfortunately, this presents opponents with a false picture of *Herman's hand*. They are entitled to think he has some kind of enormous hand that is interested only in aces. They may suffer damage when they bid and defend on that wrong assumption. Effectively, Herman's explanation is a kind of controlled *psych*. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 15 13:51:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Nondisclosure In-Reply-To: <84DF8C87-153D-4CF9-95FA-4D22AF81E61B@starpower.net> Message-ID: > *From:* Eric Landau > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Date:* Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:42:59 -0400 > > On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Eric wrote: > > > >> I don't buy the concept of a "conditionally illegal convention". > > If > >> it can be played in the event it is "legal"; if it is not permitted > >> in the event (for anyone) it is "illegal". > > > > Have a look at the Brown Sticker regulations for category 2 events > > (http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp) > > > > I'd say that the principle of conditional legality (lack of prior > > disclosure or the filing of a non-viable defence) is well > > represented. > > I'd expect a procedural penalty to be issued for such usages > > irrespective of any redress for damage. > > > > I suppose the "crime" is illegal use of a convention rather than > > use of > > an illegal convention but I'd not expect the penalties for the two > > offences to differ. > > At the level this occurred, I, like Tim, would expect a procedural > penalty to be imposed. For a L12C adjustment, though, I would, as a > theoretical matter, treat the "offense" as one of failing to > disclose per regulation rather than of using the convention per se. > I think the regulation Tim cites supports this view, as it says that > the preliminary filings "will be deemed to be a part of the As with so many regulations/laws I think different interpretations are supported :( > But I don't think it matters in practice. The failure to disclose > has prevented the NOS from preparing a defense in advance of the > event, and we cannot determine what they might have come up with, > much less how it would have played out at the table. I'm not so sure. My first port of call would be to estimate the likely (favourable to NOS) outcome had the convention not been illegally used - exactly as it would be if I found a pair using a BS convention in a WBF cat3 event (where such conventions are simply not allowed). Alternatively try getting one's head round this condition from the OB (10e4b): "A partnership may agree to open a natural 1NT that may be weaker than 9 HCP by agreement, but only if it does not agree to play ANY artificial calls in the subsequent auction after an opening made with such an agreement." A pair found to have an implicit agreement to open an 8-10NT as well as an agreement to play Stayman are in for a PP (DP?) even if Stayman is not used on the actual hand. If Stayman is actually used they are liable for a score adjustment *as well*. That *despite* the fact the world and his wife have had the opportunity to discuss a defence to Stayman and that the convention will be in use by 90% of other pairs in any EBU competition. Tim From hermandw at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 14:27:15 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:27:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] The obvious disadvantage Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: > >I call it cheating. Not because Herman lies about his agreements (as he >argues, one can never be entirely certain of one's actual agreements) but >because *he lies about his hand* (no possibility of being less than >entirely certain about that!). > >He believes that 4NT is for minors by agreement. He intended his 4NT bid >to elicit a minor-suit preference. He has a hand which is consistent with >the desire to elicit a minor-suit preference. > >By saying "one ace" rather than "diamond preference" he tells his >opponents that he intended 4NT as Blackwood, from which they are entitled >to infer that he has a hand consistent with wanting to know how many aces >partner has. > But that information was already given to them by my partner! And L75D2 explicitely forbids me from correcting that information! >The opponents may indeed want to know how many aces his partner has, but >they know that his partner, who has already misdescribed 4NT as Blackwood, >is showing aces, and they know that they are fully entitled to ascertain >the meaning of a 5D reply to Blackwood, regardless of how 5D was described >at the table. > >An outright cheat will happily say "one ace", thus preventing his >opponents from learning anything that might (in this case will) give rise >to the inference that he is having a bidding misunderstanding with his >partner. Apparently, so will Herman. Of course Herman, unlike a >hypothetical outright cheat, will attempt to "make it better" by later >admitting ("at the appropriate time") that he was cheating earlier. But >that doesn't make it any less cheating at the time. > An outright cheat will say "4NT was not Blackwood" even before they have asked about 5Di. Another cheat will say "5Di is diamond preference". I believe the second cheat is worse than the first one, since the second one knows he's not supposed to correct the mistaken information. OK, I've just called you an outright cheat, Eric, which is no worse than what you've called me. So shall we please accept that both our actions are meant to follow other laws, and that neither of them is cheating? >Finally, even if we were to grant Herman's entire argument, and agree >(despite the pronouncements of the WBFLC and all those other silly >non-Belgians) that we must choose between committing one infraction or >another, and that we are thus free to choose which infraction to commit, >given that we are prepared to take the consequences, we can still >recognize that this means choosing between: (a) providing true EI to >partner, which would be to his advantage were he to attempt to use it, but >which he is legally constrained not to, and (b) providing false and >misleading EI to the opponents, which will be to their disadvantage to >attempt to use, as they are freely entitled to -- precisely what the >outright cheat hopes will happen! > Well, you have once again managed to write something completely upside-down. If I have to choose between the infraction of giving UI to partner, of a particular important nature, and giving MI to opponents, about a totally unimportant thing, I chose the MI. To say that it is cheating to chose otherwise is very harsh. Herman _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From hermandw at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 14:31:41 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:31:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > >If Steve can force himself to read beyond the *cheating* paragraphs of >*Eric Landau's* latest missive, however, Eric presents a strong argument >against the *practical effect* of Herman's suggestion. I paraphrase... > >An opponent opens 4S and Herman bids 4N which systemically shows the minor >2-suiter that he was dealt. Herman's partner explains 4N as Blackwood and >responds 5D. Opponents ask Herman what 5D means presenting him with the >archetypical De Wael dilemma: rather than give unauthorised information to >partner by saying "diamonds" Herman misinforms opponents about partnership >methods by saying "one ace". Unfortunately, this presents opponents with a >false picture of *Herman's hand*. They are entitled to think he has some >kind of enormous hand that is interested only in aces. They may suffer >damage when they bid and defend on that wrong assumption. Effectively, >Herman's explanation is a kind of controlled *psych*. > But you forget one thing: it is not I who describes my hand, it is my partner who has done so. L75D2 explicitely forbids me from correcting this. If your argument holds sense, then this should also hold without any question about the 5Di bid. Therefore, you are questioning the WBF choice when writing L75D2. My reply "5Di shows 1 ace" is nothing more than my silence after partner's misexplanation of "Blackwood". You cannot call me a cheat for following the laws! _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 15:13:26 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:13:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706150613j6aeb9d5y119ffcde2fe120b3@mail.gmail.com> On 6/15/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > You cannot call me a cheat for following the laws! I call you a cheat because you have (repeatedly) refused to forward these questions to the Regulatory Authorities in Belgium. 1. You are well aware that you views on this matter are idiosyncratic (to say the least) 2. Several members of this mailing list have been sharply critical of the DWS. Many of the most senior authorities on this list have stated that the DWS is not appropriate procedure. 3. You have decided (a) You will ignore all of these comments and continue to do whatever you want (b) You will conceal your behavior from the Belgian Bridge Federation (I'm sorry if I got this name wrong) [What what its worth, you follow precisely the same set of behavior in the case of the "Herman 1H"]. Simply put, I think that player have an obligation to either work with the existing system OR stage a very public and obvious protest in an attempt to get the regulations changed. I have no sympathy what so ever for players who refuse to submit controversial subject matter to the local regulatory authorities because they know that the ruling will go against them. (If you want, I can try and go back and scan the archives to earlier posts where you directly state that you refuse to submit your methods for approval for this very reason) This is cheating, plain and simple. The fact that this is coming for a Tournament Director makes things even worse. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 15 15:21:44 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:21:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <46727C85.7020709@NTLworld.com> References: <200706111501.l5BF1csP023960@cfa.harvard.edu> <4671D9BF.1030802@cfa.harvard.edu> <46727C85.7020709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Nigel wrote: > If Steve can force himself to read beyond the *cheating* paragraphs of > *Eric Landau's* latest missive, however, Eric presents a strong > argument against the *practical effect* of Herman's suggestion. I > paraphrase... My previous post seems to have been taken as an ad hominem attack on Herman; that was not my intent. My wording may have been clumsy, for which I owe Herman an apology. I do not believe Herman is a cheater -- that requires intent. Herman has studied the laws in detail and come to an interpretation which is not unreasonable, although, as I see it, Grattan has made it quite clear that the WBFLC has chosen a different one -- Herman would do much better to argue that the De Wael school ought to be legal than to argue that it is. And, because Herman makes it his business to correct the deliberately-given MI at the time specified in L75D2, it is clear that he is not trying to cheat anyone. Nor, when I wrote "I call it cheating", was I referring to the DWS as a whole, but rather to its application in the particular example Herman raised. It does seem clear that in that case an unethical player would far prefer to give the DWS reply to the legally mandated one, as the latter requires providing information consistent with his hand rather than with his partner's explanation of his call, which will reveal to his opponents that he is having a bidding misunderstanding. Nigel's summary of that particular case below may be more cogent than my original attempt. > An opponent opens 4S and Herman bids 4N which systemically shows the > minor 2-suiter that he was dealt. Herman's partner explains 4N as > Blackwood and responds 5D. Opponents ask Herman what 5D means > presenting > him with the archetypical De Wael dilemma: rather than give > unauthorised > information to partner by saying "diamonds" Herman misinforms > opponents > about partnership methods by saying "one ace". Unfortunately, this > presents opponents with a false picture of *Herman's hand*. They are > entitled to think he has some kind of enormous hand that is interested > only in aces. They may suffer damage when they bid and defend on that > wrong assumption. Effectively, Herman's explanation is a kind of > controlled *psych*. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 15 15:22:08 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:22:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <46727C85.7020709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000e01c7af50$2cada350$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel ................ > I agree with Steve up to a point. BLML seems to unite in ignoring or > rejecting law-reform suggestions (with a few honourable exceptions). Do you not overlook the possibility that although there is an apparent conflict between Laws 75C and 75D2 when applied in certain situations (and I agree that when the laws are taken literally they can be understood that way) the fact is that no TD (to my knowledge) has to this date uttered any serious problem with how to apply these laws? What most of us agrees upon is that we do not need any revision of L75 (which would probably have to be rather complicated in order to cater for every possible situation where the conflict could exist). We know how to use Law 75, especially with the clarifications we have had from WBFLC. > Do directors earn Browny points for admiring the Emperor's clothes? I suppose I am not the only one who in my position as a director would feel insulted by such statements? > You might argue that Herman is lucky to get so many replies even if > most do ignore his arguments. Such is the level of resentment, however, > that many are ad hominem attacks and some of those are gratuitously > offensive. I think most of us are just tired of his persistent argumentation. (And I haven't even been on BLML for more than just a short time!) Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 15 15:53:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:53:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <467299EC.60109@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] But you forget one thing: it is not I who describes my hand, it is my partner who has done so. L75D2 explicitely forbids me from correcting this. If your argument holds sense, then this should also hold without any question about the 5Di bid. Therefore, you are questioning the WBF choice when writing L75D2. My reply "5Di shows 1 ace" is nothing more than my silence after partner's misexplanation of "Blackwood". You cannot call me a cheat for following the laws! [nige1] I feel that "5D shows 1A" is more than silence :( It is a sin of commission rather than omission :) If instead you answer "D preference" it would correctly describe your systemic methods. That it might also correct partner's misinformation is secondary and incidental. That's just my naive view. But you know I'm not a theoretician, Herman. I'm concerned with the *practical* damage that your misexplanation inflicts. I like arguing. Hence I eschew personal attacks -- usually an admission of defeat in argument. Anyway, Herman is certainly not a cheat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070615/db09de4c/attachment-0001.htm From hermandw at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 16:27:39 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:27:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0706150613j6aeb9d5y119ffcde2fe120b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >From: "richard willey" >Reply-To: rwilley at sloan.mit.edu >To: "Herman De Wael" >CC: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:13:26 -0400 > >On 6/15/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>You cannot call me a cheat for following the laws! > >I call you a cheat because you have (repeatedly) refused to forward >these questions to the Regulatory Authorities in Belgium. > Since I form part of those authorities, this would be rather useless. >1. You are well aware that you views on this matter are idiosyncratic >(to say the least) > I am not. I am aware that a majority on a small mailing list are against it, vehemently, and I have countered all the arguments they have given. >2. Several members of this mailing list have been sharply critical of >the DWS. Many of the most senior authorities on this list have stated >that the DWS is not appropriate procedure. > I have not heard that. I have heard one senior authority claim that the MS is acceptable. >3. You have decided > >(a) You will ignore all of these comments and continue to do whatever you >want Indeed - and if it comes up I shall suffer all the normal rulings the directors will give me (MI rulings of course, no UI involved) >(b) You will conceal your behavior from the Belgian Bridge Federation >(I'm sorry if I got this name wrong) > I do not consider concealing what I've been doing - writing at length about it, with Belgians listening as well. >[What what its worth, you follow precisely the same set of behavior in >the case of the "Herman 1H"]. > Indeed I do. >Simply put, I think that player have an obligation to either work with >the existing system OR stage a very public and obvious protest in an >attempt to get the regulations changed. I have no sympathy what so >ever for players who refuse to submit controversial subject matter to >the local regulatory authorities because they know that the ruling >will go against them. (If you want, I can try and go back and scan >the archives to earlier posts where you directly state that you refuse >to submit your methods for approval for this very reason) > I think I am doing a very public and obvious protest in writing these words. I have just agreed to have a drink with Grattan (are you reading this, Grattan?) to have a half hour or so of this. If at the end the WBF still decide to go against me, I'll of course follow suit. But not before that. >This is cheating, plain and simple. > >The fact that this is coming for a Tournament Director makes things even >worse. > _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From hermandw at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 16:33:53 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:33:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" > > > On Behalf Of Nigel >................ > > I agree with Steve up to a point. BLML seems to unite in ignoring or > > rejecting law-reform suggestions (with a few honourable exceptions). > >Do you not overlook the possibility that although there is an apparent >conflict between Laws 75C and 75D2 when applied in certain situations (and >I >agree that when the laws are taken literally they can be understood that >way) the fact is that no TD (to my knowledge) has to this date uttered any >serious problem with how to apply these laws? > Indeed, and neither have I. In my opinion, a player is free to follow the advice of either the MS or the dWS. I do not think any TD on this list would give any other ruling to any player, either for a MS or for a dWS player. The only discussion is whether or not the actions of a dWS player are acceptable. >What most of us agrees upon is that we do not need any revision of L75 >(which would probably have to be rather complicated in order to cater for >every possible situation where the conflict could exist). We know how to >use >Law 75, especially with the clarifications we have had from WBFLC. > What clarifications? > > > You might argue that Herman is lucky to get so many replies even if > > most do ignore his arguments. Such is the level of resentment, however, > > that many are ad hominem attacks and some of those are gratuitously > > offensive. > >I think most of us are just tired of his persistent argumentation. (And I >haven't even been on BLML for more than just a short time!) > I have not been persistent - I have patiently answered your persistent queries. >Sven > _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/live/features From mustikka at charter.net Fri Jun 15 16:51:08 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:51:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws References: Message-ID: <001201c7af5c$9e4b3750$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" [Herman in response to Richard Willey] > > I am not. I am aware that a majority on a small mailing list are against > it, > vehemently, and I have countered all the arguments they have given. > The fundamental argument I have is that DWS interpretation requires that a player deliberately lies about partnership agreement. I am strongly in favor of telling the truth, even if the truth hurts my side. I have seen no counter to that. Gentleman and ladies do not tell lies. Even bridgeplayers who otherwise may lack finesse or manners in general, do not tell lies unless they are dishonest. I believe Herman is not a dishonest person at heart so it is puzzling to me that he keeps recommending that a lie be told instead of the truth. Raija From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 17:05:30 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:05:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e0706150613j6aeb9d5y119ffcde2fe120b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706150805n25051766ua986d65de9df63b@mail.gmail.com> Herman, you don't get to have things both ways. You don't get to simultaneously claim that the BLML is small mailing list, while stating that your posts here represent adequate disclosure to the Belgian authorities regarding your proclivities. Furthermore, you can't dodge your responsibilities to explain your behavior to regulators in Belgium by claiming that you yourself are a tournament director. In the past, members of this mailing list directly asked you why you haven't explicitly asked the the Belgian Bridge Federation to provide you with official guidance regarding some of more unique interpretations. You stated - directly - that you would not do so because you knew that the powers that be would (erroneously) rule against you. It was at that point in time that I lost all respect for you and your little crusade. I couldn't care less how the regulatory authorities rule on the DWS. If the WBF Laws Committee decides that the DWS is the right thing to do, I will change my behavior immediately. However, I get very concerned when little Raskolnikov's spring up, declaring that their superior knowledge and standing places them above the normal system. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 15 17:29:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:29:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c7af61$fea23400$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >From: "Sven Pran" ................... > >I think most of us are just tired of his persistent argumentation. (And I > >haven't even been on BLML for more than just a short time!) > > > > I have not been persistent - I have patiently answered your persistent > queries. In which case we have a different understanding of the word "persistent". S From hermandw at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 18:12:16 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:12:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws Message-ID: >From Nigel: [Herman De Wael] But you forget one thing: it is not I who describes my hand, it is my partner who has done so. L75D2 explicitely forbids me from correcting this. If your argument holds sense, then this should also hold without any question about the 5Di bid. Therefore, you are questioning the WBF choice when writing L75D2. My reply "5Di shows 1 ace" is nothing more than my silence after partner's misexplanation of "Blackwood". You cannot call me a cheat for following the laws! [nige1] I feel that "5D shows 1A" is more than silence :( It is a sin of commission rather than omission :) That is a distinction I don't really care for. If instead you answer "D preference" it would correctly describe your systemic methods. Indeed, and breaking L75D2. That it might also correct partner's misinformation is secondary and incidental. And that is where the discussion is about. Is it ok to break L75D2 if it is in order to follow L73? And if it is, is it then not also OK to break L73 in order to follow L75D2. That's just my naive view. But you know I'm not a theoretician, Herman. I'm concerned with the *practical* damage that your misexplanation inflicts. OK, but that too is an argument of mine. I believe that the misinformation has already occurred, and that the additional information is relatively harmless. Whereas the UI is enormous. I believe that the WBF have already made the decision that the UI is worse than the original MI, and I believe that the additional MI cannot change that anymore. I like arguing. Hence I eschew personal attacks -- usually an admission of defeat in argument. Anyway, Herman is certainly not a cheat. I accept the apology. Let's now continue the discussion. _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 15 20:16:09 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:16:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <467299EC.60109@NTLworld.com> References: <467299EC.60109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <3A623300-9AEC-4A39-9F1F-AB886F4E1321@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 15, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Nigel wrote: > I like arguing. Hence I eschew personal attacks -- usually an > admission of defeat in argument. Anyway, Herman is certainly not a > cheat. Hm. Is expressing a negative opinion about someone's actions a personal attack? Or is the personal attack in the way that opinion is expressed? Personally, I think the latter. So, when I say that if a cheat is someone who deliberately and knowingly violates the rules of a game for personal gain, then Herman is not a cheat, but if a cheat is someone who deliberately and knowingly violates the rules of a game *whatever the reason*, then Herman *is* a cheat, then even if I say that I think the latter definition is more accurate, which I do, that is not a personal attack - and Herman, my regrets if you take it as one. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Jun 15 23:31:14 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:31:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws Message-ID: <002f01c7af94$8115d220$f8065e47@DFYXB361> This was meant for BLML, not in private to OP. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:19 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws > > >> >From: "raija" >>> >>>The fundamental argument I have is that DWS interpretation requires that >>>a >>>player deliberately lies about partnership agreement. I am strongly in >>>favor of telling the truth, even if the truth hurts my side. I have seen >>>no >>>counter to that. Gentleman and ladies do not tell lies. Even >>>bridgeplayers >>>who otherwise may lack finesse or manners in general, do not tell lies >>>unless they are dishonest. I believe Herman is not a dishonest person at >>>heart so it is puzzling to me that he keeps recommending that a lie be >>>told >>>instead of the truth. >>> >> >> Let me tell you once again: >> >> If my partner says 4NT is Blackwood and I keep quiet about it, I am also >> "lying". I believe that replying "5Di shows 1 ace" is just the same lie. >> Since the WBF explicitely orders me to do that first lie, I believe that >> the second lie is not forbidden, even ordered! >> So no, I do not believe i am being dishonest. >> >> Just one extra fact: even the followers of the MS, after answering "di >> preference", will have to also explain that partner has 1 ace, and so the >> true meaning of the MS response is: "he haas one ace, and he was wrong in >> thinking 4NT was Blackwood". The first is what I say, the second is what >> L75D2 forbids (us both) to say. >> > > Let me try one more time and let us not bring into this any 4NT or 5D bids > or any other examples that may or may not be relevant. It is a simple > matter that does not need examples. > > Case A. > 1. Opponent asks a "majority view" player about his partner's bid. > 2. The "majority view" player answers and tells the truth about the agreed > meaning of the bid. > > Case B. > 1. Opponent asks Herman about his partner's bid. > 2. Herman answers and tells a lie about the agreed meaning of the bid. > > There is no possible way that deliberately, knowingly, and pre-meditatedly > telling a lie to an opponent is proper, let alone legal. > > Despite my earlier withdrawal from this thread, I wrote again today. But > this is my last contribution. > > Raija > > From jeffford at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 00:03:33 2007 From: jeffford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <002f01c7af94$8115d220$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <002f01c7af94$8115d220$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <9dcd40e70706151503ic199a08h89198d5e71d791f6@mail.gmail.com> On 6/15/07, raija wrote: > > Let me try one more time and let us not bring into this any 4NT or 5D bids > > or any other examples that may or may not be relevant. It is a simple > > matter that does not need examples. > > > > Case A. > > 1. Opponent asks a "majority view" player about his partner's bid. > > 2. The "majority view" player answers and tells the truth about the agreed > > meaning of the bid. I think this talk of "lying" is quite overblown. It's just as accurate to phrase point 2 as "The 'majority view' player answers and lies about what his partner has communicated with his bid." > > Case B. > > 1. Opponent asks Herman about his partner's bid. > > 2. Herman answers and tells a lie about the agreed meaning of the bid. Here "Herman answers and tells the truth about what his partner shows with his bid." As a random player, my opinion on the dWS in general is of little importance, but I don't think calling its explanations "lying" is of any value in arguing against it. Whether the question is correctly answered according to what the agreement is (giving new UI), or what the player actually shows (possibly giving MI, but only that MI the opponents already have) should be stated more clearly in the next Laws. At the moment calling either position "lying" isn't right. Jeff -- Jeff Ford http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jeffford/ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 16 00:25:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:25:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <9dcd40e70706151503ic199a08h89198d5e71d791f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <002f01c7af94$8115d220$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <9dcd40e70706151503ic199a08h89198d5e71d791f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <73DB2E9F-A59A-4D81-9692-ED5AA5351620@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Jeff Ford wrote: > As a random player, my opinion on the dWS in general is of little > importance, but I don't think calling its explanations "lying" is of > any value in arguing against it. Whether the question is correctly > answered according to what the agreement is (giving new UI), or what > the player actually shows (possibly giving MI, but only that MI the > opponents already have) should be stated more clearly in the next > Laws. At the moment calling either position "lying" isn't right. Where did Herman's opponents get this MI that "they already have"? There is a procedure in place whereby, if a law or laws is/are unclear, the WBFLC may issue a clarifying statement. It seems to me the WBFLC has done so. Wtp? From jeffford at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 00:43:33 2007 From: jeffford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:43:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <73DB2E9F-A59A-4D81-9692-ED5AA5351620@rochester.rr.com> References: <002f01c7af94$8115d220$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <9dcd40e70706151503ic199a08h89198d5e71d791f6@mail.gmail.com> <73DB2E9F-A59A-4D81-9692-ED5AA5351620@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <9dcd40e70706151543p21a3f640v86816a3411dc8f42@mail.gmail.com> On 6/15/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Jeff Ford wrote: > > > As a random player, my opinion on the dWS in general is of little > > importance, but I don't think calling its explanations "lying" is of > > any value in arguing against it. Whether the question is correctly > > answered according to what the agreement is (giving new UI), or what > > the player actually shows (possibly giving MI, but only that MI the > > opponents already have) should be stated more clearly in the next > > Laws. At the moment calling either position "lying" isn't right. > > Where did Herman's opponents get this MI that "they already have"? With his partner's incorrect explanation of his earlier bid. In the canonical 4NT Blackwood or minors example, the MI is effectively that they're in a Blackwood sequence. Saying "one ace" is the same MI, that they're in a Blackwood sequence. Jeff -- Jeff Ford http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jeffford/ From jrmayne at mindspring.com Sat Jun 16 02:01:04 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <15705255.1181952065534.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: Jun 15, 2007 1:44 AM >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >John R. Mayne: > >[snip] > >>Is there something I'm not seeing? The MI problem seems >>difficult and unwieldy, but the UI's a slam dunk. > >Richard Hills: > >The UI problem may or may not be a slam dunk. In the >opinion of myself and the Director, West passing 2Cx was >not a logical alternative. But the UI problem is rather >boring, merely a matter of assessing what logical >alternatives exist. [Problem: 1D-2C-P-P-X-?; W has shown 5-5 in the majors with his 2C bid, and is 5=5=3=0.] I'm speechless. What you think isn't a logical alternative I find to be blindingly obvious. "Oooh! I figured to have one club, but I have zero! I'll then pull to a five-card suit that I've already shown! And partner will be kept out of the decision." I find this baffling. I think non-pass by W on these agreements is a clear error in either hemisphere. I would consider an appeal of a UI adjustment to be without merit. --JRM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 16 08:04:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:04:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070615095236.02954560@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The MI problem is much more interesting. If the MI had >>never occurred, Dorothy, North, would have chosen a lead- >>directing double, so +300 the hard way for us defending >>2C passed out would not have been an option. Alain Gottcheiner: >That isn't very ambitious from you. > >Many Norths would have jumped all the way to the most >probable end contract, 5C. East (with the knowledge of >the meaning of West's bid) could have led a Heart. > >So the best result for N/S, among reasonably plausible >results, is + 400. Richard Hills: Rather one should say that Dorothy isn't very ambitious. She is instinctively a bit more conservative in auctions than most of her peers, and is particularly conservative in partnership with me (due to counterbalancing my usual lunatic over-bidding). So adjusting the score to +400 is correct only if one assumes that a peer of Dorothy held Dorothy's hand. If one assumes that Dorothy herself held Dorothy's hand, then the correct adjustment (as was selected by the Chief Director) is +130, since the legal auction would have proceeded: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard --- --- --- 1D 2C(1) Dble(2) Pass(3) Pass 2S(4) 3C(5) Pass Pass Pass (1) Assumed to have been correctly alerted and explained by East to Dorothy as 8-11 hcp, 5/5 in the majors. (2) Lead-directing, showing clubs, but not alertable in Australia. (3) Since East forgot the partnership agreement at the table, East is assumed to have forgotten the hypothetical correct explanation they just gave, so is passing their partner's "natural" overcall rather than giving a preference to spades opposite partner's actual major two- suiter. (4) If there had been zero unauthorised information - if, for example, this deal had been played behind screens - the only logical assumptions on this auction for West are that either: (a) East intended their pass of the double to show equal length in spades and hearts, asking West to bid their stronger major, or (b) East has forgotten the 2C convention. (5) Non-forcing, since an immediate 3C would be forcing. And on this hypothetical legal auction a spade lead, which turns +150 into +130, is the only logical alternative lead for East. The reasoning of this adjusted score is fully consistent with the axioms (postulates) of the Chief Director and myself. Of course, as has been shown in other recent endless threads, reasoning is necessary *but not sufficient* to achieve a correct outcome - one must also select the appropriate postulates. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * Isaac Asimov, I Robot, "Reason": "No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot - damn it. He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that ..." His voice trailed away. "What's that?" prompted Donovan. "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his." "Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow." Powell sighed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them. I'm going to bed." Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 16 04:10:22 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:10:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4673468E.7070808@NTLworld.com> [nige1] I like arguing. Hence I eschew personal attacks -- usually an admission of defeat in argument. Anyway, Herman is certainly not a cheat. [Herman De Wael] I accept the apology. Let's now continue the discussion. [nigel] Herman accepts the apology! What apology? For what would I apologise, Herman? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070616/96246d0f/attachment.htm From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 17 06:50:31 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psychs Message-ID: <003401c7b09b$0a9e1460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I came across a very old ACBL convention card of mine that had four check boxes for indicating psych frequency: Never, Rare, Occasional, and Frequent. 1) This seemed like a good thing, but someone on BLML said it was bad. Why? 2) Psyching is part of the game, as recognized by the Laws. Should not a pair that has an agreement, explicit or implicit, that they never psych, be obliged to disclose that in advance? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 16 20:46:31 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:46:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psychs In-Reply-To: <003401c7b09b$0a9e1460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c7b046$a807ef00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French > I came across a very old ACBL convention card of mine that had > four check boxes for indicating psych frequency: Never, Rare, > Occasional, and Frequent. > > 1) This seemed like a good thing, but someone on BLML said it > was bad. Why? I agree with those who said it was bad because a psyche by definition is "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". Misstatement relative to what? Of course your declared agreements. If your declaration includes a specification of the frequency with which you make a psyche then this specification becomes part of your agreements, and thus psyches in accordance with this specification are no longer gross misstatements, i.e. they no longer qualifies as "psyches" that are permitted by Law 40A. Instead a specification that you with a certain non-zero frequency will psyche certain bids automatically makes your system HUM if there is the least possibility that your psyche for instance can be an opening bid at the one level with less than 7 HCP! > 2) Psyching is part of the game, as recognized by the Laws. > Should not a pair that has an agreement, explicit or implicit, > that they never psych, be obliged to disclose that in advance? Psyching is indeed part of the game, but the condition must be (and is) that they must not in any way be announced or declared, for instance through a probability indication on your declarations. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 16 21:10:11 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:10:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <9dcd40e70706151543p21a3f640v86816a3411dc8f42@mail.gmail.com> References: <002f01c7af94$8115d220$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <9dcd40e70706151503ic199a08h89198d5e71d791f6@mail.gmail.com> <73DB2E9F-A59A-4D81-9692-ED5AA5351620@rochester.rr.com> <9dcd40e70706151543p21a3f640v86816a3411dc8f42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6983E88F-6A2D-4072-9EA8-07A16D0148A9@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 15, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Jeff Ford wrote: > With his partner's incorrect explanation of his earlier bid. In the > canonical 4NT Blackwood or minors example, the MI is effectively that > they're in a Blackwood sequence. Saying "one ace" is the same MI, > that they're in a Blackwood sequence. All right. But I don't think that's the only case in which the dWS applies - I believe there have been other examples wherein the first explanation given to opponents was Herman's dWS explanation. Not that it really matters. From hermandw at hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 09:35:37 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:35:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <6983E88F-6A2D-4072-9EA8-07A16D0148A9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >From: Ed Reppert > >On Jun 15, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Jeff Ford wrote: > > > With his partner's incorrect explanation of his earlier bid. In the > > canonical 4NT Blackwood or minors example, the MI is effectively that > > they're in a Blackwood sequence. Saying "one ace" is the same MI, > > that they're in a Blackwood sequence. > > >All right. But I don't think that's the only case in which the dWS >applies - I believe there have been other examples wherein the first >explanation given to opponents was Herman's dWS explanation. Not that >it really matters. > Ed, you really should try to get your stories straight. Since this is a dWS case, it has started with a wrong explanation of the previous bid. So indeed in all cases the MI you are all so worried about is marginal at best, nonexistent very often. In the example given, 4NT was explained as Blackwood. To then explain that 5Di shows 1 ace does indeed give the missing information that 5Di systemically shows a diamond preference (*) but the missing information that 4NT bidder has a minor 2-suiter was already contained in the previous MI, whihc as we know L75D2 forbids us to correct. (*) I realize that in this example the meaning of 5Di is too simple, in other cases the meaning will be more important - but in any case it will be marginal. _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 17 10:28:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:28:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c7b0b9$86221f50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > In the example given, 4NT was explained as Blackwood. To then explain > that 5Di shows 1 ace does indeed give the missing information that 5Di > systemically shows a diamond preference (*) but the missing information > that 4NT bidder has a minor 2-suiter was already contained in the > previous MI, which as we know L75D2 forbids us to correct. > > (*) I realize that in this example the meaning of 5Di is too simple, > in other cases the meaning will be more important - but in any case > it will be marginal. Herman: Has it ever occurred to you that the player who explains the (in this case) bid of 5D as showing one ace is violating Law 16A? Sven From hermandw at hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 12:33:32 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:33:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <000001c7b0b9$86221f50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" > >Herman: Has it ever occurred to you that the player who explains the (in >this case) bid of 5D as showing one ace is violating Law 16A? > No Sven, that has never occured to me, because it simply isn't true!! This has been pointed out many times before, and each and every time I have pointed out why this is a fallacy. L16A prohibits making calls and plays based on UI, but it says nothing about other actions. In fact, there are a number of actions that are based on UI that the laws actually ascribe! Like correcting the MI before the opening lead! But then it doesn't matter how often I correct people, they keep on coming up with the same, wrong arguments. And then they accuse me of persisting! >Sven > _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/live/features From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 17 16:35:23 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:35:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c7b0ec$bd584e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >From: "Sven Pran" > > > >Herman: Has it ever occurred to you that the player who explains the (in > >this case) bid of 5D as showing one ace is violating Law 16A? > > > > No Sven, that has never occured to me, because it simply isn't true!! > This has been pointed out many times before, and each and every time I > have > pointed out why this is a fallacy. L16A prohibits making calls and plays > based on UI, but it says nothing about other actions. In fact, there are a > number of actions that are based on UI that the laws actually ascribe! > Like correcting the MI before the opening lead! ............... I honestly believed that you knew the laws better than that? (Presumed declarer and/or his partner correcting MI before the opening lead is explicitly not only permitted but even required in Law 75D2. This action is therefore not "chosen from among logical alternatives"; it is the only available alternative!) Law 16A: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. This law concerns extraneous information that "may suggest a call or play". Do you disagree that an incorrect explanation of your call (like 4NT explained as Blackwood instead of showing minors) "may suggest a call or play"? (Please notice that like Law 16A I say "may", not "does".) L16A further prohibits any "action" that could be suggested over another logical alternative by such extraneous information. This part of Law 16A concerns "actions" in general; nowhere does it say that such actions shall be limited to calls and plays only. Your incorrect answer to a question on your partner's call is indeed also an "action" that actually violates both L16A and L75C. If the intended prohibition in Law 16A were limited to just calls and plays we must assume that the text would have been: ".... may not chose among logical alternative calls or plays one that could ....". When Law 16A uses the term "actions" instead of "calls and plays" we must assume that the intention is to prohibit any action, whatever the nature, which could be suggested over an alternative by the extraneous information. Sven From hermandw at hotmail.com Sun Jun 17 18:17:20 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:17:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <000301c7b0ec$bd584e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Nice one, Sven! > >I honestly believed that you knew the laws better than that? > >(Presumed declarer and/or his partner correcting MI before the opening lead >is explicitly not only permitted but even required in Law 75D2. This action >is therefore not "chosen from among logical alternatives"; it is the only >available alternative!) > >Law 16A: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous >information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a >question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted >speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, >the >partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that >could >demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >information. > >This law concerns extraneous information that "may suggest a call or play". >Do you disagree that an incorrect explanation of your call (like 4NT >explained as Blackwood instead of showing minors) "may suggest a call or >play"? (Please notice that like Law 16A I say "may", not "does".) > >L16A further prohibits any "action" that could be suggested over another >logical alternative by such extraneous information. This part of Law 16A >concerns "actions" in general; nowhere does it say that such actions shall >be limited to calls and plays only. Your incorrect answer to a question on >your partner's call is indeed also an "action" that actually violates both >L16A and L75C. > >If the intended prohibition in Law 16A were limited to just calls and plays >we must assume that the text would have been: ".... may not chose among >logical alternative calls or plays one that could ....". When Law 16A uses >the term "actions" instead of "calls and plays" we must assume that the >intention is to prohibit any action, whatever the nature, which could be >suggested over an alternative by the extraneous information. > We know very well that the laws are written in English, not Legalese. The "actions" in the second part of the sentence refers to the "calls and plays" of the first part. Anyway, this is an alternative interpretation. But even then, you can find for my part seventeen laws that a player following the dWS is breaking, there remains this one (L75D2) that a player from the MS is breaking. I find the effort that you are making in trying to defend a spurious point very tiring. There are two alternative actions, both of which break at least one law. If you believe that it is acceptable to chose the one action, then surely the other one must also be acceptable. >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 17 23:28:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:28:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c7b126$6328cb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > We know very well that the laws are written in English, not Legalese. The > "actions" in the second part of the sentence refers to the "calls and > plays" of the first part. Interesting allegation. > Anyway, this is an alternative interpretation. Good for you that you at least admit your allegation is a possible alternative interpretation and not the holy truth. > But even then, you can find for my part seventeen laws that a player > following the dWS is breaking, there remains this one (L75D2) that a > player from the MS is breaking. I find the effort that you are making > in trying to defend a spurious point very tiring. There are two > alternative actions, both of which break at least one law. If you > believe that it is acceptable to chose the one action, then surely the > other one must also be acceptable. "A spurious point"?!!! When you can find seventeen laws that a dWS player is breaking (two were enough for me) you still maintain that the only law supporting dWS is THE holy truth and that all others are mistakes? And your interpretation of Law 16A is astonishing to say the least: "If one alternative is acceptable then surely the other one must also be acceptable". Let me tell you that if I ever should happen to rule on a statement that your "action" after receiving UI from your partner was not that of a call or a play and therefore was legal; if your action directly or indirectly could have had any impact on the result of that board I would not hesitate to rule against you or anybody else with a similar opinion. I have far more trust in the people who have written the laws that they know their English than what you apparently have. This will be my absolutely last contribution to the thread. Had your last post not been that marvelously astonishing (not intended as a compliment) I wouldn't even have bothered with this. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jun 17 23:52:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:52:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003401c7b09b$0a9e1460$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >2) Psyching is part of the game, as recognized by the Laws. >Should not a pair that has an agreement, explicit or >implicit, that they never psych, be obliged to disclose >that in advance? Richard Hills: When I upgraded my social pairs partnership with Dorothy Jesner to a tournament imps partnership a few years ago, at her insistence we came to an explicit agreement that I would never psyche. So when I did psyche, it was a totally ethical action, since all three of my opponents believed that it was a gross misstatement of our partnership agreement. :-) 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 03:41:30 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:41:30 +1200 Subject: [blml] Unbelievable Auction Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706171841m602f8a34h49f721b47ed104e3@mail.gmail.com> IMPs E/W Vul Dealer South As West you hold: 94 AJ K542 97652 (2D*) Pass (3H**) X (3S) ? * Multi but can be based on a five-card major ** Pass or Correct What are your logical alternatives i/ If partner's double is penalties? ii/ if partner's double is takeout? Without trying to pre-empt the discussion ... What can you do as the director when West chooses a very unusual action which happens to work creating a suspicion that something untoward was going on? Wayne From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 18 05:45:37 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:45:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unbelievable Auction In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706171841m602f8a34h49f721b47ed104e3@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560706171841m602f8a34h49f721b47ed104e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "Wayne Burrows" writes: > IMPs > E/W Vul > Dealer South > > As West you hold: > > 94 > AJ > K542 > 97652 > > (2D*) Pass (3H**) X > (3S) ? > > * Multi but can be based on a five-card major > > ** Pass or Correct > > What are your logical alternatives > > i/ If partner's double is penalties? A penalty double implies an overcall of 3H over a spade preempt. I can't make game opposite such a hand unless partner has enough to bid again, and I don't have any reason to expect I can beat 3S unless partner can double, so pass is my choice; double is a LA if it is card-showing, but not if it is penalty. I don't think 4H is an LA; North probably has four hearts, so the suit won't break, and my doubleton spade is a liability, not an asset. (I did seriously consider it, though, so it depends on the jurisdiction.) > ii/ if partner's double is takeout? If double is takeout of an unspecified major (which makes sense here), double would be my choice if it is responsive or card-showing (hoping partner can bid 3NT), but is not an LA if penalty. 4C is my choice otherwise. I would say that 4D (intending to bid 5C only if they go on to 4S) is a LA but 4NT is not, as five of a minor is almost surely down if partner has a doubleton spade. If double is takeout of hearts, 3NT is the obvious call, with double a LA, but this seems unlikely since the opponents would not be in spades. > Without trying to pre-empt the discussion ... > > What can you do as the director when West chooses a very unusual > action which happens to work creating a suspicion that something > untoward was going on? I have to have some evidence of either use of UI or a CPU to rule against West. To rule a CPU, I have to see an East hand inconsistent with the agreement or explanation; to rule UI, I have to have some idea what the UI is. Even if there is a Rule of Coincidence, it is just a way of saying that I believe there is a CPU. West overbidding 4H (over a penalty double) and catching East with a good hand would not be suffficient evidence of a CPU or UI, but would lead to a ruling against West if East doubled prematurely (not waiting over the skip bid) or loudly. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 18 08:43:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:43:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sergeant Pepper [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <15705255.1181952065534.JavaMail.root@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Mayne: >[Problem: 1D-2C-P-P-X-?; W has shown 5-5 in the majors with >his 2C bid, and is 5=5=3=0.] > >I'm speechless. What you think isn't a logical alternative >I find to be blindingly obvious. > >"Oooh! I figured to have one club, but I have zero! I'll >then pull to a five-card suit that I've already shown! And >partner will be kept out of the decision." > >I find this baffling. I think non-pass by W on these >agreements is a clear error in either hemisphere. Richard Hills: A call which is a clear error may also be a call which is the only logical alternative, because "logical alternative" is a misnomer. 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." John Mayne: >I would consider an appeal of a UI adjustment to be >without merit. Richard Hills: And I would consider the adjustment itself to be without merit if all of West's peers would, when there was not any UI, automatically choose the clear error of a non-pass. 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 cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jun 18 08:52:14 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:52:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unbelievable Auction References: <2a1c3a560706171841m602f8a34h49f721b47ed104e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <015c01c7b175$3591dc30$f3121d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:41 AM Subject: [blml] Unbelievable Auction > IMPs > E/W Vul > Dealer South > > As West you hold: > > 94 > AJ > K542 > 97652 > > (2D*) Pass (3H**) X > (3S) ? > > * Multi but can be based on a five-card major > > ** Pass or Correct > > What are your logical alternatives > > i/ If partner's double is penalties? > pass. Everything else is nuts. > ii/ if partner's double is takeout? 4C, 5C & 4NT. I consider the last two inferior bids but LAs they are > > Without trying to pre-empt the discussion ... > > What can you do as the director when West chooses a very unusual > action Like what? Begin to dance on the table? > which happens to work creating a suspicion that something > untoward was going on? > Your question is far too general to get any reply different from "I investigate further". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ile masz w domu niepotrzebnych rzeczy? Wymien sie z sasiadami >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a93 From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jun 18 08:54:37 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:54:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unbelievable Auction References: <2a1c3a560706171841m602f8a34h49f721b47ed104e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <016601c7b175$89f73cc0$f3121d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" > > ii/ if partner's double is takeout? > Sorry, I meant: 3NT, 4C, 5C and 4NT and "three last calls" instead of two. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Szef portalu orange.pl poleca telefon od 1 zl z dostawa do domu gratis Zamow on-line >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1aae From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 18 13:25:10 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:25:10 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Sergeant_Pepper____=5BS?= =?iso-8859-1?q?EC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <46766B95.000004.89327@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard --- --- --- 1D 2C(1) Dble(2) Pass(3) Pass 2S(4) 3C(5) Pass Pass Pass (1) Assumed to have been correctly alerted and explained by East to Dorothy as 8-11 hcp, 5/5 in the majors. (2) Lead-directing, showing clubs, but not alertable in Australia. (3) Since East forgot the partnership agreement at the table, East is assumed to have forgotten the hypothetical correct explanation they just gave, so is passing their partner's "natural" overcall rather than giving a preference to spades opposite partner's actual major two- suiter. (4) If there had been zero unauthorised information - if, for example, this deal had been played behind screens - the only logical assumptions on this auction for West are that either: (a) East intended their pass of the double to show equal length in spades and hearts, asking West to bid their stronger major, or (b) East has forgotten the 2C convention. Not quite. There is also (c), "I want to play this contract", with XX = choose your best major. BTW, that's how I play it after 1NT (2C=majors) X. Without MI, pass would be logical. Why can't East hold xx - x - Axx - KJ9xxxx, with North holding AQ10x ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070618/94ff7f0a/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/20070618/94ff7f0a/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/20070618/94ff7f0a/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 18 13:59:48 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:59:48 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Unbelievable_Auction?= References: <2a1c3a560706171841m602f8a34h49f721b47ed104e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <467673B4.000016.89327@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- 94 AJ K542 97652 (2D*) Pass (3H**) X (3S) ? * Multi but can be based on a five-card major ** Pass or Correct What are your logical alternatives i/ If partner's double is penalties? # Not enough (in H and/or points) to bid 4H, so I've to pass. Perhaps partner will act once more ? ii/ if partner's double is takeout? # doubling 3S seems sane, knowing that partner holds 3+ in that suit. 3NT is excessive, but I know some that would bid it. 4C is possible, too. ... What can you do as the director when West chooses a very unusual action which happens to work creating a suspicion that something untoward was going on? # I don't like the words "creating a suspicion". Either Eas't mannerisms suggest an action over another, and you know the Laws. Either they don't (or there aren't), and why should Wes'ts strange action be something else that a strange action ? BTW, none of double, 3NT, 4C or 4H (after Xdouble) or even 4NT is so strange. You know, Multi still creates havoc in opponents' auction. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070618/935c29d5/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/20070618/935c29d5/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 35396 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070618/935c29d5/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at hotmail.com Mon Jun 18 15:27:32 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:27:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws In-Reply-To: <000d01c7b126$6328cb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" > > > Anyway, this is an alternative interpretation. > >Good for you that you at least admit your allegation is a possible >alternative interpretation and not the holy truth. > Unlike some, I have no problem with admitting that alternative opinions are possible. > > > But even then, you can find for my part seventeen laws that a player > > following the dWS is breaking, there remains this one (L75D2) that a > > player from the MS is breaking. I find the effort that you are making > > in trying to defend a spurious point very tiring. There are two > > alternative actions, both of which break at least one law. If you > > believe that it is acceptable to chose the one action, then surely the > > other one must also be acceptable. > >"A spurious point"?!!! > >When you can find seventeen laws that a dWS player is breaking (two were >enough for me) you still maintain that the only law supporting dWS is THE >holy truth and that all others are mistakes? > >And your interpretation of Law 16A is astonishing to say the least: "If one >alternative is acceptable then surely the other one must also be >acceptable". > I am not talking of logical alternatives here, nothing to do with L16. The player who is faced with the dilemma has two alternatives. You keep hammering the fact that one alternative (dWS) is against the laws. But you keep forgetting that the other alternative (MS) is also against the laws. Now my point is that you cannot use an argument such as: if one alternative is against the laws, then the other one must be within the laws. Because that argument works both ways. The only thing that you can say is that if both alternatives are against the laws, then both must be acceptable. >Let me tell you that if I ever should happen to rule on a statement that >your "action" after receiving UI from your partner was not that of a call >or >a play and therefore was legal; if your action directly or indirectly could >have had any impact on the result of that board I would not hesitate to >rule >against you or anybody else with a similar opinion. > But I never said my actions were legal, only that they should be acceptable! Because your actions are also illegal, and acceptable! >I have far more trust in the people who have written the laws that they >know >their English than what you apparently have. > >This will be my absolutely last contribution to the thread. Had your last >post not been that marvelously astonishing (not intended as a compliment) I >wouldn't even have bothered with this. > Don't think however that you have won any argument. >Sven > _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 18 15:54:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:54:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psychs In-Reply-To: <003401c7b09b$0a9e1460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003401c7b09b$0a9e1460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <1183C3B3-772B-4AE1-B580-02058A2BD866@starpower.net> On Jun 17, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Marvin French wrote: > I came across a very old ACBL convention card of mine that had > four check boxes for indicating psych frequency: Never, Rare, > Occasional, and Frequent. > > 1) This seemed like a good thing, but someone on BLML said it > was bad. Why? > > 2) Psyching is part of the game, as recognized by the Laws. > Should not a pair that has an agreement, explicit or implicit, > that they never psych, be obliged to disclose that in advance? Of course they should. Your opponents are entitled to know as much about your methods as you do, and that's clearly an important piece of information. It was expunged from the ACBL convention card in the 1970s when the ACBL, under the leadership of Don Oakie, mounted an intensive campaign to convince ACBL players that psyching was somehow illegitimate -- protected by the laws, but not something that a genuinely ethical player would do. The explicit objective of Mr. Oakie's campaign was to rid the (American) game of those nasty psychic "disruptions" altogether. Since the checkboxes on the CC served to remind players that they were allowed to psych despite the ACBL's opinion of the practice, they had to go if players were to be convinced that the law's protection of psychs was, as Mr. Oakie believed, nothing more than a loophole for cheaters. But even in the ACBL today, players do psych, and there's no excuse for not revealing the extent of their proclivity to do so to their opponents on their CC. Restoring the checkboxes would only help opponents of legitimate psychers. Allowing -- indeed, requiring! -- players to keep their psyching proclivities unrevealed can only help those who hope to gain questionable advantage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Jun 18 16:20:33 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:20:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psychs In-Reply-To: <1183C3B3-772B-4AE1-B580-02058A2BD866@starpower.net> References: <003401c7b09b$0a9e1460$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <1183C3B3-772B-4AE1-B580-02058A2BD866@starpower.net> Message-ID: <467694B1.9020803@meadows.pair.com> On 06/18/2007 09:54 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 17, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Marvin French wrote: > >> I came across a very old ACBL convention card of mine that had >> four check boxes for indicating psych frequency: Never, Rare, >> Occasional, and Frequent. >> >> 1) This seemed like a good thing, but someone on BLML said it >> was bad. Why? >> >> 2) Psyching is part of the game, as recognized by the Laws. >> Should not a pair that has an agreement, explicit or implicit, >> that they never psych, be obliged to disclose that in advance? > > Of course they should. Your opponents are entitled to know as much > about your methods as you do, and that's clearly an important piece > of information. > > It was expunged from the ACBL convention card in the 1970s when the > ACBL, under the leadership of Don Oakie, mounted an intensive > campaign to convince ACBL players that psyching was somehow > illegitimate -- protected by the laws, but not something that a > genuinely ethical player would do. The explicit objective of Mr. > Oakie's campaign was to rid the (American) game of those nasty > psychic "disruptions" altogether. Since the checkboxes on the CC > served to remind players that they were allowed to psych despite the > ACBL's opinion of the practice, they had to go if players were to be > convinced that the law's protection of psychs was, as Mr. Oakie > believed, nothing more than a loophole for cheaters. > <...> As far as I remember from my time playing bridge in England, there used to be a statement in the Orange/Yellow/whatever book that WBF convention cards were acceptable under certain circumstances, but only if all references to psychic habits had been obliterated. I don't think it was just the American game. Brian. From hermandw at hotmail.com Thu Jun 21 15:36:48 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:36:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] appeals booklet Warsaw 2006 Message-ID: The appeal booklet containing all 13 appeals held during the Last Years' European Championships at Warszawa has been published on the EBL website: http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2006.pdf enjoy! _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 23:26:25 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:26:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 Message-ID: Look at the last appeal here: http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2006.pdf I'm not sure if it's only a bad write-up or if the TDs and AC doesn't have a clue to how to handle UI cases. The first thing to do is to show that the chosen action demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI transmitted. The fact that some players would pass doesn't automatically show that this is true. So the TDs (and AC) need to discuss how and why this is so. And this should be reflected in the write-up of the case. The TD(s) obviously got this one wrong - passing 4H isn't an option IMO. The AC got them to the correct strain. I'm not sure about the level. That's not the most interesting thing to me though. What really boggles me is that TDs and ACs at international level seemingly seem to be under the false impression that if there's UI present there should always be an adjustment if they land in the top spot after transmission of UI. This is only true if there's been chosen an action that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. So please, could the decisions include a discussion on what UI has been transmitted, and how this UI demonstrably have suggested the chosen action over other LAs. Else the write-ups of these appeals have little value. The most important point is not adressed at all. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070621/97552ab0/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 22 06:12:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:12:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <467B4C40.9030206@NTLworld.com> [Marvin French] 2) Psyching is part of the game, as recognized by the Laws. Should not a pair that has an agreement, explicit or implicit, that they never psych, be obliged to disclose that in advance? [Richard Hills] When I upgraded my social pairs partnership with Dorothy Jesner to a tournament imps partnership a few years ago, at her insistence we came to an explicit agreement that I would never psyche. So when I did psyche, it was a totally ethical action, since all three of my opponents believed that it was a gross misstatement of our partnership agreement. [nige1] I agree with Richard. Practically, what can a director do if I tick the "Never psych" box but psych on the first three boards? Also if I tick "frequent psychs" does my partner have to tick "frequent psychs" too? so that we have identical convention cards? Knowing that you psych frequently may be useful to your partner playing with you for many boards in a long competition. It is of less use to me as an opponent, playing only a few boards against you. The theoretical objection is stronger. By definition, psychs must not conform to a predictable pattern. Frequency is an integral part of a such a pattern so should not be subject to agreement. The worst practical problem about *frequent psychs* is that most psychers seem to have preferred contexts (form of competition, vulnerability, seat at the table, state of the match) and preferred methods (light third-hand openings, short suit replies when you have a fit, weak off-shape notrump overcalls, or whatever. If there is such a pattern, then the more frequent the psychs, the more easy it is to recognise and field them. Anyway, the whole field is a minefield and needs a proper systematic clean-up. Deliberate gross departures from declared methods are rare. Much more common and insidious are deliberate *minor deviations* as exemplified by many so-called tactical bids. Experts often use tactical bids in a controlled systemic context that limits potential damage to partner but maximises likely damage to opponents. Effectively they are *controlled psychs* -- sorry not always psychs -- often minor deviations. For example, some experts employ Drury to control light third hand openers. Many trial bids, cue-bids, asking bids, and relays can be used to mislead in ways that are protected from harm by systemic agreements. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070622/fbe43d05/attachment.htm From albertgf at maltanet.net Fri Jun 22 12:43:57 2007 From: albertgf at maltanet.net (agf) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:43:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication Message-ID: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> Hi Maybe you can help solve this argument. E/W are playing weak 2s with a maximum of 10 points The bidding goes N E S W P P P 2H P P DBL P 2NT 3D P 3H DBL P P P It turns out that E held 12 Points. The contract makes and S call the director and says that his side has been damaged a he would not have doubled if E had opened a normal 1H, furthermore West, (holding 11 points and 5D) by bidding 3D had given his partner un authorised information. Your comments would be appreciated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070622/f8ed6cfc/attachment.htm From geller at nifty.com Fri Jun 22 13:22:54 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:22:54 +0900 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> Message-ID: <200706221122.AA09491@geller204.nifty.com> The 4321 point count is just a crude first estimate of strength. Everyone knows it overvalues queens, undervalues aces, and ignores distribution. Anyone who watches BBO or reads tournet reports knows that good players routinely upvalue and downrate their hands from what a robot-like 4321 count says. So if, for example, the "12 point" 2H opening was based on xxx KQJxxx QJ QJ, I don't see what the problem is. That hand is a piece of junk with no chance for game opposite a passed hand. Furthermore if West decides to compete by bidding 3D, that's his right. NS took a shot by doubling and lost. That's their problem. But to demand an adjustment is utterly unjustifiable. They should forfeit the deposit. More generally, there should be an understanding by all players and officials that players should not and cannot be held rigidly to the face value 4321 count without allowing for reasonable (and maybe slightly questionable) adjustments. Of course this information ought to be disclosed. (My regular partner and I have a disclaimer to that effect on our conevntion card.) -Bob agf ????????: >Hi >Maybe you can help solve this argument. >E/W are playing weak 2s with a maximum of 10 points >The bidding goes N E S W > P P > P 2H P P > DBL P 2NT 3D > P 3H DBL P > P P > >It turns out that E held 12 Points. > >The contract makes and S call the director and says that his side has been damaged a he would not have doubled if E had opened a normal 1H, furthermore West, (holding 11 points and 5D) by bidding 3D had given his partner un authorised information. > >Your comments would be appreciated. > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ _____ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 22 14:12:42 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:12:42 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__adjudication?= References: <200706221122.AA09491@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <467BBCB8.000009.70997@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > There should be an understanding by all players and officials that players should not and cannot be held rigidly to the face value 4321 count without allowing for reasonable (and maybe slightly questionable) adjustments. Of course this information ought to be disclosed. (My regular partner and I have a disclaimer to that effect on our conevntion card.) Me too. That's what the "general style" box is for. I'd welcome an "official" checkbox on CCs : "point ranges absolute / adaptable / loose". This case is among the most obvious ; anybody who plays club tournaments should know 3d-seat preempts are adaptable. And anyway I bet that if opener s hand had contained a seventh heart and a little less in high-card strength the contract would have been made, too. However, some cases are less classical ; pairs that use lightish takeout doubles or 2/1, for example, should be careful to mention it in plain sight. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070622/ef94e880/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/20070622/ef94e880/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 35396 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070622/ef94e880/attachment-0001.gif From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 22 16:07:14 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:07:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__adjudication?= In-Reply-To: <467BBCB8.000009.70997@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <200706221122.AA09491@geller204.nifty.com> <467BBCB8.000009.70997@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <315E78A8-5F82-4EBD-A1C2-626A5CA9C626@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 22, 2007, at 8:12 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > This case is among the most obvious ; anybody who plays club > tournaments should know 3d-seat preempts are adaptable And that fourth seat weak twos (which this was) are typically 10-13 HCP. Bottom line, south needs to learn to live with the consequences of his mistakes, not ask the TD to bail him out. West gave his partner UI by bidding? Hogwash. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 22 18:46:47 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:46:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> Message-ID: <467BFCF7.6070206@NTLworld.com> [AGF] E/W are playing weak 2s with a maximum of 10 points The bidding goes _W__N__E__S -- -- -- _P _P _P 2H _P _P _X _P 2N 3D _P 3H _X AP It turns out that E held 12 Points. The contract makes and S call the director and says that his side has been damaged a he would not have doubled if E had opened a normal 1H, furthermore West, (holding 11 points and 5D) by bidding 3D had given his partner unauthorised information. Your comments would be appreciated. [Robert Geller] The 4321 point count is just a crude first estimate of strength. Everyone knows it overvalues queens, undervalues aces, and ignores distribution. Anyone who watches BBO or reads tournet reports knows that good players routinely upvalue and downrate their hands from what a robot-like 4321 count says. So if, for example, the "12 point" 2H opening was based on xxx KQJxxx QJ QJ, I don't see what the problem is. That hand is a piece of junk with no chance for game opposite a passed hand. Furthermore if West decides to compete by bidding 3D, that's his right. NS took a shot by doubling and lost. That's their problem. But to demand an adjustment is utterly unjustifiable. They should forfeit the deposit. [Alain Gottcheiner] Me too. That's what the "general style" box is for.I'd welcome an "official" checkbox on CCs : "point ranges absolute / adaptable / loose". This case is among the most obvious ; anybody who plays club tournaments should know 3d-seat preempts are adaptable. And anyway I bet that if opener's hand had contained a seventh heart and a little less in high-card strength, the contract would have been made, too. However, some cases are less classical ; pairs that use lightish takeout doubles or 2/1, for example, should be careful to mention it in plain sight. [Ed Reppert] And that fourth seat weak twos (which this was) are typically 10-13 HCP. Bottom line, south needs to learn to live with the consequences of his mistakes, not ask the TD to bail him out. West gave his partner UI by bidding? Hogwash. [nige1 cross-posted to Bridge Talk] I agree with Robert Geller that West had a perfect right to bid 3D but the rest of the above makes little sense to me. [A] Let us start with the simple and obvious. The EBU Orange book defines (Milton Work) High Card Points, *HCP*, as *A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1*. Moat Bridge books confirm this meaning. Everybody accepts that that HCP are a rough measure of high card strength but for those capable of understanding a short definition and accomplishing simple addition there can be no ambiguity, legal or otherwise, about the number of HCP in a hand. [B] Of course, even simple players like me know that when evaluating the trick potential of a hand we should consider other factors. Typically, we make point count adjustments for *Hand shape* (shortages and long suits) *Honour distribution* (honours work best in long suits), *Honor concentration* (honours re-enforce each other), *Intermediates* (texture, especially tens), partner's and opponents' bidding (honours are better placed in fitting suits and suits bid on our right). [C] Most players are also aware that points for length, shortage, placement and so on are not *high card* points. For example we realize that a long suit can be worth more tricks than a high-card but it is *not* a high card. [D] It is perfectly easy to take adjustments into account but still accurately describe HCP. For example, when you open 2H... -- if you sometimes upgrade 5-point hands and downgrade 11 HCP, then you can accurately describe the HCP range as "5-11". Better perhaps is "a good 11 HCP to a poor 15 HCP". If you regard even that as misleading you can detail your shape and other requirements. IMO, however, you should not tell a deliberate lie, such as "6-10" if that is not your real agreement. -- if you open on 12 counts in third seat, again you can declare that. The new EBU card specifies how to can highlight such exceptions to opponents. If you don't declare exceptions, IMO you should alert them. A few pairs don't vary at all but most pairs do vary requirements depending on vulnerability and position at the table. Different groups vary requirements in different contexts and in different ways. Thus, I think Ed is wrong to imply that it is quite legal to declare *a maximum of 10 HCP* but expect opponents to know that you sometimes open 12HCP hands by agreement. [E] Many players seem reluctant to divulge HCP; most directors are happy to grant players lee-way in declaring ranges; such sloppiness seems endemic; but I wish this trend were reversed. Unadorned HCP give opponents useful and accurate information about high card strength. HCP may be a crude yardstick but it is well-defined and objective. whereas there is wide disagreement about adjustments for other factors. Arbitrary adjustments just complicate matters and blur the definition. Rigid adherence to the simple law-book definition of HCP would eliminate legal ambiguity. [F] The law should insist that players describe shape and other requirements *as well as but not instead of* HCP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 269.9.1/857 - Release Date: 20/06/2007 14:18 From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 19:05:28 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:05:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <467BFCF7.6070206@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <467BFCF7.6070206@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706221005k46aa7550s916c997ecede8b2a@mail.gmail.com> Comment 1: The entire discussion about High Card Points strikes me as extraneous. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that primary issue that needs to be addressed is disclosure requirements for 4th seat preempts. Comment 2: Assume the following: 1. Pair 1 uses hand evaluation metric 1 in evaluating hands 2. Pair 2 uses hand evaluation metric 2 in evaluating hands 3. There are significant differences between hand evaluation 1 and hand evaluation 2 4. Pair 2 doesn't understand metric 1 There is no good way to handle this problem. If you require that pair 2 describes their agreements using metric 1, then Pair 2 will be provided with accurate / useless information If you require that pair 1 describes their agreements using metric 2, then pair 2 will be provided with inaccurate information that they (hopefully) understand. In particular, the boundary conditions are likely to be a real bitch. Neither of these two cases is very satisfactory -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From adam at irvine.com Fri Jun 22 19:09:40 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:09:40 -0700 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:43:57 +0200." <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> Message-ID: <200706221700.KAA28416@mailhub.irvine.com> agf wrote: > Hi > Maybe you can help solve this argument. > E/W are playing weak 2s with a maximum of 10 points > The bidding goes > N E S W > > P P > > P 2H P P > > DBL P 2NT 3D > > P 3H DBL P > > P P > > It turns out that E held 12 Points. > > The contract makes and S call the director and says that his side has > been damaged a he would not have doubled if E had opened a normal 1H, > furthermore West, (holding 11 points and 5D) by bidding 3D had given > his partner un authorised information. > > Your comments would be appreciated. South needs to learn the rules of the game. There are no rules saying that (1) East is supposed to bid normally, and N/S may be entitled to an adjustment if he doesn't; or that (2) West can give East unauthorized information by bidding. The Laws explicitly say the opposite, in both cases. The only possible case for an adjustment is that N/S were misinformed as to the actual agreements about East's fourth-seat 2H, if there are any. I don't know what jurisdiction this was played in; but in the ACBL, I'd consider it "general bridge knowledge" that fourth-seat weak 2's aren't really the same as weak twos in other seats, and that in the fourth-seat case you can't rely on what the convention card says about the range. (There's no space on ACBL cards for describing fourth-seat weak twos.) Now, if N/S had asked about the weak two and were told "a maximum of ten points", if this wasn't E/W's actual agreement, then there might be a case. However, if the actual agreement was "maximum 10 points" and East decided to violate the agreement on his own, there's still no violation of the rules---another thing South needs to learn. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 23 01:20:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:20:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: >I'm not sure if it's only a bad write-up or if the TDs >and AC doesn't have a clue to how to handle UI cases. > >The first thing to do is to show that the chosen action >demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI >transmitted. [snip] Richard Hills: Well, Grattan Endicott was on the Appeals Committee, and Grattan's blml postings demonstrate he has a clue on how to handle UI cases. And Herman De Wael was the scribe responsible for the write-up, and Herman's blml postings demonstrate.....??? :-) But seriously, West knows that he is in a slam try auction. From West's point of view hearts was the suit in which the slam try was being made. So, when West bid 4H, West thought 4H was non-forcing (being unaware that East always intended converting to spades). If one sloooowly chooses a non-forcing game bid in a slam try auction, the only possible demonstrable suggestion from the UI is that one has better-than- minimum values and was thinking about higher things. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 23 01:39:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:39:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psychs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <467B4C40.9030206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>When I upgraded my social pairs partnership with Dorothy >>Jesner to a tournament imps partnership a few years ago, at >>her insistence we came to an explicit agreement that I >>would never psyche. >> >>So when I did psyche, it was a totally ethical action, >>since all three of my opponents believed that it was a >>gross misstatement of our partnership agreement. Nigel Guthrie: >I agree with Richard. Practically, what can a director do if >I tick the "Never psych" box but psych on the first three >boards? Also if I tick "frequent psychs" [snip] Richard Hills: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? In my opinion, "frequent psyche" is a similar contradiction in terms. A psyche is a gross misstatement of partnership agreement. But frequency will usually create an implicit partnership agreement. Law 75B, "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements". And the Law 75B word "may" is interpreted in considerable detail on page 8 of the WBF Code of Practice. See: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/Appeals_Material/ WBF%20Code%20of%20Practice%20complete.pdf 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 02:01:00 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:01:00 +1200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706221701t6a23191fwe91d66b38e788ce0@mail.gmail.com> On 23/06/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Harald Skj?ran: > > >I'm not sure if it's only a bad write-up or if the TDs > >and AC doesn't have a clue to how to handle UI cases. > > > >The first thing to do is to show that the chosen action > >demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI > >transmitted. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Well, Grattan Endicott was on the Appeals Committee, and > Grattan's blml postings demonstrate he has a clue on how > to handle UI cases. > > And Herman De Wael was the scribe responsible for the > write-up, and Herman's blml postings demonstrate.....??? > > :-) > > But seriously, West knows that he is in a slam try > auction. From West's point of view hearts was the suit > in which the slam try was being made. So, when West bid > 4H, West thought 4H was non-forcing (being unaware that > East always intended converting to spades). > This is contrary to West's assertion that he thought that 4H showed the hK. And further the director's ruling seems to ignore the possibility that 4H was a cue as West claimed and that East probably always intended to correct to spades at some level. Why does the director who made this ruling get to remain anonymous? Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 23 03:15:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:15:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706221701t6a23191fwe91d66b38e788ce0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>But seriously, West knows that he is in a slam try >>auction. From West's point of view hearts was the suit >>in which the slam try was being made. So, when West bid >>4H, West thought 4H was non-forcing (being unaware that >>East always intended converting to spades). Wayne Burrows: >This is contrary to West's assertion that he thought that >4H showed the HK. > >And further the director's ruling seems to ignore the >possibility that 4H was a cue as West claimed The Committee: >>>Noticed that while West had stated that 4H showed the >>>HK, East had never mentioned this. West had complicated >>>matters by not being able to bid 4H in tempo. Richard Hills: A cynic might deduce that a quick 4H is a signoff, but a slooooow 4H is a cuebid of the king of hearts. :-) 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 23 07:14:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:14:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <467BE908.3030905@aol.com> References: <467BE908.3030905@aol.com> Message-ID: <467CAC35.70108@NTLworld.com> [Jeff Easterson] > Ahoy Nigel! Is there something wrong with my understanding of English > or logic? Richard wrote that he came to an explicit agreement with a > partner that he would never psyche. In the next sentence he continues, > "So when I did psyche...." There seems to me to be something wrong > here. If he agrees never to psyche, then how is it possible that he > does so? In normal life this sort of behaviour is considered > reprehensible, at the least, and rather disrespectful to his partner > as well in the specific case. What am I missing? Perhaps it was > meant to be humourous? > In the next paragraph you ask what can be done if you psyche on the > first three boards. In the jurisdictions in which I direct this would > be considered a gross violation of psyching and amount to a concealed > understanding with partner. Too frequent psyching (and the generally > accepted limit is twice per session, perhaps even less) is no longer > legal since the partner expects it and can allow for it. When there > is the slightest suspicion of this we very carefully, and very exactly > analyse the actions of the partner of the "psycher" and when there is > the slightest suspicion of him fielding apsyche we take severe, > possibly even drastic, disciplinary action. Such frequent psyches are > in themselves what you term "a predictable pattern"; the partner > expects them and this affects his bidding. And it is information he > has that the opponents don't have. Even an announcement of frequent > psyching does not mean (where I work) more than an average of twice > per session. > This does not refer to the central point of the thread which is one of > the reasons I am sending it to you and not posting it on blml. The > other is that I don't want to offend Richard. If you feel it > wouldn't offend him and is of any importance feel free to post it on blml. [nige1] There's nothing wrong with your logic, Jeff. I'm sure this email won't offend Richard. I do think he was joking as usual :) I wasn't :( Although, as usual, I'm not sure that I'm right :( You make a lot of excellent points, Jeff, that force me at to reconsider my position :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 23 07:37:59 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <467C0919.7070506@aol.com> References: <467C0919.7070506@aol.com> Message-ID: <467CB1B7.3080409@NTLworld.com> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ahoy Nigel! The weak two opening was 4th hand, not third. Ciao, JE [nige1] Arrgh. Thanks Jeff :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 23 09:51:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:51:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psyches [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <467CAC35.70108@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Ahoy Nigel! Is there something wrong with my understanding of >English or logic? Richard wrote that he came to an explicit >agreement with a partner that he would never psyche. In the next >sentence he continues, "So when I did psyche...." There seems to me >to be something wrong here. If he agrees never to psyche, then how >is it possible that he does so? In normal life this sort of >behaviour is considered reprehensible, at the least, and rather >disrespectful to his partner as well in the specific case. What am >I missing? Perhaps it was meant to be humourous? [snip] >The other is that I don't want to offend Richard. If you feel it >wouldn't offend him and is of any importance feel free to post it on >blml. Richard Hills: I am never (well, hardly ever) offended by blmlers querying my logic or ethics because they have failed to follow my esoteric reasoning. "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down." The sugar coating of humour covered the medicine of the point that I was attempting to make. Because a psyche is a gross misstatement of partnership agreement, any attempt to create a partnership agreement on the frequency or otherwise of a player psyching is null and void. Ergo, if I had abided by my agreement with Dorothy to never psyche, that would have been an illegal partnership agreement. Law 74B1: >>As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: >>paying insufficient attention to the game. Richard Hills: Furthermore, if one chooses to accept an inferior score due to an arbitrary decision to never psyche, instead of one choosing to psyche when that is the clearly indicated action to gain a superior score, then one is illegally infracting the Law 74B1 requirement to pay sufficient attention to the game. Arbitrarily donating imps or matchpoints to the opponents is unethically unfair to the rest of the field (unless one is playing in a knockout event). 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jun 23 09:56:59 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:56:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706221701t6a23191fwe91d66b38e788ce0@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560706221701t6a23191fwe91d66b38e788ce0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <467CD24B.60800@t-online.de> Wayne Burrows schrieb: > > And further the director's ruling seems to ignore the possibility that > 4H was a cue as West claimed and that East probably always intended to > correct to spades at some level. > > Why does the director who made this ruling get to remain anonymous? > As someone who has worked as TD at a similar event I would like to point out that there is no "the TD" per se, as all judgment decisions are made by several directors together (preumably there can be circumstances where this is not possible, but I have never experienced such a case). There is a TD who gathers the facts and presents them to his/her colleagues, and who later gives the decision to the players (and defends the case in AC, if need be), but no one is solely responsible (in judgement cases). So why pick out one of them? If the table TD goofed the AC will say so, and the Chief TD will hear about it (or, more likely, will already have heard, having been involved in the decision with some frequency). I agree that the write-up leaves something to be desired, but give Herman (who does these things) a break. Following the arguments of several persons not speaking their mother tongue (which is, after all, a foreign language for Herman too) is not easy in the first place, and making a write-up of your notes and your memory some time later doesn`t make it easier either. Herman has made a good job out of my own appeals and those I was involved in as member of the TD "committee". Regards Matthias > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From hermandw at hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 12:46:50 2007 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:46:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706221701t6a23191fwe91d66b38e788ce0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >From: "Wayne Burrows" > >Why does the director who made this ruling get to remain anonymous? > Because the decision is not made by just the one director, but by all of them. The director who gathers the facts at the table is also the one that delivers the ruling, and presents the appeal, but in the meanwhile he has consulted with the other directors in his room, and frequently with those in other rooms. _________________________________________________________________ Probeer Windows Live Hotmail: snel, krachtig en veiliger dan ooit! http://get.live.com/mail/features From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jun 23 14:50:40 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:50:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <467CD24B.60800@t-online.de> References: <2a1c3a560706221701t6a23191fwe91d66b38e788ce0@mail.gmail.com> <467CD24B.60800@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Jun 23, 2007, at 3:56 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > There is a TD who gathers the facts and presents them to his/her > colleagues, and who later gives the decision to the players (and > defends > the case in AC, if need be), but no one is solely responsible (in > judgement cases). Not so. "The Director may delegate any of the duties listed in `C' to assistants, but he is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance." Law 81D. "The Director" here referring, of course, to the Chief TD. :-) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 24 00:33:42 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:33:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <467D9FC6.1040804@NTLworld.com> Harald Skj??ran wrote: > Look at the last appeal here: > http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2006.pdf > I'm not sure if it's only a bad write-up or if the TDs and AC doesn't > have a clue to how to handle UI cases. > The first thing to do is to show that the chosen? action demonstrably > have been suggested over another by the UI transmitted. The fact that > some players would pass doesn't automatically show that this is true. > So the TDs (and AC) need to discuss how and why this is so. And this > should be reflected in the write-up of the case. > The TD(s) obviously got this one wrong - passing 4H isn't an option IMO. > The AC got them to the correct strain. I'm not sure about the level. > That's not the most interesting thing to me though. What really > boggles me is that TDs and ACs at international level seemingly seem > to be under the false impression that if there's UI present there > should always be an adjustment if they land in the top spot after > transmission of? UI. This is only true if there's been chosen an > action that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information. > So please, could the decisions include a discussion on what UI has > been transmitted, and how this UI demonstrably have suggested the > chosen action over other LAs. Else the write-ups of these appeals have > little value. The most important point is not adressed at all. [nige1] Adapted from the topic "More Law Tigers" which suggested a simple protocol to avoid the problem Harald highlights... When a player is alleged to have used unauthorised information, then, ideally, the director should poll an adequate representative sample of the player's peers. *Without telling the players what action was taken, by the putative offender*, the director should ask *two questions*... [A] What action would you *choose*? [B] What action did the unauthorised information *suggest*? If the poll is logistically impracticable, then the the director should present the auction or play to a colleague, again *carefully omitting the suspect call or play*, and ask the *same two questions*. Unless the director takes care to ask the *second* question *without prejudice*, there is a danger that the alleged law-breaker will be ruled against whatever action he chose. A tiger may lurk behind *all* the doors. A refinement would be for the director to *give marks* to both actions and suggested actions; so that he can assess second choices and how close the choices are. IMO, the law-book should contain such guidelines for directors. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070623/08107336/attachment.htm From adam at tameware.com Sun Jun 24 20:49:53 2007 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:49:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis Message-ID: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> I've been slow putting these together -- I need to submit them to the ACBL tomorrow. Please let me know if you spot any mistakes or anything you disagree with. The cases are here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/StLouis2007.html NABC+ 1. The decisions look right to me. 2. I agree that this appeal had no merit. 3. I see no merit to this appeal. 4. I'm surprised NS brought this appeal. 5. East clearly had "cards." If her double showed cards then why did it take her so long to come up with it? I agree that the appeal had no merit. I also agree with Jeff Goldsmith that a PP was warranted. As for the adjusted score, the job of the AC is not to decide what the result would have been -- that is impossible. Rather they must decide, and tell us, what they judge as the most favorable likely result and most unfavorable at all probable result absent the infraction, per law 12C2. I agree with Jeff Goldsmith that a procedural penalty would have been appropriate. 6. I would have considered an AWMW, but I understand not doing so when the facts are in question. 7. I agree, this appeal had no merit. 8. I'd have bid again with the West hand absent the UI. After partner's 4d call, if I had to choose between 4S and 6S I'd choose 6S. That said, West has already shown a maximum with four trump and then shown slam interest. While he argued that he was safe at the five level opposite many minimums a more relevant question is whether he was in danger at the five level. Clearly he was -- partner might hold something like Qxxxx KQ AQJxx x. I'm not sure what the comment about partner's not bidding 4H implied - did West plan to bid 4S over 4H? Signing off over a second try seems way too conservative to me. I do think the appeal had merit. The AC was asked to make a bridge judgment; whether bidding over 4S was so clear-cut that passing would have been illogical. It would be unreasonable for the AC to find such an appeal without merit any time they believe the action chosen was not clear. Then the appellants would face only two possible outcomes, winning their case or receiving an AWMW. 9. The AC improved the TD ruling. Their logic seems confused, though. Once they decide that bidding over 4N is a LA then they should determine the most favorable and at all probable results had West followed his legal obligation. They're not "making" East do anything, just judging rough probabilities. The laws are unfortunately not specific on this topic, but surely with two infractions by the same side we should choose the adjustment that produces the least favorable score for the offenders. I cannot fathom why the AC removed the PP. It was particularly appropriate -- East violated procedure by addressing her partner during the bidding. 10. When an AC changes the score in favor of the appellants there's no need to tell us that they found that the appeal had merit. I do not agree that the AC could not consider West's allegation simply because it was uncorroborated. It is the AC's job to weigh the evidence. They did well to reach the correct decision anyway. The AC faltered slightly at the end. They need not judge what would have happened had South bid 5D. They simply specify what they judge likely and at all probable results has South done so. A write-up saying that it was neither likely nor at all probable that either East or West would double would show us that the AC followed the laws. As for the regulation cited, this case helps show us its foolishness. If we cannot assume that a call that's not alerted is not alertable then what good does the alert system do us? 11. I agree with the TD and AC rulings, and with the AWMW. EW can't have been surprised that this decision went against them. I do not fault EW for failing to bring their hand-written addendum. 12. I haven't changed my mind. I agree with the TD and AC decisions. 13. For starters the AC ruling is incomplete. They needed to specify the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the offenders. They director supervising the appeal should not accept such a decision from the AC. There were two infractions, MI and UI. As in case 8, with two infractions by the same side the TD and AC should chose to adjust based on the infraction that gives the offenders the worst score. That's what the TD did. The TD's ruling was better than the AC's, and I see no merit to the appeal. 14. It seems likely to me that South hesitated over 3H. I would have! With her unexpected shape and opposite a conservative partner South might well be worth a 3S bid. The hesitation certainly suggests the 3S bid, so what are North's logical alternatives? In particular, what would be logical for a player who chose to bid 2S at his first turn? One way to find out would be to take a poll -- I suspect it would show that Pass is a LA. 15. This appeal had no merit, and NS's claimed motive cannot create merit where none existed. 16. The committee's apology for not issuing an AWMW is absurd. First of all South is an experienced internationalist -- every jurisdiction I know of penalizes appeals without merit. Second the appellants signed a form, which specified the consequences of an appeal without merit. Third any pair experienced enough to file an appeal must be considered experienced enough to bear the consequences. Fourth the AWMW is just that, a warning. The AWMW should be a judgment about the merits of the case, not the appellants. 17. The committee reasoned that West must be highly distributional, but they labored under the handicap of knowing the West was 6-6. A player who should have acted on the previous round should normally be deemed to have left the decision to partner. Holding D QJx and C xxx South would have doubled in tempo. I think the TD and the AC got this wrong, in spite of the poll. It seems to me that under current ACBL LC guidelines a poll of three players cannot suffice to rule that there were no LAs to an action. In addition, as Jeff Goldsmith points out, North's peers are those who would have passed 4D, so if enough of them can be found they are the ones who should be polled. Non-NABC+ 1. Good work all around. I'd have considered a Procedural Penalty against North for her call. I might not have thought of it, but her claim that she held "no defense" while looking at an Ace made me check twice. 2. East is claiming that he thought South was trying to decide whether to play the queen or the ten? What would the queen have been, count? I do not understand the panel's adjustment. Under what law did they rule? I could buy this only if they cited a law or laws as the basis for their decision. If they thought South had committed a procedural irregularity they ought to have awarded a procedural penalty. I prefer the TD's ruling to the panel's. 3. A good application of Kaplan's distinction between damage that is subsequent to an infraction and damage that is consequent to it. I believe this is embodied in Law 72b1. It would be nice if the TD and Panel were to cite the laws under which they adjusted the score. The decision not to award an AWMW was misguided. 4. The TD and AC decisions look right to me. For a complete discussion of a similar situation see http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samed.html 5. I agree -- this appeal had no merit. 6. I agree with the TD and Panel rulings. The decision not to award an AWMW was unfortunate. The Panel confessed their desire to educate, and the AWMW is the best way to achieve that. And what's this about relative inexperience? I don't think it's relevant, but suppose it were. Relative to whom? They were playing in the Red Ribbon Pairs! 7. I agree -- this appeal had no merit. 8. The ACBL LC has defined LA as "an action that a significant number of the player's peers would seriously consider, and some would actually take, in the absence of the UI." Given the definition I see no point in polling anyone except the players' peers. Two of the nine peers would have passed. That's the "some would actually take." At least those two, and likely more, must have seriously considered it. The poll showed that Pass was a LA. I cannot fathom why the Panel ruled as it did. The TD ruling was better. Summary ACs heard 17 cases in St. Louis, a dramatic leap from the 5 in Honolulu and 4 in Chicago. Only two TD rulings were changed, one for the worse in my opinion, so I can't attribute the increase to poorer TD rulings. I expect the jump is due in part to the different mix of events between the NABCs, in part to normal statistical variation, and in part to AC's and Panel's refusal to award AWMWs even for appeals they judge meritless. The AC ruled as the TD in 15 cases. I thought the AC improved the TD's ruling in case N-09 and worsened it in case N-13. Panels heard eight cases, up from three in Honolulu. On six they ruled as the TD did. On cases 2 and 8 I thought they worsened the TD's ruling. ACs awarded 5 AWMWs whereas I thought they should have awarded 9. Granted, one of those was a case where they adjusted the score in favor of the appellants. Panels awarded 2 AWMWs when I thought they ought to have awarded 4. In my view an AWMW ought to be awarded any time an appeal is without merit. It is in no way a judgment of the appellants themselves. To do otherwise both infantilizes players, implying that they are not responsible for their own actions, and unfairly stigmatizes those who do receive an AWMW. Before deciding not to award an AWMW the members of each AC and Panel ought to ask themselves whether they can hold their heads high and claim "This appeal had substantial merit." As always, my data and trend analysis for appeals dating back to 2001 can be found on my web site: http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws Note that when I say "I agree with Jeff Goldsmith" I do not mean to imply that I disagree with the other panelists. It's just that Jeff's are the only comments I saw before the submission deadline. My use of the phrase indicates that he caught something that I missed. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 25 06:17:05 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:17:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis In-Reply-To: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > NABC+ > 2. I agree that this appeal had no merit. West's admissions justify the AWMW. If West had said, "I know that partner's hesitation suggests pulling, but given that North's double was unusually fast, I had enough AI that passing was no longer a LA," I would still rule against West, but he has a case. But he seems to have said, "North's double was unusually fast, I decided to pull, and then I ignored partner's hesitation," which is a failure to follow the rules. > 3. I see no merit to this appeal. I agree. East alleged that he was damaged by MI, but the MI was corrected before East made the opening lead. In fact, East had more information than he was entitled to; he is not allowed to know whether North forgot an agreement, only what North's agreement is. If E/W had language problems, they might have had difficulty understanding the agreements, but in the finals of the Open Pairs, they should have enough understanding of the Laws of Bridge that they had not been misinformed. > 5. As for the adjusted score, the job of the AC is not to decide what the > result would have been -- that is impossible. Rather they must decide, > and tell us, what they judge as the most favorable likely result and > most unfavorable at all probable result absent the infraction, per law > 12C2. This is probably a wording issue. Eight tricks is likely, but nine tricks is the most favorable likely result for the NOS (and most unfavorable result for the OS), and that is probably what the AC actually ruled. > 8. I'd have bid again with the West hand absent the UI. After > partner's 4d call, if I had to choose between 4S and 6S I'd choose 6S. > That said, West has already shown a maximum with four trump and then > shown slam interest. While he argued that he was safe at the five > level opposite many minimums a more relevant question is whether he > was in danger at the five level. Clearly he was -- partner might hold > something like Qxxxx KQ AQJxx x. I'm not sure what the comment about > partner's not bidding 4H implied - did West plan to bid 4S over 4H? > Signing off over a second try seems way too conservative to me. That example East hand is inconsistent with South's double. West knows from South's double that South has a long diamond suit headed by the QJ and East has A-empty of diamonds, and given that, it's unlikely that a five-level contract will go down. > I do think the appeal had merit. The AC was asked to make a bridge > judgment; whether bidding over 4S was so clear-cut that passing would > have been illogical. It would be unreasonable for the AC to find such > an appeal without merit any time they believe the action chosen was > not clear. Then the appellants would face only two possible outcomes, > winning their case or receiving an AWMW. This is an important point. An AWMW should only be given when the appellant should have known he had no case. When one of three AC members believes West had a case, West cannot be expected to know that he didn't. > 13. There were two infractions, MI and UI. As in case 8, with two > infractions by the same side the TD and AC should chose to adjust > based on the infraction that gives the offenders the worst score. > That's what the TD did. The TD's ruling was better than the AC's, and > I see no merit to the appeal. The AC needs to rule on the UI issue. If South doubles 4C, is passing 4Cx a LA? I think it is; West could redouble to ask East to pick his better major, and East's two clubs and diamond void suggest that 4Cx might be a reasonable spot. This would be a good case for a poll, but none was done. > 14. It seems likely to me that South hesitated over 3H. I would have! > With her unexpected shape and opposite a conservative partner South > might well be worth a 3S bid. > > The hesitation certainly suggests the 3S bid, so what are North's > logical alternatives? In particular, what would be logical for a > player who chose to bid 2S at his first turn? One way to find out > would be to take a poll -- I suspect it would show that Pass is a LA. There is one other issue which should have been considered. Does South's hesitation suggest 3S over double? I think it does, as with three spades, South wouldn't hesitate. If North doubles, is it at all probable that South will leave the double in? I would say no (since South has so much in spades, and the HA is one trick in any contract). Therefore, the table result stands, but there is no case for an AWMW. > 17. In addition, as Jeff Goldsmith points out, > North's peers are those who would have passed 4D, so if enough of them > can be found they are the ones who should be polled. The principle here, which occurs again and again in TD and AC rulings on UI, is that once you have passed a decision to partner, honoring that decision on the next round is almost always a LA. (The reason for "almost always" is to allow for exceptions in which it is clear that you planned to override the decision anyway, such as a pass-and-pull in a forcing-pass auction.) > Non-NABC+ > 2. East is claiming that he thought South was trying to decide whether > to play the queen or the ten? What would the queen have been, count? > > I do not understand the panel's adjustment. Under what law did they > rule? I could buy this only if they cited a law or laws as the basis > for their decision. If they thought South had committed a procedural > irregularity they ought to have awarded a procedural penalty. South in this case had 78 masterpoints, so the only appropriate penalty was a warning (which she got). But I agree that East had no case. The suit was 754 opposite AKJ92, and the 754 was in dummy. If 75 rather than 754 had been in dummy, or if the long suit had been visible, a falsecard of the Q from QT would be possible. Case 3 gives a File Not Found error on the Web site; I couldn't comment on it. > 4. The TD and AC decisions look right to me. For a complete discussion > of a similar situation see > > http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samed.html I agree with the ruling, but only because of the level of the event. Normally, I wouldn't rule against a Flight B player when RHO neglects to give a skip-bid warning and the hesitation is only a bit longer than required. However, this is the Red Ribbon, and a higher standard is expected than in most Flight B games, since these should be good Flight B players. I would still like to see how the facts were determined. The length of a hesitation is usually irrelevant, but when there is a dispute between a proper 10 seconds and an improper 20 seconds, it matters. > 8. The ACBL LC has defined LA as "an action that a significant number > of the player's peers would seriously consider, and some would > actually take, in the absence of the UI." > > Given the definition I see no point in polling anyone except the players' > peers. But what is the peer group here? The average player in the final session of the Flight B NAP is probably better than the average Flight A player; a group of Flight B pairs players with 700 masterpoints would not make a good peer group. If the Panel couldn't get a fair peer group, it should say so. > Two of the nine peers would have passed. That's the "some would > actually take." At least those two, and likely more, must have > seriously considered it. However, some of those same peers also said that the UI did not suggest pulling the double. I disagree with that conclusion, but it should also be taken into account (and it says something about the strength of the peer group); if UI doesn't demonstrably suggest pulling to a Flight B player, then a Flight B player is allowed to pull the double even if passing is a LA. (The Panel didn't say this in the report, but I don't know why it would even ask what the peers thought the pass suggested.) > The poll showed that Pass was a LA. I cannot fathom why the Panel > ruled as it did. The TD ruling was better. From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 25 06:44:26 2007 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:44:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis In-Reply-To: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40706242144s7b46eb3ufe65bbe4c6b2c37b@mail.gmail.com> Todd Zimnoch, in addition to pointing out that in Case N-13 I meant to refer to Case N-09, not Case N-08, also asked me to clarify my reasoning on Case N-09. This in turn forced me to clarify my own thinking. Here are my revised comments on N-09. Please let me know if you find them unclear, if you can find the topic of adjustments for multiple infractions addressed in the '97 Laws, or if you have a suggestion as to how the topic ought to be addressed in the new Laws. ====== 9. Both East and West had UI at their disposal, so there were two possible infractions. The TD decided that West had no LA to the action he took and seems to have ignored the UI available to East. The AC decided that West did indeed have a LA, but to ignore that aspect of the case and instead adjust on the basis that East had a less successful LA to the action he took. The laws are unfortunately not specific as to how to adjust the score when the same side commits two separate infractions. It seems to me we ought to choose the adjustment that produces the least favorable score for the offenders. Why? Many infractions, as in this case, are matters for the TD's and AC's judgment. They may well decide that one of several potential infractions on a deal was in fact not an infraction. The NOS should never end up with a worse adjustment if their opponents' action is judged an infraction than if it is not. Otherwise we could be treated to the spectacle of a player pleading, say, that he had in fact provided misinformation, and his opponents arguing the contrary. The AC improved the TD's ruling. I'd have preferred an adjustment to 5C, perhaps doubled, but it would not likely have resulted in a different matchpoint score. I cannot fathom why the AC removed the PP. It was particularly appropriate -- East violated procedure by addressing her partner during the bidding. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 25 06:52:27 2007 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:52:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40706242152y158f095arc5b4919b75273e2a@mail.gmail.com> On 6/25/07, David Grabiner wrote: > That example East hand is inconsistent with South's double. West knows from > South's double that South has a long diamond suit headed by the QJ and East has > A-empty of diamonds, and given that, it's unlikely that a five-level contract > will go down. Good point -- thanks! I didn't see the double. I'll update my comments on case N-08 before I send them in. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 25 02:04:30 2007 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:04:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis In-Reply-To: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40706241704y4956f77bs23d162ee684ea2bb@mail.gmail.com> A couple of you have pointed out to me that case NABC+ 03 is missing from the ACBL web site. I suspect a technical glitch, not an intentional omission. I've attached a copy. AW -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NABC+ THREE.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 169620 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070624/3e9bf543/attachment-0001.pdf From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 25 03:27:49 2007 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:27:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis In-Reply-To: <694eadd40706241704y4956f77bs23d162ee684ea2bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40706241704y4956f77bs23d162ee684ea2bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40706241827v195c78e3xe14d5e7d5df48594@mail.gmail.com> Sorry, make that Non-NABC+ 03. Here its is. AW On 6/24/07, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > A couple of you have pointed out to me that case NABC+ 03 is missing > from the ACBL web site. I suspect a technical glitch, not an > intentional omission. I've attached a copy. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Non-NABC+ THREE.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 173223 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070624/6d50cb3c/attachment-0001.pdf From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 25 10:19:22 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:19:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <467BFCF7.6070206@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:46 22/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >[D] It is perfectly easy to take adjustments into account but still >accurately describe HCP. For example, when you open 2H... >-- if you sometimes upgrade 5-point hands and downgrade 11 HCP, then >you can accurately describe the HCP range as "5-11". IBTD. Nobody can compel you to count QJ bare at full value. Furthermore, even if you have agreed "6-10 strct", you may deviate from your agreements. You may also write on your CC, in bold type, "point ranges are only indicative". >[E] Many players seem reluctant to divulge HCP; most directors are happy >to grant players lee-way in declaring ranges; such sloppiness seems >endemic; but I wish this trend were reversed. Unadorned HCP give >opponents useful and accurate information about high card strength. Once more, I don't agree. My view is that HCP are a poor estimation of a hand's potential. I want to be allowed to count tricks rather than points, for example. If you ask me the range for an Acol two-bid (I use Benji), I would reply "13-23" because I have to, and think to myself "what a silly question". >Rigid adherence to the simple law-book definition of HCP would eliminate >legal ambiguity. ... do you really want us all to be Walruses ? Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070625/970c3043/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 25 12:04:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psyches In-Reply-To: <467CAC35.70108@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Firstly there should be no question that one's knowledge of partner's psyching habits is disclosable information (if nothing else L75c absolutely requires disclosure of relevant experience). Equally certain is that disclosing such information does not give one a right to base ones own calls on the knowledge. Sponsoring organisations *may* require disclosure of psyching habits on the CC (they have the freedom to do that under L40E). Such habits are (fairly obviously) matters of style and judgement and not the subject of agreements so there is no reason why the information given about each players idiosyncrasies should be the same (both CCs will be identical if they both describe the varied habits of each partner). Words such as Seldom/Frequent are comparators. They are only meaningful in the context of how often others do similar things. Thus my *personal* psych frequency doesn't change between playing Chicago or Teams but at the former I psych about on average while at the latter I'm a "frequent" psycher in EBU competitions (although "infrequent" if making up the numbers in the junior training sessions) and would be a "very frequent" psycher by ACBL standards. Psyching on the first three boards of an event is not, of itself, evidence of anything. About 1 hand in 30/50 is suitable for a psych and it's entirely possible for 3 such hands to occur in a row. Finally there is no reason that *knowing* partners habits will affect an ethical player's bidding. The laws forbid me from basing my calls on that knowledge (just as they forbid me from basing my calls on partner's hesitations). I've played with a few loonies in my time but even a Mad Dog will break tempo slightly more often than he will psych. Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Jun 25 13:38:22 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:38:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <467FA92E.8000809@meadows.pair.com> On 06/25/2007 04:19 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 17:46 22/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: > >> [D] It is perfectly easy to take adjustments into account but still >> accurately describe HCP. For example, when you open 2H... >> -- if you sometimes upgrade 5-point hands and downgrade 11 HCP, then >> you can accurately describe the HCP range as "5-11". > > IBTD. Nobody can compel you to count QJ bare at full value. > Alain, More than one NCBO has made regulations to ban upgrades for borderline openers. What stops them from banning downgrades too? I'm not suggesting that this is likely, but it's really not much more asinine than the strict 'Rule of 19' phase that the EBU went through, or the ACBL's rigid requirement of at least 10 actual HCP for a mini 1NT opener, no upgraded 9 counts allowed. Brian. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 25 14:01:28 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:01:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <467FAE98.90002@NTLworld.com> [nige1] [D] It is perfectly easy to take adjustments into account but still accurately describe HCP. For example, when you open 2H... -- if you sometimes upgrade 5-point hands and downgrade 11 HCP, then you can accurately describe the HCP range as "5-11". [Alain Gottcheiner] IBTD. Nobody can compel you to count QJ bare at full value. Furthermore, even if you have agreed "6-10 strict", you may deviate from your agreements.You may also write on your CC, in bold type, "*point ranges are only indicative*". [nige2] IMO the law *can* insist that you count HCP rigidly A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 if it wants to restrict conventions or simplify disclosure. [nige1] [E] Many players seem reluctant to divulge HCP; most directors are happy to grant players lee-way in declaring ranges; such sloppiness seems endemic; but I wish this trend were reversed. Unadorned HCP give opponents useful and accurate information about high card strength. [Alain] Once more, I don't agree. My view is that HCP are a poor estimation of a hand's potential. I want to be allowed to count tricks rather than points, for example. If you ask me the range for an Acol two-bid (I use Benji), I would reply "13-23" because I have to, and think to myself "what a silly question". [nige1] We all count raw HCP the same way. For example Q=2 J=1. When we adjust for other factors, our judgements differ. For example take your QJ doubleton. Like Alain, I would adjust for shortage. But by how much one? two? three? points. Opinions differ. Let us take an actual hand... S: Q J H:Q J D: Q J C: x x x x x x x IMO this hand has 9 HCP but after downgrading for honours in short suits, it is worth anything from 0-6 points (depending on whom you consult). Some would add nothing for the long suit. Others would add up to six points. Re-evaluations will differ even more after partner opens 1C or 1N. [nige1] Rigid adherence to the simple law-book definition of HCP would eliminate legal ambiguity. [Alain] do you really want us all to be Walruses ? [nige2] [A] For *disclosure purposes* yes. I think it would be better to start with "objective facts". For example HCP and suit lengths. I recommend that, for legal purposes, HCP descriptions should be kept crude and simple. I think you should divulge other factors too; but since they are more subjective and less widely agreed, I feel that they should be declared separately. Here is an analogy. The available evidence for a court trial comprises (1) an authentic but crude surveillance camera tape and (2) eye witness reports that differ among themselves. I'd be unconvinced if the prosecution presented only a dramatic reconstruction loosely based on the tape but modified by a selected eye-witness report and concealed the rest of the evidence. I'd rather see the tape and hear the witness separately. [B]The introduction of uncertainty into the *regulation of agreements* is even more irritating. I remember that when David Stevenson, John Probst, Tim Westmeads and others were advocating that players should be allowed to use their judgement when evaluating a hand as rule of 19 (and so on). Unfortunately, it transpired that they did not really mean that *players* should be allowed to use their judgement. What they meant is that *directors* should be allowed to impose their judgement on players. If I remember correctly, David Burn pointed out the obvious flaw of letting players use their judgement with an an apt and amusing reductio ad absurdum. Tongue in cheek, David claimed that in his experience the combination of an 8 and a 5 in the same suit tends to be worth a trick or two. Sadly, the EBU tournament committee gave into pressure from the directors who who wanted more scope for judgement. The new Orange book has introduced director judgement into evaluating "rule of 25" (or whatever) by adding the qualifier "or equivalent". The old restrictions were daft and crude but objective and fair. Players who read the rules, knew where they were. Now a player has to wait in the dark to discover whether he has complied with the regulations until a director vouchsafes his evaluation of the player's hand -- which will often differ from the player's own evaluation.. If Alain regards increasing dependence on director judgement as progress, I assure him that some players disagree. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070625/220dc703/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 25 14:47:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:47:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication References: <2C3F7056-38C8-4466-8597-44463EFF2885@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jun 22, 2007, at 6:43 AM, agf wrote: > Maybe you can help solve this argument. > E/W are playing weak 2s with a maximum of 10 points > The bidding > goes > N E S W > > P P > > P 2H P P > > DBL P 2NT 3D > > P 3H DBL P > > P P > > It turns out that E held 12 Points. > > The contract makes and S call the director and says that his side > has been damaged a he would not have doubled if E had opened a > normal 1H, furthermore West, (holding 11 points and 5D) by bidding > 3D had given his partner un authorised information. > > Your comments would be appreciated. There is nothing here to suggest that anyone did anything improper or illegal. (a) East is always entitled to decide that his 12-HCP hand isn't worth more than a weak 2-bid and treat it accordingly, providing his partner doesn't have a reason to expect him to have done so. (b) It is standard practice to open "overweight" weak 2- bids in 3rd/4th seat on any hand that can't visualize a game opposite a passed hand. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Jun 25 15:23:53 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:23:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D107@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Nigel wrote: > Sadly, the EBU tournament committee gave into pressure from the directors who who wanted more scope for judgement. > The new Orange book has introduced director judgement into evaluating "rule of 25" (or whatever) by adding the qualifier "or equivalent". As far as I know this is complete rubbish - the L&E (not the tournament committee) did not change the regulations under pressure from TD and TDs were not pushing for such changes. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070625/d9c4fcfa/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 25 15:56:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:56:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <467FA92E.8000809@meadows.pair.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FA92E.8000809@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Brian wrote: > On 06/25/2007 04:19 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> At 17:46 22/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >> >>> [D] It is perfectly easy to take adjustments into account but still >>> accurately describe HCP. For example, when you open 2H... >>> -- if you sometimes upgrade 5-point hands and downgrade 11 HCP, >>> then >>> you can accurately describe the HCP range as "5-11". >> >> IBTD. Nobody can compel you to count QJ bare at full value. > > More than one NCBO has made regulations to ban upgrades for borderline > openers. What stops them from banning downgrades too? > > I'm not suggesting that this is likely, but it's really not much more > asinine than the strict 'Rule of 19' phase that the EBU went > through, or > the ACBL's rigid requirement of at least 10 actual HCP for a mini 1NT > opener, no upgraded 9 counts allowed. Actually, such regulations are illegal. The ACBL, under pressure from its own LC (and, one hopes, the WBF as well), had to retract its original "rigid requirement" that banned opening 1NT on a 9-count under any circumstances. Instead they passed a regulation that forbade any pair that allowed (or actually perpetrated) a 1NT opening with fewer than 10 HCP from using any conventions, justifying this loophole by citing their power under L40D to "regulate the use of bidding... conventions". The WBF subsequently ruled this to be legitimate, and the regulation remains in force. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 25 15:58:39 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:58:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <467FAE98.90002@NTLworld.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:01 25/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >If Alain regards increasing dependence on director judgement as progress, >I assure him that some players disagree. I don't see where this interpretation comes from. Director judgement has nothing to do with this. There are four relevant questions : 1) Is a player bound by announced ranges ? No (L40A, L40E1 last sentence, and L75B last sentence) 2) Should a pair that considers ranges as a mere indication subject to frequent adjustments mention it ? Yes (L75B second sentence) 3) May SO demand that ranges be explained using a fixed unit ? I'd say yes, and furthermore when a pair uses other criteria they have to say it. 4) When the range for a bid is 6-10, and you occasionnaly downgrade 12-counts to 10, should you rather state 6-10 or 6-12 ? If it's only occasionally, I'd say the former. Writing 6-12 would give the false impression that it is normal for you to open weak twos on hands worth an obvious 1-bid. One solution is to allow the typographical convention for carding, putting uncommon cases between brackets, to be used for bidding conventions, here 6-10(12). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070625/d9b96921/attachment.htm From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jun 25 17:45:39 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:45:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] IBTD Message-ID: <467FE323.9090408@aol.com> What does IBTD mean? JE From geller at nifty.com Mon Jun 25 18:25:57 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:25:57 +0900 Subject: [blml] IBTD In-Reply-To: <467FE323.9090408@aol.com> References: <467FE323.9090408@aol.com> Message-ID: <200706251625.AA09517@geller204.nifty.com> Use "the google". http://www.google.co.jp/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-32,GGLG:ja&q=IBTD IBTD I Beg To Differ Jeff Easterson ????????: >What does IBTD mean? JE > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mon Jun 25 19:28:53 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:28:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> [nige1] If Alain regards increasing dependence on director judgement as progress, I assure him that some players disagree. [Alain] I don't see where this interpretation comes from. Director judgement has nothing to do with this. [nige2] Like other NBOs, at certain levels of competition, the EBU regulate opening (conventional continuations were banned after out of range agreements). Their restrictions were in terms of HCP and suit lengths. Recently they have added the qualifier: *or equivalent in the director's judgement*. [Alain[ There are four relevant questions: 1) Is a player bound by announced ranges ? No (L40A, L40E1 last sentence, and L75B last sentence) 2) Should a pair that considers ranges as a mere indication subject to frequent adjustments mention it ? Yes (L75B second sentence) 3) May SO demand that ranges be explained using a fixed unit ? I'd say yes, and furthermore when a pair uses other criteria they have to say it. 4) When the range for a bid is 6-10, and you occasionnaly downgrade 12-counts to 10, should you rather state 6-10 or 6-12 ? If it's only occasionally, I'd say the former. Writing 6-12 would give the false impression that it is normal for you to open weak twos on hands worth an obvious 1-bid. One solution is to allow the typographical convention for carding, putting uncommon cases between brackets, to be used for bidding conventions, here 6-10(12). [nige1] I'm happy with Alain's explanation of how rules were interpreted. Currently, there isn't much you can do about those opponents who declare 12-14 as their notrump range: but non-vulnerable, at pairs, they "upgrade" most ten counts and all eleven counts; and vulnerable at teams, they "downgrade" some fifteen counts and all twelve counts. Arguably, it is a matter of judgement, general knowledge and experience. My interest is in rules simplified to allow more accurate disclosure *in future*. IMO disclosure would be improved if the basic vocabulary for disclosure were more objective. Suit lengths and HCP are a crude descriptions but more objective than adjusted points that allow for various other factors in arbitrary ways. I accept that you should describe other factors *as well as* HCP. Nobody has yet addressed that argument. I'll rehearse the analogy: "Available evidence for a court trial comprises (1) Surveillance tape and (2) Inconsistent eye witness reports. I'd be unconvinced if the prosecution present a brief dramatic reconstruction loosely based on the tape but modified by an eye-witness report and suppressed the rest of the evidence. I'd rather see the tape and hear the witness separately." Explanation (1) Objective evidence like HCP [A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=2] (2) Hodge-podge of factors like suit texture, honour placement and so on, evaluated differently by different players. I guess that the argument is not difficult to understand; just hard to repudiate. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 25 22:30:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:30:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <467FD86D.3020805@meadows.pair.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FA92E.8000809@meadows.pair.com> <467FD86D.3020805@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <82D252FB-789E-4D53-BDFA-218307C7DF8F@starpower.net> On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Brian wrote: > On 06/25/2007 09:56 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Actually, such regulations are illegal. The ACBL, under pressure >> from its own LC (and, one hopes, the WBF as well), had to retract its >> original "rigid requirement" that banned opening 1NT on a 9-count >> under any circumstances. Instead they passed a regulation that >> forbade any pair that allowed (or actually perpetrated) a 1NT opening >> with fewer than 10 HCP from using any conventions, justifying this >> loophole by citing their power under L40D to "regulate the use of >> bidding... conventions". The WBF subsequently ruled this to be >> legitimate, and the regulation remains in force. > > Oh, OK. I thought that one about no 9 counts was still in force. Not > being an ACBL member, it takes some while for me to hear of changes! > Have they ditched the 8 HCP limit on natural 1-of-a-suit openers (even > without conventions) too? I have recollections of an attempt to > challenge that one some while back by opening a 7 count, but I don't > think it got anywhere. (You reading this, Richard?) Maybe that also > dates from before the ACBL LC got on the case. The 8 HCP limit is legal now. It wasn't when they first imposed it, but rather than create a loophole under the "convention" powers of L40D, as was necessitated in order to outlaw the 9-HCP 1NT opening, they were able instead to convince the WBFLC to extend L40D (in 1987, IIRC) to permit zones to "regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one-level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength". That wording was designed to be explicit permission to ban outright one-level openings on fewer than 8 HCP without setting the (potentially terribly destructive) precedent of actually writing "high-card points" into the law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 22:55:24 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:55:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <82D252FB-789E-4D53-BDFA-218307C7DF8F@starpower.net> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FA92E.8000809@meadows.pair.com> <467FD86D.3020805@meadows.pair.com> <82D252FB-789E-4D53-BDFA-218307C7DF8F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0706251355r471ad1bdge4e2bcabc432372@mail.gmail.com> On 6/25/07, Eric Landau wrote: > > The 8 HCP limit is legal now. It wasn't when they first imposed it, > but rather than create a loophole under the "convention" powers of > L40D, as was necessitated in order to outlaw the 9-HCP 1NT opening, > they were able instead to convince the WBFLC to extend L40D (in 1987, > IIRC) to permit zones to "regulate partnership understandings (even > if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at > the one-level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average > strength". That wording was designed to be explicit permission to > ban outright one-level openings on fewer than 8 HCP without setting > the (potentially terribly destructive) precedent of actually writing > "high-card points" into the law. > However, my understanding is that the following hand is an ACBL-allowed exception: AKxxxx xxxxx x x You can open this hand 1S as dealer every time you get it. I am not sure whether you can *agree* to open this hand 1S every time you get it, but you and your partner *can* in practice open it 1S every single time. You may have to call it a violation of your agreement every time, but you can do it every time. At least that is my understanding, based on conversations with ACBL officials. Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 26 03:38:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:38:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D107@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D107@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <46806E28.7040403@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Sadly, the EBU tournament committee gave into pressure from the directors who who wanted more scope for judgement. The new Orange book has introduced director judgement into evaluating "rule of 25" (or whatever) by adding the qualifier "or equivalent". [Robin Barker] As far as I know this is complete rubbish - the L&E (not the tournament committee) did not change the regulations under pressure from TD and TDs were not pushing for such changes. [nige1] IMO, Robin is right that it was the Laws and Ethics committee who made the decision but he is mistaken in his other claims. Having lost matches by adhering to the rule of 19 regulation. Directors wrote to BLML that such regulations could not prevent them from using their "judgement" in order to "play bridge", I wrote to the L&E, asking them to scrap the regulation completely or clarify it and enforce it, so that players who understood the regulation would no longer lose matches by complying with it. The directors' position was eventually upheld. Hence the "or equivalent" qualifier in the Orange book that allows director judgement to over-ride objective criteria. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 26 03:42:30 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:42:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <46806E28.7040403@NTLworld.com> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D107@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> <46806E28.7040403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46806F06.6070209@NTLworld.com> [corrected posting] [Nigel] Sadly, the EBU tournament committee gave into pressure from the directors who who wanted more scope for judgement. The new Orange book has introduced director judgement into evaluating "rule of 25" (or whatever) by adding the qualifier "or equivalent". [Robin Barker] As far as I know this is complete rubbish - the L&E (not the tournament committee) did not change the regulations under pressure from TD and TDs were not pushing for such changes. [nige1] IMO, Robin is right that it was the Laws and Ethics committee who made the decision but he's mistaken in his other claims. Directors wrote to BLML that such regulations could not prevent them from using their "judgement" in order to "play bridge", I wrote to the L&E, asking them to scrap the regulation completely or clarify it and enforce it, so that players who understood the regulation would no longer lose matches by complying with it. The directors' position was eventually upheld. Hence the "or equivalent" qualifier in the Orange book that allows director judgement to over-ride objective criteria. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jun 26 05:37:33 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:37:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis In-Reply-To: <694eadd40706241827v195c78e3xe14d5e7d5df48594@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40706241704y4956f77bs23d162ee684ea2bb@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40706241827v195c78e3xe14d5e7d5df48594@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with the ruling on non-NABC+ case three, and the write-up here is very good. I don't believe the poll here, and I think some of the polled players weren't familiar with the methods. When North makes a 3C opening showing 16-18 HCP, it is reasonable to play that any overcall by East is primarily preemptive, based on playing tricks. Given such an overcall, passing 3H with A8 T93 Q986 A762 is a possible action; a typical hand might be xxx KQJxxx Axx x, and 3H is the limit of the hand unless North's DK falls doubleton. (While that hand might also overcall 3H over a preemptive 3C, it is sub-minimum in high cards for that call, and partner will expect more.) However, the AC argument makes it clear that West was damaged by bidding like a Walrus rather than by the MI. If West doesn't think you can make a game with a likely 21-23 HCP and a 6-3 heart fit, he isn't entitled to redress. I agree that the AWMW should have been given, and particularly so since E/W were advised they had no case (based on the poll) and were appealing in an attempt to win the event. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 26 10:13:23 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:13:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:28 25/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >Explanation >(1) Objective evidence like HCP [A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=2] >(2) Hodge-podge of factors like suit texture, honour placement and so on, >evaluated differently by different players. > >I guess that the argument is not difficult to understand; just hard to >repudiate. > AG : the only flaw is that it addresses the wrong target. We weren't speaking about upgrading all 11-counts to 12-counts, which simply means non-disclosure. We were speaking about the right to upgrade or downgrade your hand in cases where honor count is clearly flawed. Bridge is about making tricks, and your "objective evidence" isn't the most important factor. We all know AKQJ10x - Axx - xxx - x is more powerful than KJx - QJx - KJxxx - KJ. If a player upgrades the former to a strong club (say 16+), it should be allowed. If he upgrades the latter, it shouldn't. But if he downgrades the latter to a 12-14 NT, most TDs would allow it. There was a time when opening a game force on a 11-trick 12-count was considered a psyche. Fortunately, this is past. Perhaps there will be a time when Nigellians (aka Walruses) will admit that side factors can be more important to this game than "objective evidence". Regards Alain From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 11:03:28 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:03:28 +1200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> On 26/06/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 18:28 25/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: > > >Explanation > >(1) Objective evidence like HCP [A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=2] > >(2) Hodge-podge of factors like suit texture, honour placement and so on, > >evaluated differently by different players. > > > >I guess that the argument is not difficult to understand; just hard to > >repudiate. > > > > AG : the only flaw is that it addresses the wrong target. We weren't > speaking about upgrading all 11-counts to 12-counts, which simply means > non-disclosure. We were speaking about the right to upgrade or downgrade > your hand in cases where honor count is clearly flawed. > > Bridge is about making tricks, and your "objective evidence" isn't the most > important factor. We all know AKQJ10x - Axx - xxx - x is more powerful than > KJx - QJx - KJxxx - KJ. > If a player upgrades the former to a strong club (say 16+), it should be > allowed. If he upgrades the latter, it shouldn't. But if he downgrades the > latter to a 12-14 NT, most TDs would allow it. I can't see that this is the right approach. Bridge is a game of judgement. We want good players to exercise their good judgement and bad players to exercise their bad judgement. If someone wants to upgrade a hand that others will downgrade then we should be letting him. If it is good judgement to do so then he will beat us and if it is poor judgement then we will beat him. We certainly do not want the regulators telling the bad players that they are not allowed to exercise their bad judgement. > There was a time when opening a game force on a 11-trick 12-count was > considered a psyche. > Fortunately, this is past. > Perhaps there will be a time when Nigellians (aka Walruses) will admit that > side factors can be more important to this game than "objective evidence". One local pair used to describe their opening point ranges as "around 10-14 ...". I like this approach. Everyone knows or should know that players can and do upgrade and downgrade hands. We also know that the particular hands that one player upgrades or downgrades will in all likelihood be different than the particular hands that another player upgrades or downgrades. In an ideal world a complete explanation will tell us this information but in practice this is often impractical. Nevertheless if we are really interested as sometimes happens perhaps most commonly in the play as for example when you are trying to find a stray jack a player can ask about his opponent's tendancy to upgrade or downgrade. Aside from anything else it is impractical because the hands that we upgrade or downgrade might be different today than it is tomorrow and that of course is different than it was yesterday. In my partnership we began life playing a 12-14 NT. At some point we changed to "good 11-14". My partner thought that I thought that meant "Good I have 11 I can open" while she exercised superior judgement and only opened "Good" 11 counts. At some point we introduced a variable 1NT so we were "Good 11-14" in 1st and 2nd seat and "15-17" in 3rd and 4th seat. Later our 1st and 2nd seat openings became dependent on vulnerability "10-13" Not Vulnerable and "Good 11-14" Vulnerable. After a run of bad results with 10-counts at nil vulnerable in a recent long event I discussed with my partner about only opening "Good 10-13" at nil vulnerable while keeping "10-13" at favourable vulnerability - although I have occasionally experimented with 9-counts favourable. We didn't come to any firm conclusion but I might show some discretion depending on the vulnerability. Also I have tightened up my Vulnerable 1NTs - without discussion. How is she supposed to know when I do this. And if she doesn't know how can she possibly disclose. The reality is we have a philosophy of opening a variable NT. The exact parameters of which are fluid and we are still discovering them. Its absurd to have to give a point count for all of this and expect that to be an accurate description. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 26 14:59:14 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:59:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0706251355r471ad1bdge4e2bcabc432372@mail.gmail.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FA92E.8000809@meadows.pair.com> <467FD86D.3020805@meadows.pair.com> <82D252FB-789E-4D53-BDFA-218307C7DF8F@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0706251355r471ad1bdge4e2bcabc432372@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 6/25/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> The 8 HCP limit is legal now. It wasn't when they first imposed it, >> but rather than create a loophole under the "convention" powers of >> L40D, as was necessitated in order to outlaw the 9-HCP 1NT opening, >> they were able instead to convince the WBFLC to extend L40D (in 1987, >> IIRC) to permit zones to "regulate partnership understandings (even >> if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at >> the one-level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average >> strength". That wording was designed to be explicit permission to >> ban outright one-level openings on fewer than 8 HCP without setting >> the (potentially terribly destructive) precedent of actually writing >> "high-card points" into the law. > > However, my understanding is that the following hand is an > ACBL-allowed exception: > > AKxxxx > xxxxx > x > x > > You can open this hand 1S as dealer every time you get it. I am not > sure whether you can *agree* to open this hand 1S every time you get > it, but you and your partner *can* in practice open it 1S every single > time. You may have to call it a violation of your agreement every > time, but you can do it every time. At least that is my > understanding, based on conversations with ACBL officials. Those officials' advice would appear to be in direct contradiction to clear ACBL policy, by which, if you "call it a violation of your agreement" more than once or twice, you are deemed to have thereby established a new "implicit agreement". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jun 26 15:03:58 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:03:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] MI ur deviation from system? Message-ID: <46810EBE.6010608@t-online.de> Hi all, the following happened in league play (second dividion from the bottom). Matches at that level are usually at the home of one of the players, so most of the time no TD is on hand. The "cases" are sent by email or letter to the TD responsible for the district. W/none KQ 64 J10652 K1082 J10 975432 AQJ1087 K92 A7 Q9 A92 83 A86 53 K864 QJ64 The bidding: W N E S 1D p 1S p 3H p 4H all pass E/W play a variation of Blue Club with canape and a wide-range NT. The CC says 12-17 NT with all responses and range scheme listed. According to CC they cannot show the 12 point type. Minimum length for 1D 3 cards, 11-16 (CC). 2C promises 5, but 3325 is opened 1NT (this is where the 12 pointers come in...) The sequence above guarantees 6 hearts (and was explained as such). The play: Diamond Jack, 9 (!), 4 (even number), Ace Spade Jack, Queen, 2, 8 (odd number) Diamond to the King Club Queen, Ace, 2,3 Heart 7 to the 9 Low Spade to the 10 and King North now played a diamond, giving W the contract. Unsurprisingly N was not amused. He argued: With South having an even number of diamonds and W promising at least 3 declarer has to be 2641. The only chance to set the contract is to play a diamond now, which has to be ruffed high. Now the spades are dead. Any other return will not be good enough. Obviously N is good enough to reconstruct declarer`s hand from the bidding and play, but not good enough to realise that this would leave declarer with A876 in diamonds, with which he would surely have covered the lead, drawing trumps and simply conceding a diamond. Alternatively he could have ruffed 2 diamonds high in dummy, again guaranteeing the contract. No statement from W. It seems to me that the E/W system has a hole, but that hole has nothing to do with this hand. Surely 1H with a 3H rebid is the normal way to bid this hand. The interesting hands are the 3325 types, and that is covered by 1NT. As written above there is a slight difficulty with this, all responses to a strength ask showing 13+. It looks like W deviated from the system (for whatever reason). On the other hand the correct minimum length for 1D should probably be "2", but never with a 3H rebid, which should show something like the hand N played for. Is this a) MI b) allowed deviation from system Would it make a difference if W had a history of "creative" bidding, for example many deviations (no real psyches, just deviations), but with no clear pattern? E/W are a regular partnership. Comments please. Best regards Matthias From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 26 15:07:52 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:07:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] (1) Objective evidence like HCP [A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=2] (2) Hodge-podge of factors like suit texture, honour placement and so on, evaluated differently by different players. I guess that the argument is not difficult to understand; just hard to repudiate. [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : the only flaw is that it addresses the wrong target. We weren't speaking about upgrading all 11-counts to 12-counts, which simply means non-disclosure. We were speaking about the right to upgrade or downgrade your hand in cases where honor count is clearly flawed. Bridge is about making tricks, and your "objective evidence" isn't the most important factor. We all know AKQJ10x - Axx - xxx - x is more powerful than KJx - QJx - KJxxx - KJ. If a player upgrades the former to a strong club (say 16+), it should be allowed. If he upgrades the latter, it shouldn't. But if he downgrades the latter to a 12-14 NT, most TDs would allow it. [Wayne Burrows] I can't see that this is the right approach. Bridge is a game of judgement. We want good players to exercise their good judgement and bad players to exercise their bad judgement. If someone wants to upgrade a hand that others will downgrade then we should be letting him. If it is good judgement to do so then he will beat us and if it is poor judgement then we will beat him. We certainly do not want the regulators telling the bad players that they are not allowed to exercise their bad judgement. [Alain] There was a time when opening a game force on a 11-trick 12-count was considered a psyche. Fortunately, this is past. Perhaps there will be a time when Nigellians (aka Walruses) will admit that side factors can be more important to this game than "objective evidence". [Wayne] One local pair used to describe their opening point ranges as "around 10-14 ...". I like this approach. Everyone knows or should know that players can and do upgrade and downgrade hands. We also know that the particular hands that one player upgrades or downgrades will in all likelihood be different than the particular hands that another player upgrades or downgrades. In an ideal world a complete explanation will tell us this information but in practice this is often impractical. Nevertheless if we are really interested as sometimes happens perhaps most commonly in the play as for example when you are trying to find a stray jack a player can ask about his opponent's tendency to upgrade or downgrade. Aside from anything else it is impractical because the hands that we upgrade or downgrade might be different today than it is tomorrow and that of course is different than it was yesterday. In my partnership we began life playing a 12-14 NT. At some point we changed to "good 11-14". My partner thought that I thought that meant "Good I have 11 I can open" while she exercised superior judgement and only opened "Good" 11 counts. At some point we introduced a variable 1NT so we were "Good 11-14" in 1st and 2nd seat and "15-17" in 3rd and 4th seat. Later our 1st and 2nd seat openings became dependent on vulnerability "10-13" Not Vulnerable and "Good 11-14" Vulnerable. After a run of bad results with 10-counts at nil vulnerable in a recent long event I discussed with my partner about only opening "Good 10-13" at nil vulnerable while keeping "10-13" at favourable vulnerability - although I have occasionally experimented with 9-counts favourable. We didn't come to any firm conclusion but I might show some discretion depending on the vulnerability. Also I have tightened up my Vulnerable 1NTs - without discussion. How is she supposed to know when I do this. And if she doesn't know how can she possibly disclose. The reality is we have a philosophy of opening a variable NT. The exact parameters of which are fluid and we are still discovering them. Its absurd to have to give a point count for all of this and expect that to be an accurate description. [nige1] Wain disagrees with Alain. also disagrees with Alain; but he, too, seems to regard the basic argument as not worth comment. So far nobody has addressed the essential argument, so I'll present it in a slightly different way... Take Waynes's example of a pair who open a weak no-trump. To clear the decks, let us suppose that they don't use Milton Work HCP at all. Perhaps they use the more accurate Vienna count (A=7 K=5 Q=3 J=1) or something else. Even so, with a little extra work, they can still declare an objective HCP range, computed using the ubiquitous. A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 They can easily work out, *using their own evaluation methods*... (A) the hand with the *least Milton Work HCP*, with which they would open 1N. (B) the hand with the *most Milton Work HCP*, with which they would open 1N. The pair can now declare their 1N HCP range is A-B. They should *also* attempt to explain how their judgement and special evaluation methods might affect this, especially at the extremes; although that information may be harder for opponents to grasp and use. Notice, however, that once again, suit lengths and HCP are rocks of objectivity, to which we can cling in a turbulent sea of judgement. They are *crude* and present an *incomplete* picture; but, in so far as they go, the do present an *accurate* picture. IMO the law should insist on *at least* that level of disclosure. Surely there is somebody on BLML who will accept that this information is more useful to opponents than "nominally 12-14" or whatever when the true HCP range varies between wider limits. In my experience accurate knowledge of HCP ranges and suit lengths would be especially helpful when ... (1) Defending. (2) Up against a partnership who are reluctant to disclose how they arrive at their judgements. Another variation on the argument.... An *expert* partnership will build a rapport so that each knows how the other evaluates various factors to adjust crude HCP. However, they may not be privy to how another expert pair exercise such judgement. Anyway, we *walruses* outnumber experts ten to one, so it is vital that disclosure-rules pander to *our* needs. The required rule-change is simple. All we want is that players initially describe hands in terms of suit lengths and raw HCP that we can understand; and declare other adjustments and refinements separately. Incidentally, Wayne wrote... "Also I have tightened up my Vulnerable 1NTs - without discussion. How is she supposed to know when I do this. And if she doesn't know how can she possibly disclose." I know that Wayne would not dream of doing so, but there are long-standing partnerships who seem to have built up an entire system from undiscussed implicit agreements. From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 15:46:06 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:46:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> > Take Waynes's example of a pair who open a weak no-trump. To clear the > decks, let us suppose that they don't use Milton Work HCP at all. > Perhaps they use the more accurate Vienna count (A=7 K=5 Q=3 J=1) or > something else. Even so, with a little extra work, they can still > declare an objective HCP range, computed using the ubiquitous. > > A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 > > They can easily work out, *using their own evaluation methods*... > (A) the hand with the *least Milton Work HCP*, with which they would > open 1N. > (B) the hand with the *most Milton Work HCP*, with which they would > open 1N. > > The pair can now declare their 1N HCP range is A-B. Lets assume the following: Partner and I are using some hand evaluation metric other than Milton Work High Card Points. Partner and I are playing in a well established partnership. We've been palying the same system forever and have been good enough to keep very accurate records of all of our 1NT opening. We decide to revist all our NT openings and calculate the strength of our hands using a naive Work HCP scale. Here is histogram describing the frequency distribution 10 HCP: 37 Hands 11 HCP: 346 hands 12 HCP: 3696 hands 13 HCP: 3183 hands 14 HCP: 2622 hands 15 HCP: 154 hands 16 HCP: 13 hands Using your proposal, I assume that we should describe our agreements as 10 - 16 HCPs? While I agree that the information provided is "accurate", its also completely useless. Defining a range without any kind of accompanying frequency distribution doesn't provide any kind of useful information. As I have tried to point out before, there really isn't any good way to skin this cat. Different groups of players won't be able to communication effectively if they don't share a common vocabulary. __ The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 26 17:10:46 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:10:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.co m> References: <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070626170940.02152ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:46 26/06/2007 -0400, richard willey wrote: >We decide to revist all our NT openings and calculate the strength of >our hands using a naive Work HCP scale. Here is histogram describing >the frequency distribution > >10 HCP: 37 Hands >11 HCP: 346 hands >12 HCP: 3696 hands >13 HCP: 3183 hands >14 HCP: 2622 hands >15 HCP: 154 hands >16 HCP: 13 hands > >Using your proposal, I assume that we should describe our agreements >as 10 - 16 HCPs? > >While I agree that the information provided is "accurate", its also >completely useless. AG : agree. The right description is "12-14, occasional adjustments". From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 26 18:49:21 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> [nige1] Take Waynes's example of a pair who open a weak no-trump. To clear the decks, let us suppose that they don't use Milton Work HCP at all. Perhaps they use the more accurate Vienna count (A=7 K=5 Q=3 J=1) or something else. Even so, with a little extra work, they can still declare an objective HCP range, computed using the ubiquitous. A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1 They can easily work out, *using their own evaluation methods*... (A) the hand with the *least Milton Work HCP*, with which they would open 1N. (B) the hand with the *most Milton Work HCP*, with which they would open 1N. The pair can now declare their 1N HCP range is A-B. {Richard Willey] Lets assume the following: Partner and I are using some hand evaluation metric other than Milton Work High Card Points. Partner and I are playing in a well established partnership. We've been palying the same system forever and have been good enough to keep very accurate records of all of our 1NT opening. We decide to revist all our NT openings and calculate the strength of our hands using a naive Work HCP scale. Here is histogram describing the frequency distribution 10 HCP: 37 Hands 11 HCP: 346 hands 12 HCP: 3696 hands 13 HCP: 3183 hands 14 HCP: 2622 hands 15 HCP: 154 hands 16 HCP: 13 hands Using your proposal, I assume that we should describe our agreements as 10 - 16 HCPs? While I agree that the information provided is "accurate", its also completely useless. Defining a range without any kind of accompanying frequency distribution doesn't provide any kind of useful information. As I have tried to point out before, there really isn't any good way to skin this cat. Different groups of players won't be able to communication effectively if they don't share a common vocabulary. [nige2] If those are your *current agreements* and you don't vary agreements according to *context*, yes. You should also briefly describe how you upgrade 10 counts or downgrade 16 counts, and so on. Are being frank, Richard? First, you eliminate psychs and mistakes; because you are enjoined to disclose *agreements*, Then, you ensure that the hands comply with *current* agreements. Finally, you would classify hands by scoring, vulnerability, position at the table, and so on; because when an opponent asks for an explanation he has a right to know your agreement *in context*. For example: At teams, vulnerable against not, in first seat, you agree to open 1N on 10 HCP hands. IMO you should include that in your declared range. You should specify other criteria and perhaps even add that few 10 counts meet them (if that is true). I accept that such information may be general knowledge and experience to BLML experts like Richard, but I assure him that it comes as a helpful revelation to Walrus like me. From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 19:06:45 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:06:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> > Are being frank, Richard? > > First, you eliminate psychs and mistakes; because you are enjoined to > disclose *agreements*, > > Then, you ensure that the hands comply with *current* agreements. I am being completely serious. A 7-5-3-1 point scale is very different than a 4-3-2-1 scale. The entire reason in adopting a different point scale is that it produces very different results than the traditional Work point count. Almost by definition, the act of approximating a 7-5-3-1 scale using a 4-3-2-1 scale is going to increase variance. > Finally, you would classify hands by scoring, vulnerability, position > at the table, and so on; because when an opponent asks for an > explanation he has a right to know your agreement *in context*. >For example: At teams, vulnerable against not, in first seat, you >agree to open 1N on 10 HCP hands. IMO you should include that in your >declared range. You should specify other criteria and perhaps even add >that few 10 counts meet them (if that is true). This has nothing to do with psyches or different opening styles in different seats. Its a simple question of math. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 19:41:05 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:41:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> BTW, here's a fairly simple illustration: Lets assume that the definition of a weak NT opening is as follows: An "average" weak NT hand contains 1 Ace, 1 King, 1 Queen, 1 Jack, plus a second King. The width of a weak NT opening is one "King" Using a standard "Work" 4-3-2-1 HCP scale, an average weak NT opening has 13 HCP. A maximum strength weak NT opening has 14 HCP. A minimum strength weak NT opening has 12 HP. Using the Vienna 7-5-3-1 point count, an average weak NT opening has 21 "Vienna points". A maximum strength weak NT opening has 23 Vienna points. A minimum strength weak NT opening has 19 Vienna points. Now, lets construct a couple hands designed to maximize the skew: Here's a 19 Vienna Point hand Axxx Axxx Kxx xx Here's a 23 Vienna Point hand KQJx KQxx Qxx Qx Notice that the first hand is an 11 count using Work HCP, while the second is a 15 count. Using the Work Count to describe agreements based on the Vienna count is intrinsically inaccurate. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 02:07:50 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:07:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] BTW, here's a fairly simple illustration: Lets assume that the definition of a weak NT opening is as follows: An "average" weak NT hand contains 1 Ace, 1 King, 1 Queen, 1 Jack, plus a second King. The width of a weak NT opening is one "King" Using a standard "Work" 4-3-2-1 HCP scale, an average weak NT opening has 13 HCP. A maximum strength weak NT opening has 14 HCP. A minimum strength weak NT opening has 12 HP. Using the Vienna 7-5-3-1 point count, an average weak NT opening has 21 "Vienna points". A maximum strength weak NT opening has 23 Vienna points. A minimum strength weak NT opening has 19 Vienna points. Now, lets construct a couple hands designed to maximize the skew: Here's a 19 Vienna Point hand Axxx Axxx Kxx xx Here's a 23 Vienna Point hand KQJx KQxx Qxx Qx Notice that the first hand is an 11 count using Work HCP, while the second is a 15 count. Using the Work Count to describe agreements based on the Vienna count is intrinsically inaccurate. [nige1] Now I understand what Richard is getting at. Clever! And fair enough! I agree that if you use the Vienna count, then the most accurate description of your agreements is in terms of Vienna count. If you translate the range into Milton Work HCP it will become broader. I dare say that might happen in the other direction too. I concede Richard's point that there is no complete solution, short of expecting players to learn a new system of evaluation with every new pair they meet :( Describing HCP ranges and suit lengths seems the simplest possible compromise :) IMO if the true range is 10-16 HCP then 10-16 HCP is a more accurate description of the range than 12-14 HCP. Here you should qualify that description by describing the Vienna count and range -- although I'm afraid that clarification may be of marginal use to the average walrus. From geller at nifty.com Wed Jun 27 02:22:06 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:22:06 +0900 Subject: [blml] adjudication Message-ID: <200706270022.AA09545@geller204.nifty.com> richard willey writes: >A 7-5-3-1 point scale is very different than a 4-3-2-1 scale. The >entire reason in adopting a different point scale is that it produces >very different results than the traditional Work point count. Almost >by definition, the act of approximating a 7-5-3-1 scale using a >4-3-2-1 scale is going to increase variance. In a 7-5-3-1 point count there is a total of 64 points in all four hands. If you multiply by 40/64 to convert to case of a total of 40 total points (like the 4321 count) you get 4.4 - 3.1 - 1.9 - 0.6 (keeping only the first decimal). If you ignore the extra 0.1 for the king and the the 0,1 deduction for the queen, it's easy to describe this (apprximately) to the opps as we tack on about a half point for an ace and subtract about a half point for a jack. Another early point count was the "Four Aces" point count of Howard Schenken and Oswald Jacoby, which was 6-4-2-1 (actually it was really 3-2-1-0.5 as first published), which converts to 4.6 - 3.1 - 1.5 - 0.8. IMO this is more accurate than either Vienna or Work. Again, for practical purposes you can tell the oppts we add about 0.5 for an ace and subtract about 0.5 for a queen. One point that has been ignored on this thread is the importance of middle cards. For example, A432 A432 K32 K2 is probably not a 1NT opener (upgrade to 15-17) even if you use the Schenken point count, but A1098 A1098 KT09 K10, IMO, is defintely worth a 1NT open. The second hand will probably be an average of one trick or more stronger than the first one. I don't know of any formal system that is simple enough to actually be used at the table to quantify middle cards, but obviously all good players do take middle cards into account to some degree when they decide whether or not to open 1NT. I don't know any easy way to describe this to oppts simplay, but if they are reasonable players they are already doing this themselves anyway. . -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 02:51:24 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:51:24 +1200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706261751h1a3be62ax90b3146ae969d71e@mail.gmail.com> On 27/06/07, Nigel wrote: > [Richard Willey] > BTW, here's a fairly simple illustration: > > Lets assume that the definition of a weak NT opening is as follows: > > An "average" weak NT hand contains 1 Ace, 1 King, 1 Queen, 1 Jack, > plus a second King. > The width of a weak NT opening is one "King" > > Using a standard "Work" 4-3-2-1 HCP scale, an average weak NT opening > has 13 HCP. A maximum strength weak NT opening has 14 HCP. A minimum > strength weak NT opening has 12 HP. > > Using the Vienna 7-5-3-1 point count, an average weak NT opening has > 21 "Vienna points". A maximum strength weak NT opening has 23 Vienna > points. A minimum strength weak NT opening has 19 Vienna points. > > Now, lets construct a couple hands designed to maximize the skew: > > Here's a 19 Vienna Point hand > > Axxx > Axxx > Kxx > xx > > Here's a 23 Vienna Point hand > > KQJx > KQxx > Qxx > Qx > > Notice that the first hand is an 11 count using Work HCP, while the > second is a 15 count. Using the Work Count to describe agreements > based on the Vienna count is intrinsically inaccurate. > > > [nige1] > > Now I understand what Richard is getting at. Clever! And fair enough! > > I agree that if you use the Vienna count, then the most accurate > description of your agreements is in terms of Vienna count. If you > translate the range into Milton Work HCP it will become broader. I > dare say that might happen in the other direction too. > > > I concede Richard's point that there is no complete solution, short of > expecting players to learn a new system of evaluation with every new > pair they meet :( > > Describing HCP ranges and suit lengths seems the simplest possible > compromise :) Maybe but as Richard pointed out it is inherently inaccurate. > > IMO if the true range is 10-16 HCP then 10-16 HCP is a more accurate > description of the range than 12-14 HCP. This may be so for the Vienna count (and others) but it will not always necessarily be the case. I don't even know what I will do next time with many (most) hands that are on the boundary of my 1NT range for example. How can my partner know? And if she does not know how can she explain? To me "around 12-14" (or whatever is appropriate) is a more accurate description of my 1NT as noone - not even me - knows any different. My partner knows from frequent "I only experimented a little bit this time" or "I have been a little creative" or "I only told a little lie" that variations will occur but I doubt she knows the nature of those variations. Although I am sure there is a pattern it is unlikely to be simple and future 1NTs maybe influenced positively or negatively by previous 1NTs and there are many other factors - simulations, thought experiments, actions I have taken with other partners (or seen from partner's and opponents), state of the match, quality of the opponents ... the list goes on. "Around 12-14" is more accurate and useful with everyone knowing that variations will occur. And these variations will differ from player to player. To my mind it is equivalent that the player who never varies from their stated range - the walrus - discloses that information. > Here you should qualify that description by describing the Vienna > count and range -- although I'm afraid that clarification may be of > marginal use to the average walrus. Accurate useless information. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 27 09:31:00 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:31:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070627092130.02152bc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:07 26/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >They can easily work out, *using their own evaluation methods*... >(A) the hand with the *least Milton Work HCP*, with which they would >open 1N. >(B) the hand with the *most Milton Work HCP*, with which they would >open 1N. > >The pair can now declare their 1N HCP range is A-B. > >They should *also* attempt to explain how their judgement and special >evaluation methods might affect this AG : and my point (and Wayne's) is that this way of explaining is clearly inferior, in terms of usefulness, to the following method : 1) work out a fiability interval for your 1NT opening, i.e. a HCP range where most (say 90% or 95%) of your 1NT openings will lie. 2) Declare this as your range. 3) Explain how your judgement and methods will affect this. And your method of declaring would lose touch with bridge reality when dealing with more unbalanced hands, as said before. Old Belgian CCs demand that you write a range for all your 1- and 2-level openings. For 2D (Multi = weak 2H/S or any GF), we had to write 4-37. Very helpful ! Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 27 09:44:05 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:44:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <200706270022.AA09545@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070627093548.02151ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:22 27/06/2007 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >One point that has been ignored on this thread is the importance of middle >cards. For example, A432 A432 K32 K2 is probably not a 1NT opener >(upgrade to 15-17) even if you use the Schenken point count, but >A1098 A1098 KT09 K10, IMO, is defintely worth a 1NT open. The second >hand will probably be an average of one trick or more stronger than the >first one. I don't know of any formal system that is simple enough to >actually be used at the table to quantify middle cards, but obviously >all good players do take middle cards into account to some degree when >they decide whether or not to open 1NT. I don't know any easy way >to describe this to oppts simply, but if they are reasonable players >they are already doing this themselves anyway. . AG : that last sentence from Bob is the most important in the thread so far. We started from a pair's attempt to recover from a bad result through lawyering. Pairs who don't won't have any qualms about admitting that some hands might be upgraded or downgraded a little according to factors that might vary from one pair to another ; all that's needed is that we take care to specify those factors at some obvious place on our CCs ("general style" seems right). If somebody questioned Bob's last example as a 15-17 1NT opener (or even a 16-18 opener), I'd apply but one law : L74A2, against the plaintiff. However, if somebody wished to call Bob's first example a 15-17 NT, one should rather make a statement about it. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 27 09:48:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:48:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] MI or deviation from system? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46810EBE.6010608@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: [big snip] >Surely 1H with a 3H rebid is the normal way to bid >this hand. [big snip] Richard Hills: But is it normal in that pair's Blue Club canape style? >From my experience in playing against Blue Club, a 1D opening followed by a 3H jump reverse shows greater playing strength than a 1H opening and a 3H jump rebid. Therefore, unless evidence was provided to the contrary, as TD I would rule that East-West had an (implicit or explicit) agreement that 1D-then-3H could be as few as two diamonds and as many as six hearts. 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 10:56:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:56:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070627093548.02151ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070627093548.02151ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> [Robert Geller] One point that has been ignored on this thread is the importance of middle cards. For example, A432 A432 K32 K2 is probably not a 1NT opener (upgrade to 15-17) even if you use the Schenken point count, but A1098 A1098 KT09 K10, IMO, is defintely worth a 1NT open. The second hand will probably be an average of one trick or more stronger than the first one. I don't know of any formal system that is simple enough to actually be used at the table to quantify middle cards, but obviously all good players do take middle cards into account to some degree when they decide whether or not to open 1NT. I don't know any easy way to describe this to oppts simply, but if they are reasonable players they are already doing this themselves anyway. . [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : that last sentence from Bob is the most important in the thread so far. We started from a pair's attempt to recover from a bad result through lawyering. Pairs who don't won't have any qualms about admitting that some hands might be upgraded or downgraded a little according to factors that might vary from one pair to another ; all that's needed is that we take care to specify those factors at some obvious place on our CCs ("general style" seems right). If somebody questioned Bob's last example as a 15-17 1NT opener (or even a 16-18 opener), I'd apply but one law : L74A2, against the plaintiff. However, if somebody wished to call Bob's first example a 15-17 NT, one should rather make a statement about it. [nige1] Several times in this thread, I've high-lighted Bob Geller's adjustment. I called it *texture*. It is one of several possible adjustment factors. Among others are honour *distribution*, *concentration*, and *placement* (all terms defined earlier). Pairs vary in how much they adjust for such factors. Some BLMLers write that they adjust by plus or minus 2 points or more. I adjust less Anyway, it does not matter in my case, because like most walrus, I declare the full raw HCP range). When we walrus declare 12-14 HCP (say) we mean 12-14 HCP. Others declare 12-14 HCP and mean 10-16 HCP. Apparently, I'm unique in BLML in advocating that the law should insist that pairs declare HCP accurately and adjustments separately. That isn't a perfect solution; just simpler and better than current practice. Everyone else seems loyal to John Probst's Ministry of Truth. Few appear willing to read let alone address the basic arguments. From geller at nifty.com Wed Jun 27 12:20:47 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:20:47 +0900 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> References: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> Nigel writes: >Everyone else seems loyal to John Probst's Ministry of Truth. Few >appear willing to read let alone address the basic arguments. Why don't you try the following experiment. Go to the BBO archives http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/ and look at the files for semi-randomly selected major national and international events. I don't have the time to do a detailed analysis, but I'm sure (based on the kibitzing I've done) if you analyze the actual records from top-level play you'll find that almost all good players are upgrading like crazy (and maybe even once in a while downgrading). That's the way top-level bridge is today. When Meckstroth and Rodwell say 14-16 (or whatever) and open 1NT with a good 13, Zia isn't calling the cops; he's doing the same himself. I don't see any problem with this at all. If there is a problem somewhere, it's in the fact that in some countries the wording of regulations is a bit outdated and fails to reflect the fact that hand evaluation is an essential skill for winning bridge. The wording of the "orange book" regulation is just silly; someone should rewrite it to bring it up to date in the real world, as it exists today. And instructional material for beginning/intermediate players should explain this, so that they don't feel aggrieved when their opponents upgrade and downgrade. The argument that someone who doesn't open 1NT on QJx QJx QJxx KQJ (because he has "15 HCP") or does open 1NT on A1098 A1098 K10 K109 "with only 14 points" is committing a violation of some rule or other and should be punished is ridiculous and would destroy the game of bridge as we know it. Theoretically there needs to be a disclosure mechanism for how the adjustments are being made, but in a match with only reasonable players this isn't a serious problem because everyone is making more or less the same type of adjustments. So the only thing that may be needed is an effort to educate beginning/intermediate players that this is part of the game. The exact details of each player's adjustments may vary slightly, but everybody reasonable is more or less doing the same thing. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 14:07:47 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:07:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standards on BLML Message-ID: <46825313.4070400@NTLworld.com> [Robin Barker] complete rubbish [John Probst] Bollox as usual, Nigel. Nothing to do with the TDs, enormous pressure from players who play bridge rather than count points was the reason. [nige1] Recent examples of criticism on BLML. On BLML, I have often been the target of much worse; so I was intrigued by following EBULEC minute... [MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EBU LAWS & ETHICS COMMITTEE HELD AT 40 BERNARD STREET, RUSSELL SQUARE, LONDON WC1 ON TUESDAY 6 TH JUNE 2006 7.2 Complaint from a member `Iguana] Mr Faulkner considered that publication of material on BLML (or equivalent) could count as conduct or behaviour which falls below accepted standards as allowed by 3.2(v) of the Disciplinary rules of EBU Ltd. However Mr Barnfield felt that there was more `rough and tumble' language used on the internet than might be accepted in face to face encounters. It was the decision of the committee that `While we may disagree with the comments used, the nature of language used by the internet community meant that the comment was not so far in breach of 3.2(v) of the Disciplinary code to merit any further action by the committee'. {nige1] Anybody know what this is about? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 27 15:03:31 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:03:31 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__MI_or_deviation_from_sy?= =?iso-8859-1?q?stem=3F____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <46826021.000001.88221@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 06/27/07 11:43:43 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] MI or deviation from system? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Surely 1H with a 3H rebid is the normal way to bid >this hand. [big snip] Richard Hills: But is it normal in that pair's Blue Club canape style? AG : What else could it show ? A 2NT rebid also would be a possibility (no 18-count 5332 in a 1H opening, remember), but some use it artificially (55 majors). >From my experience in playing against Blue Club, a 1D opening followed by a 3H jump reverse shows greater playing strength than a 1H opening and a 3H jump rebid. AG : but it also shows diamonds. Perhaps there is some confusion with Roman Club; A 1D opening couldn't be artificial and preparing a very srtong canap?-reverse, unless it was forcing, and it clearly isn't in Blue Club. See below. Greater playing strength than 1H-3H is shown by opening 1H and rebidding 4H, as most of us would do. > Therefore, unless evidence was provided to the contrary, as TD I would rule that East-West had an (implicit or explicit) agreement that 1D-then-3H could be as few as two diamonds and as many as six hearts. AG : not if playing Blue Club. Let's take some examples : Blue Club Roman Club xx 1H - 1S - 2H 1D - 1H - 1NT AQJxx 2H in some versions KQxx xx xx 1D - 1S - 2H 1D - 1H - 1NT (absolute max) AQJ9x KQ10x Ax xx 1H - 1S - 3H (or 2NT) 1D - 1H - 2H AKJ10xx Kx AJx xx 1D - 1S - 3H 1D - 1H - 2H AKJ10xx AQJx x x 1H - 1S - 4H 1H - 1S - 3H AKJ10xxx or perhaps open 1C xx AKx x open 1C 1D - 1H - 3H AKJ10xxx Kx AKx Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070627/654e0e7c/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/20070627/654e0e7c/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/20070627/654e0e7c/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 27 15:09:01 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:09:01 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__adjudication?= References: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4682616C.000004.88221@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- When we walrus declare 12-14 HCP (say) we mean 12-14 HCP. Others declare 12-14 HCP and mean 10-16 HCP. Apparently, I'm unique in BLML in advocating that the law should insist that pairs declare HCP accurately and adjustments separately. AG : you're (more or less) unique in not realizing that 10-16 isn't "an accurate description" when 10 HCP and 16 HCP openings will come once in a blue moon, and that "12-14, with the following adjustments ..." is more useful to the opponents than "10-16, which includes the following adjustments ...". Or perhaps you forgot that the aim of explanations isn't numerology, but helpfulness. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070627/2337e3e7/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/20070627/2337e3e7/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/20070627/2337e3e7/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 27 15:32:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:32:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Nigel wrote: > [Richard Willey] > BTW, here's a fairly simple illustration: > > Lets assume that the definition of a weak NT opening is as follows: > > An "average" weak NT hand contains 1 Ace, 1 King, 1 Queen, 1 Jack, > plus a second King. > The width of a weak NT opening is one "King" > > Using a standard "Work" 4-3-2-1 HCP scale, an average weak NT opening > has 13 HCP. A maximum strength weak NT opening has 14 HCP. A minimum > strength weak NT opening has 12 HP. > > Using the Vienna 7-5-3-1 point count, an average weak NT opening has > 21 "Vienna points". A maximum strength weak NT opening has 23 Vienna > points. A minimum strength weak NT opening has 19 Vienna points. > > Now, lets construct a couple hands designed to maximize the skew: > > Here's a 19 Vienna Point hand > > Axxx > Axxx > Kxx > xx > > Here's a 23 Vienna Point hand > > KQJx > KQxx > Qxx > Qx > > Notice that the first hand is an 11 count using Work HCP, while the > second is a 15 count. Using the Work Count to describe agreements > based on the Vienna count is intrinsically inaccurate. > > [nige1] > > Now I understand what Richard is getting at. Clever! And fair enough! > > I agree that if you use the Vienna count, then the most accurate > description of your agreements is in terms of Vienna count. If you > translate the range into Milton Work HCP it will become broader. I > dare say that might happen in the other direction too. > > I concede Richard's point that there is no complete solution, short of > expecting players to learn a new system of evaluation with every new > pair they meet :( > > Describing HCP ranges and suit lengths seems the simplest possible > compromise :) > > IMO if the true range is 10-16 HCP then 10-16 HCP is a more accurate > description of the range than 12-14 HCP. > > Here you should qualify that description by describing the Vienna > count and range -- although I'm afraid that clarification may be of > marginal use to the average walrus. Perhaps we should add a checkbox (possibly with a pre-alert) to the convention card (in the vicinity of "General Approach" on the ACBL card) for "Do Not Use Standard Point-Count" or some such, to be checked by a pair whose agreements were based primarily on something other than the 4-3-2-1 count (e.g. Vienna, LTC). A pair that checked the box would be required to explain their evaluation method on request. They would still be required to supply approximate 4-3-2-1 HCP ranges in those places where the CC calls for them, but it would be understood that they were "rough translations" of their actual agreements, not the agreements themselves (opponents could, of course, request that the actual agreement be stated in Vienna, LTC or whatever). I anticipate the biggest problem at roll-out would be educating players who may not be aware of the existence of alternatives to the 4-3-2-1 count (!) that the new box does *not* apply to "standard point-count but with lots of latitude for judgment". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 27 16:06:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:06:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070627093548.02151ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45472811-194E-4469-A81D-7B27053EA43A@starpower.net> On Jun 27, 2007, at 4:56 AM, Nigel wrote: > Several times in this thread, I've high-lighted Bob Geller's > adjustment. I called it *texture*. It is one of several possible > adjustment factors. Among others are honour *distribution*, > *concentration*, and *placement* (all terms defined earlier). > > Pairs vary in how much they adjust for such factors. Some BLMLers > write that they adjust by plus or minus 2 points or more. I adjust > less Anyway, it does not matter in my case, because like most walrus, > I declare the full raw HCP range). > > When we walrus declare 12-14 HCP (say) we mean 12-14 HCP. Others > declare 12-14 HCP and mean 10-16 HCP. > > Apparently, I'm unique in BLML in advocating that the law should > insist that pairs declare HCP accurately and adjustments separately. > > That isn't a perfect solution; just simpler and better than current > practice. Perhaps the rest of BLML has a better intuitive understanding of probability and statistics. When you have a sample from a probability distribution (e.g. of the number of HCP in a 1NT opener) that clusters around a mean (e.g. 13 HCP), it is far more meaningful and useful to know the range into which, say, 95% of the observations fall than the range that includes 100% of them. The latter is determined entirely by the most extreme outliers, while the former gives you a much truer notion of how wide or narrow the probabilty curve really is. Both, of course, are equally "accurate". Some day Nigel could encounter a 17-HCP hand that he deems appropriate to open 1NT, and will then, forever after, feel compelled to describe his 12-14 1NT opening as "10-17", eventually going to his grave without ever having found another 17-HCP 1NT opener. That just doesn't seem like a useful approach. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 16:59:31 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:59:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <004101c7b804$f4e09f50$0701a8c0@john> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D107@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local><46806E28.7040403@NTLworld.com> <46806F06.6070209@NTLworld.com> <004101c7b804$f4e09f50$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <46827B53.2050005@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Sadly, the EBU tournament committee gave into pressure from the directors who who wanted more scope for judgement. The new Orange book has introduced director judgement into evaluating "rule of 25" (or whatever) by adding the qualifier "or equivalent". [Robin Barker] As far as I know this is complete rubbish - the L&E (not the tournament committee) did not change the regulations under pressure from TD and TDs were not pushing for such changes. [John Probst] Bollox as usual, Nigel. Nothing to do with the TDs, enormous pressure from players who play bridge rather than count points was the reason. [nige1] As I remember it, David Stevenson, John Probst, Tim West-Meades and other directors insisted on using "judgement" or "playing Bridge" or whatever. One of them claimed the backing of Max Bavin and other prominent directors. David Burn (& I) kept pointing out that, according to the Orange Book, the use judgement in the discussed contexts, was forbidden. Perhaps Richard Hills will be able to confirm my recollection. I wrote to the EBULEC on this issue. but, of course, my "pressure" was *against* the change that the committee made. I would be fascinated to learn from John which non-directors wrote in to back the change. My version of what happened is hearsay but I doubt that either Robin Parker or John Probst attended the meeting. Minutes of meetings are available on line at the EBU site. I feared that the decision made at the Jan-2006 EBULEC committee meeting to insert *or equivalent* was the current position but I am relieved and delighted to report that the Mar-2006 EBULEC meeting heeded wise counsel and after discussion, seem to have *removed* the qualifier from *natural one openers*. If players must endure such regulations, then we applaud the law committee's good sense to revert to simplicity and clarity without specious reliance on director judgement :) Thank you, LEC committee. Well done. Unfortunately the qualifier remains in place for strong artificial openers :( but that is not quite so bad. I downloaded the latest version of the Orange Book which seems to reflect the changes as specified in the Mar-2006 memo. [EBULEC meeting on 11-Jan-2006] Mr Martin, seconded by Mr Fleet, proposed that all uses of Rule of X in the Orange Book should be qualified by the words *or equivalent playing strength*. The proposal was carried by three votes to two. [EBULEC meeting, on 24-Mar-2006] A member of the Panel of Referees ... expressed the view that the current regulations were contrary to good bridge and would be widely ignored ... Following a discussion the matters requiring decision were broken down into a number of distinct proposals which were voted on separately. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 18:46:28 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:46:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <45472811-194E-4469-A81D-7B27053EA43A@starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070627093548.02151ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <45472811-194E-4469-A81D-7B27053EA43A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46829464.9010302@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Perhaps the rest of BLML has a better intuitive understanding of probability and statistics. [nige1] Thank you Eric :) [Eric] When you have a sample from a probability distribution (e.g. of the number of HCP in a 1NT opener) that clusters around a mean (e.g. 13 HCP), it is far more meaningful and useful to know the range into which, say, 95% of the observations fall than the range that includes 100% of them. The latter is determined entirely by the most extreme outliers, while the former gives you a much truer notion of how wide or narrow the probabilty curve really is. Both, of course, are equally "accurate". [nige1] You can disclose the true range for the benefit of us ignorant Walrus :) also the mean the variance for clever BLML arithmeticians :) [Eric] Some day Nigel could encounter a 17-HCP hand that he deems appropriate to open 1NT, and will then, forever after, feel compelled to describe his 12-14 1NT opening as "10-17", eventually going to his grave without ever having found another 17-HCP 1NT opener. That just doesn't seem like a useful approach. [nige1] No problem for a Walrus. Tsetse, my preferred system, employs a 14-15 HCP 1N opener at all forms of scoring, at all vulnerabilities, in all positions. I've never opened 1N outside that range but if I did it would be a *mistake* or a *psych* :) not a spurious *adjustment* :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 19:20:38 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:20:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Perhaps we should add a checkbox (possibly with a pre-alert) to the convention card (in the vicinity of "General Approach" on the ACBL card) for "Do Not Use Standard Point-Count" or some such, to be checked by a pair whose agreements were based primarily on something other than the 4-3-2-1 count (e.g. Vienna, LTC). A pair that checked the box would be required to explain their evaluation method on request. They would still be required to supply approximate 4-3-2-1 HCP ranges in those places where the CC calls for them, but it would be understood that they were "rough translations" of their actual agreements, not the agreements themselves (opponents could, of course, request that the actual agreement be stated in Vienna, LTC or whatever). I anticipate the biggest problem at roll-out would be educating players who may not be aware of the existence of alternatives to the 4-3-2-1 count (!) that the new box does *not* apply to "standard point-count but with lots of latitude for judgment". [nige1] As Richard Willey showed, you can translate any simple range based on a 7531 or 6421 or whatever count into an *accurate* (wider) HCP range. At the extremes of the range, fewer hands qualify. Exactly the same can apply when you agree a narrow HCP range. Suppose you agree that 1NT shows a flat 12-14 HCP. There is no rule obliging you to open all 1NT on all flat 12 HCP and 14 HCP hands. You might agree, for example - to pass with hands like S:QJx H:QJx D:QJx C:QJxx - to make another opening bid with say S:xx H:xxx D:AKQJ C:AT98 Obviusly, such exceptions don't alter the true agreed range; but IMO you should still explain the basis for the exceptions, whether it is using a different point count or adjusting for other factors. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 27 19:52:44 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:52:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Nigel wrote: > [Eric Landau] > Perhaps we should add a checkbox (possibly with a pre-alert) to the > convention card (in the vicinity of "General Approach" on the ACBL > card) for "Do Not Use Standard Point-Count" or some such, to be > checked by a pair whose agreements were based primarily on something > other than the 4-3-2-1 count (e.g. Vienna, LTC). A pair that checked > the box would be required to explain their evaluation method on > request. They would still be required to supply approximate 4-3-2-1 > HCP ranges in those places where the CC calls for them, but it would > be understood that they were "rough translations" of their actual > agreements, not the agreements themselves (opponents could, of > course, request that the actual agreement be stated in Vienna, LTC or > whatever). > > I anticipate the biggest problem at roll-out would be educating > players who may not be aware of the existence of alternatives to the > 4-3-2-1 count (!) that the new box does *not* apply to "standard > point-count but with lots of latitude for judgment". > > [nige1] > As Richard Willey showed, you can translate any simple range based on > a 7531 or 6421 or whatever count into an *accurate* (wider) HCP > range. At the extremes of the range, fewer hands qualify. > > Exactly the same can apply when you agree a narrow HCP range. Suppose > you agree that 1NT shows a flat 12-14 HCP. There is no rule obliging > you to open all 1NT on all flat 12 HCP and 14 HCP hands. You might > agree, for example > - to pass with hands like S:QJx H:QJx D:QJx C:QJxx > - to make another opening bid with say S:xx H:xxx D:AKQJ C:AT98 > > Obviusly, such exceptions don't alter the true agreed range; but IMO > you should still explain the basis for the exceptions, whether it is > using a different point count or adjusting for other factors. Of course you should "explain the basis for the exceptions" -- you should explain whatever considerations may be relevant to your choice of call; that's what full disclosure is about. But Nigel is still missing the point, which has nothing to do with "exceptions". "Using a different point count" cannot validly be contrasted with "adjusting for other factors", because using a different point count has nothing whatsoever to do with adjusting for anything at all! I think it would be a terrible idea to require "adjustments" to be declared on the CC. 99.9% of pairs would need to write an essay ("upgrade lots of 10s and 9s or good honor combinations, downgrade lots of HC in Qs and Js or short or unguarded honors...") -- and that's just for NT openers! -- and would merely be stating what is near-universal and obvious to most. I'm talking about pairs who really do use alternative evaluation methods (which can include far more than merely "a different point count"); they are rare, but definitely do exist. Nigel seems to have fallen into exactly the trap I anticipated, by failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between using a genuine alternative evaluation method and making adjustments to a base evaluation using standard point-count. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 20:10:13 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:10:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> [Robert Geller] Why don't you try the following experiment. Go to the BBO archives http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/ and look at the files for semi-randomly selected major national and international events. I don't have the time to do a detailed analysis, but I'm sure (based on the kibitzing I've done) if you analyze the actual records from top-level play you'll find that almost all good players are upgrading like crazy (and maybe even once in a while downgrading). That's the way top-level bridge is today. When Meckstroth and Rodwell say 14-16 (or whatever) and open 1NT with a good 13, Zia isn't calling the cops; he's doing the same himself. I don't see any problem with this at all. If there is a problem somewhere, it's in the fact that in some countries the wording of regulations is a bit outdated and fails to reflect the fact that hand evaluation is an essential skill for winning bridge. The wording of the "orange book" regulation is just silly; someone should rewrite it to bring it up to date in the real world, as it exists today. And instructional material for beginning/intermediate players should explain this, so that they don't feel aggrieved when their opponents upgrade and downgrade. [nige1] I *know* that many experts regularly "upgrade". I accept there is an increase in poetic license when describing *all* calls not just opening bids. You can hardly blame players, when BLML stalwarts advocate and practice the same. I understand current practice but I'm advocating a *change* in the rules to *improve disclosure*. [Robert] The argument that someone who doesn't open 1NT on QJx QJx QJxx KQJ (because he has "15 HCP") or does open 1NT on A1098 A1098 K10 K109 "with only 14 points" is committing a violation of some rule or other and should be punished is ridiculous and would destroy the game of bridge as we know it. Theoretically there needs to be a disclosure mechanism for how the adjustments are being made, but in a match with only reasonable players this isn't a serious problem because everyone is making more or less the same type of adjustments. So the only thing that may be needed is an effort to educate beginning/intermediate players that this is part of the game. The exact details of each player's adjustments may vary slightly, but everybody reasonable is more or less doing the same thing. [nige1] Let's shred another straw man :) If you agree a *14-17 HCP* 1N I see no problem with you passing on Robert's first hand and opening 1N on his second. Nor can I imagine anybody else objecting. The problem arises when a pair don't declare that agreed range. For example if their *agreed range is *14-17 HCP*, but their *declared range* is 14-16 HCP* or *15-16 HCP* or *15-17 HCP* *In practice* Robert approves of them doing this, even against beginners. I believe that, on the contrary, *in theory and in practice* (A) A pair should declare their true agreed HCP range for a call. (B) They should also declare other requirements. Furthermore, I feel strongly that, if you adopt the BLML approach of allowing prevarication about [A}, then [B] is *practically essential*. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 27 21:09:48 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:09:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4682B5FC.20301@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Of course you should "explain the basis for the exceptions" -- you should explain whatever considerations may be relevant to your choice of call; that's what full disclosure is about. But Nigel is still missing the point, which has nothing to do with "exceptions". "Using a different point count" cannot validly be contrasted with "adjusting for other factors", because using a different point count has nothing whatsoever to do with adjusting for anything at all! I think it would be a terrible idea to require "adjustments" to be declared on the CC. 99.9% of pairs would need to write an essay ("upgrade lots of 10s and 9s or good honor combinations, downgrade lots of HC in Qs and Js or short or unguarded honors...") -- and that's just for NT openers! -- and would merely be stating what is near-universal and obvious to most. I'm talking about pairs who really do use alternative evaluation methods (which can include far more than merely "a different point count"); they are rare, but definitely do exist. Nigel seems to have fallen into exactly the trap I anticipated, by failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between using a genuine alternative evaluation method and making adjustments to a base evaluation using standard point-count. [nige1] Wallowing in Eric's Walrus trap :) I understand Eric's distinction and recognise its validity; I just suggested the *same* solution to the two problems. My suggestion is that you disclose: [A] True HCP range. [B] Other requirements. As Richard Willey demonstrated, that does not work well with alternative point counts (like Vienna's 7531) but it seems adequate if there are adjustments for other factors. I recommend that you declare your 15-18 HCP notrump opener as, say... [A] 15-18 HCP. [B] Flat may have 5 card major. We adjust for factors like texture, shape, distribution, and concentration. For example, we don't open 4333 15 counts with poor texture; On 18 counts we open something else, unless they are 4333 with poor texture. Your true 15-18 HCP range is more useful to opponents than a *16-17 HCP* or *15-17 HCP* or *16-18 HCP* curtailment. For example, it is clear that you don't open 1N on 14HCP or 19HCP. IMO you should still declare [B] but failure to do so is less damaging to opponents because even Walrus know that there are often exceptions at the extremes. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 28 11:19:51 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:19:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: References: <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625101147.02149580@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070625154629.0215b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> <467FFB55.2030201@NTLworld.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070626100243.021524a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560706260203p4dafc6cqc25ab75d4e059754@mail.gmail.com> <46810FA8.60403@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070628111746.021520f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:52 27/06/2007 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I think it would be a terrible idea to require "adjustments" to be >declared on the CC. 99.9% of pairs would need to write an essay >("upgrade lots of 10s and 9s or good honor combinations, downgrade >lots of HC in Qs and Js or short or unguarded honors...") -- and >that's just for NT openers! -- and would merely be stating what is >near-universal and obvious to most. I'm talking about pairs who >really do use alternative evaluation methods (which can include far >more than merely "a different point count"); they are rare, but >definitely do exist. AG : in an old partnership, we had the following agreement, supported by mathematical evidence and duly mentioned on our CC : "we do not count anything for unsupported jacks". Not a different point count, I'd say, but should definitely be known. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 28 11:24:15 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:24:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> References: <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070628112048.02150850@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:10 27/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >[Robert] >The argument that someone who doesn't open 1NT on QJx QJx QJxx KQJ >(because he has "15 HCP") or does open 1NT on A1098 A1098 K10 K109 >"with only 14 points" is committing a violation of some rule or other >and should be punished is ridiculous and would destroy the game of >bridge as we know it. Theoretically there needs to be a disclosure >mechanism for how the adjustments are being made, but in a match with >only reasonable players this isn't a serious problem because everyone >is making more or less the same type of adjustments. So the only thing >that may be needed is an effort to educate beginning/intermediate >players that this is part of the game. The exact details of each >player's adjustments may vary slightly, but everybody reasonable is >more or less doing the same thing. > >[nige1] > >Let's shred another straw man :) > >If you agree a *14-17 HCP* 1N I see no problem with you passing on >Robert's first hand and opening 1N on his second. Nor can I imagine >anybody else objecting. You're plain wrong, Nigel. Robert's first example is "a very poor 15 HCP", perhaps worth about 14.2, whence it falls within a 14-17 range but perhaps not within a 15-17 range. Declarin g 14-17 as your range means you'll open many balanced 14's and about all balanced 15's with 1NT, and that's precisely why you'd be wrong declaring 14-17 range when 14 HCP openings are very uncommon. From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 26 16:33:52 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:33:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:46:06 EDT." <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200706261424.HAA00973@mailhub.irvine.com> > Different groups of players won't be able to communication effectively I agree---effective communicate is very important. I can't addition anything to this. -- Adam From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 28 15:39:45 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:39:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070628112048.02150850@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070628112048.02150850@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4683BA21.4080205@NTLworld.com> [Robert] The argument that someone who doesn't open 1NT on QJx QJx QJxx KQJ (because he has "15 HCP") or does open 1NT on A1098 A1098 K10 K109 "with only 14 points" is committing a violation of some rule or other and should be punished is ridiculous and would destroy the game of bridge as we know it. Theoretically there needs to be a disclosure mechanism for how the adjustments are being made, but in a match with only reasonable players this isn't a serious problem because everyone is making more or less the same type of adjustments. So the only thing that may be needed is an effort to educate beginning/intermediate players that this is part of the game. The exact details of each player's adjustments may vary slightly, but everybody reasonable is more or less doing the same thing. [nige1] Let's shred another straw man :) If you agree a *14-17 HCP* 1N I see no problem with you passing on Robert's first hand and opening 1N on his second. Nor can I imagine anybody else objecting. [Alain Gottcheiner] You're plain wrong, Nigel. Robert's first example is "a very poor 15 HCP", perhaps worth about 14.2, whence it falls within a 14-17 range but perhaps not within a 15-17 range. Declaring 14-17 as your range means you'll open many balanced 14's and about all balanced 15's with 1NT, and that's precisely why you'd be wrong declaring 14-17 range when 14 HCP openings are very uncommon. [nige1] If I'm plainly wrong and you're plainly right that would end the argument. Pity. This has been great fun but I fear that I may be running out of new arguments. IMO, the *difference* between my recommended approach and that avocated by BLMLwers *is plain*. Suppose we are describing a no-trump opener with a (true) range of 14-17 HCP (As defined in the Orange Book etc). IMO you should specify HCP requirements (here 14-17) - Qualified later by requirements that create *exceptions*. - Examples of possible *exclusions* [A] Shape ..(1) Hands with a singleton, void, or six card suit. ..(2) Dull 14-15 HCP hands eg KQx KQx KJx xxxx. ..(3) Shapely 16-17 HCP hands eg AKJxx Axx Axx xx [B] Honour distribution. ..(1) 14-15 HCP hands with short honours eg KQJ KQJ QJ xxxx ..(2) 5422 hands without two doubleton honours. [C] Honour concentration ..(1) Hands with honours in 1 suit eg AKQJT Jxx Jxx QJ ..(2) Hands with honours in 2 suits eg AKxx xx xxx AKQx. ..(3) 14 HCP with isolated honours eg Qxxx KJx KJx KJx [D] Honour quality. 14-15 HCP with quacks eg QJx QJx QJx KQJx [E] Texture. 16-17 HCP with intermediates eg AQT9 AJT9 AJT Tx BLMLers prefer to be describe a *typical interior HCP range* - Later qualified by information about *exclusions and extensions*. Reasonably, you may regard the explanation above as overkill; I agree that you can assume some requirements like A1 above but you still need to specify exclusions such as B2, C1 and C2 above. In particular, however, please note that these exceptions illustrate that you don't need to open all balanced 15 HCP hands with 1N, *no matter what range you declare*. Hence Alain's examples don't show I'm wrong. Using the BLML approach, however, most of qualifications are *extensions*; also, some *extensions* will have *exceptions* *Whatever the level of detail*, IMO (a) It is easier to specify exclusions than extensions. (b) The BLML method is less helpful to defenders. You might even picture requirements as dimensions, so that a full description of any call is an irregular n-dimensional solid. Well... for a convention like multi, it could be several solids. Developing that analogy, BLMLers describe *a* typical core fragment, hoping to build surface mountains later. In practice, it seems simpler and more helpful to describe *the* envelope and then excavate craters. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 28 15:51:18 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:51:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> References: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <83CAEB60-B897-4782-86A6-38B93A370E46@starpower.net> On Jun 27, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Nigel wrote: > Let's shred another straw man :) > > If you agree a *14-17 HCP* 1N I see no problem with you passing on > Robert's first hand and opening 1N on his second. Nor can I imagine > anybody else objecting. > > The problem arises when a pair don't declare that agreed range. > For example if their *agreed range is *14-17 HCP*, but their *declared > range* is 14-16 HCP* or *15-16 HCP* or *15-17 HCP* > > *In practice* Robert approves of them doing this, even against > beginners. > > I believe that, on the contrary, *in theory and in practice* > (A) A pair should declare their true agreed HCP range for a call. > (B) They should also declare other requirements. > > Furthermore, I feel strongly that, if you adopt the BLML approach of > allowing prevarication about [A}, then [B] is *practically essential*. There are two kinds of bridge players in this world. One kind, the majority IME, understands perfectly well that there are some 14-counts and some 18-counts that may be best described by opening a 15-17 HCP 1NT. They will upgrade or downgrade such hands frequently or rarely -- or even never -- but they understand that it is a normal practice among all but the least experienced players, and are not put off when someone judges to do so. The other kind, "walruses" after Mollo, believe that a HCP range is a contract to be fulfilled exactly as written. They believe that there is something somehow wrong -- Nigel calls it "prevarication" -- with opening a 15-17 HCP 1NT holding a flat 14-count. But they also believe that there is something somehow wrong -- equivalent "prevarication" -- with *not* opening a 14-17 HCP 1NT holding a flat 14-count. They are unsatisfied with the common, usual disclosure practice, but would be equally unsatisfied with Nigel's suggested alternative. If the object is to minimize "prevarication", the rule should be: Include a HCP value in your HCP range if you will open more than half the (otherwise qualified) hands with that number of HCP. And we can, and routinely do, improve on that by denoting marginal inclusions with '+' and '-' signs. So when we (speaking for the first kind of player) see a 1NT range of "15-17", we expect fewer than 1/4 of (otherwise qualified) 14-counts to be opened with 1NT. When we see "14-17", we expect more than 3/4 of 14-counts to be opened 1NT. "14+-17" denotes something in between. That is far more useful and informative than writing "14-17" for all three cases. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 28 16:29:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <46827B53.2050005@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Just for the record I refuse to work as a TD for the EBU on the grounds that they would require me to enforce illegal regulations. Any pressure I may have brought to bear on the EBU has been as a player and not as a TD. Any attempt to regulate bidding by mandating a mechanical approach (e.g HCP, Ro19 etc) would be restrictive of judgement - and thus against the laws of bridge. As such I actually bothered to enquire of the EBU as to whether their regulations were illegal and, on being assured that the regulations were legal, concluded that they were not supposed to be treated mechanically. Any player who bothered to read the law book could have made the same inquiries and reached the same conclusions so I have no sympathy for a team which "lost matches" purely because they were too lazy to find out for themselves. None of which has anything to do with *disclosure*. Law75c is quite clear that when answering questions my partner must disclose relevant experience regarding her understanding of how I value hands whether I am a slave to HCP or not. She won't mislead opponents by saying my NT openers are "10-15" since I open damn few 15 counts and even fewer 10s. An initial answer on her part of "About a good 11 to 14" is as accurate as she can make it. Our CC description of weak 2s reads "Weak 6 (sometimes 5) card suit, usu 4-9 HCP in 1st/2nd, wide-ranging in 3rd. c9-14 with decent 6 carder in 4th." I find the suggestion that we should try and describe our agreements purely in terms of HCP absolutely ridiculous - even I don't know what HCP range MY 3rd seat weak 2s cover (can't always be bothered to count or remember) so there's pretty much no chance of partner being able to tell opps. Varietal approaches to hand evaluation have always been, and probably always will be, part of bridge. Get used to it and learn to ask opps for more detail when you think it might matter. Tim From tzimnoch at comcast.net Thu Jun 28 18:03:11 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:03:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4683DBBF.8000301@comcast.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Any attempt to regulate bidding by mandating a mechanical approach (e.g > HCP, Ro19 etc) would be restrictive of judgement - and thus against the > laws of bridge. As such I actually bothered to enquire of the EBU as to > whether their regulations were illegal and, on being assured that the > regulations were legal, concluded that they were not supposed to be > treated mechanically. If the question you're interested in is whether the regulation is enforced mechanically or not, why didn't you ask that question of the EBU? You may be right in your conclusion, but the method seems untoward. -Todd From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Jun 28 18:00:20 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:00:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4683BA21.4080205@NTLworld.com> References: <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070628112048.02150850@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4683BA21.4080205@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <20070628120020.606d4e8c@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:39:45 +0100 Nigel wrote: <...> > > IMO, the *difference* between my recommended approach and that > avocated by BLMLwers *is plain*. > <...> Nigel, you've achieved the rare feat of making a statement with which *everyone* on BLML will totally agree. Brian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGg9sUX39R2QaHMdMRAq8VAJ0aUPe2jrGhP9T33FNp7N3EUFav1wCdFq5j Dc5ZHzZ34ZC5lKI2lr4QP2M= =n1bB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 28 19:04:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:04:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication References: <82906804-5F98-4239-8A6D-9F36A18BD1DD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2B9D2CDE-2708-4AA4-B5ED-E7D781D0E32F@starpower.net> On Jun 27, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Nigel wrote: > Wallowing in Eric's Walrus trap :) > > Your true 15-18 HCP range is more useful to opponents than a *16-17 > HCP* or *15-17 HCP* or *16-18 HCP* curtailment. For example, it is > clear that you don't open 1N on 14HCP or 19HCP. ...until, someday, I do. When that happens, does it really help my future opponents for me to expand my declared HCP range forever after on the off chance that someday it may happen again? Now in Nigel's world, I am unlikely to ever to face that problem... because I'm really playing 16-18-, but am calling it "15-18" because I opened a particularly attractive 15-count a few years ago. We should choose what we write on our CC with the goal of maximizing the usefulness of the information to our prospective opponents, not its historical accuracy. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 28 22:08:28 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:08:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <20070628120020.606d4e8c@linuxbox> References: <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070628112048.02150850@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4683BA21.4080205@NTLworld.com> <20070628120020.606d4e8c@linuxbox> Message-ID: <4684153C.6050900@NTLworld.com> [Brian] Nigel, you've achieved the rare feat of making a statement with which *everyone* on BLML will totally agree. [nige1] Thank you Brian :) but you damn me with faint praise : my task is to try to tie tautologies together into terminal truisms :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 28 22:57:05 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:57:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <83CAEB60-B897-4782-86A6-38B93A370E46@starpower.net> References: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> <83CAEB60-B897-4782-86A6-38B93A370E46@starpower.net> Message-ID: <468420A1.4050009@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] And we can, and routinely do, improve on that by denoting marginal inclusions with '+' and '-' signs. So when we (speaking for the first kind of player) see a 1NT range of "15-17", we expect fewer than 1/4 of (otherwise qualified) 14-counts to be opened with 1NT. When we see "14-17", we expect more than 3/4 of 14-counts to be opened 1NT. "14+-17" denotes something in between. That is far more useful and informative than writing "14-17" for all three cases. [nige1] Great! Another straw man :) Most players agree that is a fair attempt at honest disclosure to declare a *14-17 HCP* as *14+-17 HCP* if you open few 14 HCP hands. I heartily approve of the practice, and fully accept that it is much more useful and helpful than any unqualified range. I slightly prefer the notation *(14)15-17 HCP* proposed, I think, by Tim West-Meads. I still feel it is wrong to declare that range as 15-17 HCP :) From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 01:02:51 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:02:51 +1200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <468420A1.4050009@NTLworld.com> References: <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> <83CAEB60-B897-4782-86A6-38B93A370E46@starpower.net> <468420A1.4050009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706281602k684a9771ub8c511d59024ab97@mail.gmail.com> On 29/06/07, Nigel wrote: > [Eric Landau] > And we can, and routinely do, improve on that by denoting marginal > inclusions with '+' and '-' signs. So when we (speaking for the > first kind of player) see a 1NT range of "15-17", we expect fewer > than 1/4 of (otherwise qualified) 14-counts to be opened with 1NT. > When we see "14-17", we expect more than 3/4 of 14-counts to be > opened 1NT. "14+-17" denotes something in between. That is far more > useful and informative than writing "14-17" for all three cases. > > [nige1] > Great! Another straw man :) > > Most players agree that is a fair attempt at honest disclosure to > declare a *14-17 HCP* as *14+-17 HCP* if you open few 14 HCP hands. > > I heartily approve of the practice, and fully accept that it is much > more useful and helpful than any unqualified range. > > I slightly prefer the notation *(14)15-17 HCP* proposed, I think, by > Tim West-Meads. > > I still feel it is wrong to declare that range as 15-17 HCP :) > I use the notation (11)12-14. However there are still traps with this approach. Traps of the sort that Nigel is trying to avoid. That is one partnerships percentage of 11 counts will be different from another's that use the same notation. There is always going to be a problem on the boundary since there are millions of bridge hands and we will not all judge the same way at the boundary. I said in another post that I play 10-13 1NT not vul in 1st and 2nd seat. Once or maybe twice I have opened a 9-count. Do I need to ammend my system card to (9)10-13? What if I won't do it again? What if I don't know whether I will do it again? I think the best and simplest approach is for players to honestly put a range that corresponds to a range in which they open all or nearly all hands 12-14 means that nearly all 12, 13 and 14 hcp hands will be opened and include as a side note (possibly in parentheses) any other values where a significant proportion of hands are opened. So (11)12-14 means many 11 hcp hands and all 12, 13 and 14 hcp hands. And on top of this we educate bridge players to expect variations on and near the boundaries and therfore they might need to ask and of course teh other side will need to explain. Wayne From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 29 01:09:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4683DBBF.8000301@comcast.net> Message-ID: Todd asked:> > If the question you're interested in is whether the > regulation is enforced mechanically or not, why didn't you > ask that question of the EBU? Because at the time the question that interested me was the extent to which I would be required to enforce illegal regulations were I to become an EBU TD. There were, and remain, other regulations which I was unable to reconcile. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 29 01:09:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <468420A1.4050009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > Most players agree that is a fair attempt at honest disclosure to > declare a *14-17 HCP* as *14+-17 HCP* if you open few 14 HCP hands. > > I heartily approve of the practice, and fully accept that it is much > more useful and helpful than any unqualified range. > > I slightly prefer the notation *(14)15-17 HCP* proposed, I think, by > Tim West-Meads. The two are, IMO, different. 14+ - 17 means one opens about 50% of 14 counts (but not about 5% of 15s) (14)- 17 means one opens around 15-20% of 14s (and not about 15% of 15s) "About 15-17" means maybe 5% of 14s and 5% of 18s. I also use decimal variants (11.5-14, 14.7-17). Indeed Chien Fou and self had an argument about whether our 3rd/4th seat SNT should be 14.7-17 or 14.8 to 17. We left the CC as 14.7-17 on the grounds that I open 14.7 while he opens 14.8 (despite the fact that I play the cards at least 0.4 better than him) due to limited space. The decimal notation has the advantage of being orally reproducible but the key thing (IMO) is giving walrii and novices and indication that one is (by their standards) deviant. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 29 03:34:26 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:34:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 In-Reply-To: <200706221525.l5MFPOqB022528@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706221525.l5MFPOqB022528@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <468461A2.5090201@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Harald Skj?ran" > Look at the last appeal here: > http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2006.pdf > The first thing to do is to show that the chosen action demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the UI transmitted. While this is of course true, it's pretty obvious in the case cited. The player thinks and then makes a minimum bid (4H) in partner's suit, which he has previously supported. What bid could he have been thinking of that would have been weaker? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 29 03:50:24 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:50:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46846560.9030306@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] The two are, IMO, different. 14+ - 17 means one opens about 50% of 14 counts (but not about 5% of 15s) (14)- 17 means one opens around 15-20% of 14s (and not about 15% of 15s) "About 15-17" means maybe 5% of 14s and 5% of 18s. I also use decimal variants (11.5-14, 14.7-17). Indeed Chien Fou and self had an argument about whether our 3rd/4th seat SNT should be 14.7-17 or 14.8 to 17. We left the CC as 14.7-17 on the grounds that I open 14.7 while he opens 14.8 (despite the fact that I play the cards at least 0.4 better than him) due to limited space. The decimal notation has the advantage of being orally reproducible but the key thing (IMO) is giving walrii and novices and indication that one is (by their standards) deviant. [nige1] If I understand Tim's *decimal* notation, I like it is better than the *bracket* notation; which is better than the *plus* notation; which in turn is better than the *true range (unqualified)*; and almost anything is better than a partial range :) But I'm not sure I've completely got to grips with Tim's decimal notation. Please would Tim clarify a possible misunderstanding for me by checking the following summary and examples (all to *one decimal place*) SUMMARY: By evaluating other relevant factors according to your agreed methods, you can order the eligible hands with a given raw HCP from worst to best. Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the bottom of each one point range and the best at the top for example 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx KTx Kx EXAMPLE A. You open over 90% of otherwise eligible 17 counts but nothing else. Surely your decimal range is not *17.0-17.0 HCP* but *17.0-17.9 HCP* or conceivably *17.1-18.0 HCP? EXAMPLE B. You open 30% or otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands and 90% of otherwise eligible 17 HCP hands. Surely, your decimal range is not *14.7-17.0 HCP* but *14.7-17.9 HCP*? EXAMPLE C. Like me, you open 20% of otherwise eligible 15 HCP hands and 10% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. IMO, your decimal range *15.8-18.1 HCP*? EXAMPLE D. You open less that 5% of otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands and less than 5% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. Surely your decimal range is not *15.0-17.0 HCP* but *15.0-18.0 HCP*? As the last example shows, when a percentage is under 5%, Tim's notation allows the occasional partial range to slip in under the back door. Hitherto, I would have argued that the true range in example [D] is *14-18 HCP*; but since no BLMLer agrees with my opinion, I am happy to compromise and accept a decimal range of 15.0-18.0 HCP :) Tim's suggestion is non-intuitive in some ways. Nevertheless, IMO, it deserves to be enshrined in the law-book because it would enforce a beautifully simple uniform basis for disclosure. Thank you again Tim! We Walrus of the World salute you! From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jun 29 04:05:26 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:05:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] The dog in the night Message-ID: <468468E6.8080705@cfa.harvard.edu> This may be a standard UI case, but see what you think. MP/EW vul/Dlr W K32 972 AQ752 A8 QJ84 AT76 A6 JT8 KJT96 84 J3 QT96 95 KQ543 3 K7542 EW were playing a strong-club system with many agreements unfamiliar in the ACBL, where this took place. Auction: 1D!-P-1S!-?P 2S-?..P-P-2NT P-3NT-AP 1D was alerted (not announced). North passed without asking. After 1S was alerted, South asked about the auction and was told that 1D showed nothing about diamonds and either 14-16 balanced or 11-15 unbalanced with at least one 4cM. 1S was natural but could be quite weak if short in diamonds. Over 2S, North re-asked about the auction, getting the same information given to South plus an explanation of 2S: 3 or 4 card support but not maximum with 4 spades and not balanced 11-13. After hearing the answers, including those to several supplementary questions, North paused awhile then passed. (Facts not in dispute; no MI about EW agreements.) South intended his 2NT to show a two-suiter, but North took it as natural. EW are not claiming MI; it was clear to all that NS had no agreement. North says he asked the same questions as South because he didn't hear the answers the first time and then asked his additional questions to make sure he understood the bidding. 3NT went down 1 (NS-50), but 2S by W would have made (NS-110). EW are not sure South's 2NT was legal after North's questions and pause. Comments? From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 04:17:00 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:17:00 +1200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 In-Reply-To: <468461A2.5090201@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706221525.l5MFPOqB022528@cfa.harvard.edu> <468461A2.5090201@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706281917u740053b3w6f2da213c17eba4a@mail.gmail.com> On 29/06/07, Steve Willner wrote: > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > > Look at the last appeal here: > > http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2006.pdf > > > The first thing to do is to show that the chosen action demonstrably have > > been suggested over another by the UI transmitted. > > While this is of course true, it's pretty obvious in the case cited. > The player thinks and then makes a minimum bid (4H) in partner's suit, > which he has previously supported. What bid could he have been thinking > of that would have been weaker? > He may not have been thinking of any bid. Partner made a simple overcall and then jumped in a new suit and then had something in reserve to make a cue-bid when we had simply given preference. I would sit there and wonder a little exactly what partner had before I gave any consideration to what partner had. This reason for a departure from normal tempo does not demonstrably suggest any alternative. Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 29 05:41:09 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:41:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <46846560.9030306@NTLworld.com> References: <46846560.9030306@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> tiny correction to summary [Tim West-Meads] The two are, IMO, different. 14+ - 17 means one opens about 50% of 14 counts (but not about 5% of 15s) (14)- 17 means one opens around 15-20% of 14s (and not about 15% of 15s) "About 15-17" means maybe 5% of 14s and 5% of 18s. I also use decimal variants (11.5-14, 14.7-17). Indeed Chien Fou and self had an argument about whether our 3rd/4th seat SNT should be 14.7-17 or 14.8 to 17. We left the CC as 14.7-17 on the grounds that I open 14.7 while he opens 14.8 (despite the fact that I play the cards at least 0.4 better than him) due to limited space. The decimal notation has the advantage of being orally reproducible but the key thing (IMO) is giving walrii and novices and indication that one is (by their standards) deviant. [nige1] If I understand Tim's *decimal* notation, I like it is better than the *bracket* notation; which is better than the *plus* notation; which in turn is better than the *true range* (unqualified); and almost anything is better than a partial range :) But unsure I've completely got to grips with Tim's decimal notation. Please would Tim clarify a possible misunderstanding for me by checking the following summary and examples (to *one decimal place*) SUMMARY: By evaluating other relevant factors according to your agreed methods, you can order eligible hands with a given raw HCP from worst to best. Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the bottom of each *one point range* and the best at the top for example 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx ATx xx EXAMPLE A. You open over 90% of otherwise eligible 17 HCP hands but nothing else. Surely your decimal HCP range is not *17.0-17.0* but *17.0-17.9* or conceivably *17.1-18.0*? EXAMPLE B. You open 30% or otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands and 90% of otherwise eligible 17 HCP hands. Surely, your decimal HCP range is not *14.7-17.0* but *14.7-17.9*? EXAMPLE C. Like me, you open 20% of otherwise eligible 15 HCP hands and 10% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. IMO, your decimal HCP range is *15.8-18.1* EXAMPLE D. You open less that 5% of otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands and less than 5% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. Surely your decimal HCP range is not *15.0-17.0* but *15.0-18.0*? As the last example shows, when a percentage is under 5%, Tim's notation allows the occasional partial range to slip in under the back door. Hitherto, I would have argued that the true range in example [D] is *14-18 HCP*; but since no BLMLer agrees with my opinion, I am happy to compromise and accept a decimal range of 15.0-18.0 HCP :) Tim's suggestion is non-intuitive in some ways. Nevertheless, IMO, it deserves to be enshrined in the law-book because it would enforce a beautifully simple uniform basis for disclosure. Thank you again Tim! We Walrus of the World salute you! From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 06:14:51 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:14:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> References: <46846560.9030306@NTLworld.com> <46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0706282114w8b1d1e2u25a2874cf7784bc9@mail.gmail.com> On 6/28/07, Nigel wrote: > [nige1] > > SUMMARY: By evaluating other relevant factors according to your agreed > methods, you can order eligible hands with a given raw HCP from worst > to best. Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the > bottom of each *one point range* and the best at the top for example > 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx ATx xx [Jerry] There is no chance that Tim means this. Few good bridge players really believe that all balanced hands with 13 HCP are better than all balanced hands with 12 HCP. Using decimal points, I would say that your flat 8-quack hand is worth about 9.1 HCP, and the three-ace hand with good intermediates and a five-card suit is worth about 14.2 HCP. It would be easy to give some evidence for that assessment with a computer study that shows that the better hand yields about 1.7 or so tricks more on average. Anyway, their difference in strength is easily shown to be more than 9/10 of jack. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 29 06:40:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:40:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706281917u740053b3w6f2da213c17eba4a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>The player thinks and then makes a minimum bid (4H) in >>partner's suit, which he has previously supported. What >>bid could he have been thinking of that would have been >>weaker? Wayne Burrows: >He may not have been thinking of any bid. [snip] Richard Hills: Get Smart. The old "may not have been thinking" trick. Would you believe that partner was wondering about where they parked their car? Missed it by that much. As Director I would rule partner's _actual_ thoughts not relevant to the ruling. What is relevant is what, on the balance of probabilities, is _demonstrably suggested_ by the unauthorised information from partner. 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 29 09:50:08 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:50:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4683BA21.4080205@NTLworld.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070628112048.02150850@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070628112048.02150850@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070629092640.02152c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:39 28/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >You might even picture requirements as dimensions, so that a full >description of any call is an irregular n-dimensional solid. Well... >for a convention like multi, it could be several solids. > >Developing that analogy, BLMLers describe *a* typical core fragment, >hoping to build surface mountains later. > >In practice, it seems simpler and more helpful to describe *the* >envelope and then excavate craters. You've hit an interesting nail here. Specialists of 4-dimensional [and higher] (hyper-)bodies would call your approach as "vertex-fisrt" and ours as "cell-first". The former is more aesthetic and more representative of the (hyper-)volume used by the object (e.g.in case one needs to pack them), while the latter is more representative of its content. I can offer the analogy of a cube, which appears as an hexagon when seen vertex-first, and as a square when seen cell-first. I'll stick to representing content, thank you. I think most would more easily recognize a cube when seen as a square. It's more intuitive. Best regards Alain >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 29 09:53:43 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:53:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <468420A1.4050009@NTLworld.com> References: <83CAEB60-B897-4782-86A6-38B93A370E46@starpower.net> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> <83CAEB60-B897-4782-86A6-38B93A370E46@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070629095247.021509c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:57 28/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >Most players agree that is a fair attempt at honest disclosure to >declare a *14-17 HCP* as *14+-17 HCP* if you open few 14 HCP hands. > >I heartily approve of the practice, and fully accept that it is much >more useful and helpful than any unqualified range. > >I slightly prefer the notation *(14)15-17 HCP* proposed, I think, by >Tim West-Meads. Both of those notations make a lot of sense. However, some NCOs disallow this, as being an open door to imprecision. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 29 09:55:57 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:55:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706281602k684a9771ub8c511d59024ab97@mail.gmail.co m> References: <468420A1.4050009@NTLworld.com> <4682263D.9000707@NTLworld.com> <200706271020.AA09550@geller204.nifty.com> <4682A805.1020709@NTLworld.com> <83CAEB60-B897-4782-86A6-38B93A370E46@starpower.net> <468420A1.4050009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070629095413.02153c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:02 29/06/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > So >(11)12-14 means many 11 hcp hands and all 12, 13 and 14 hcp hands. IBTD. Instructions for filling CCs specify that brackets mean "seldom used". From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 29 10:00:51 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:00:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] The dog in the night In-Reply-To: <468468E6.8080705@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070629095819.02151c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:05 28/06/2007 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >MP/EW vul/Dlr W > K32 > 972 > AQ752 > A8 >QJ84 AT76 >A6 JT8 >KJT96 84 >J3 QT96 > 95 > KQ543 > 3 > K7542 > >EW were playing a strong-club system with many agreements unfamiliar in >the ACBL, where this took place. > >Auction: >1D!-P-1S!-?P >2S-?..P-P-2NT >P-3NT-AP > > >South intended his 2NT to show a two-suiter, but North took it as >natural. EW are not claiming MI; it was clear to all that NS had no >agreement. North says he asked the same questions as South because he >didn't hear the answers the first time and then asked his additional >questions to make sure he understood the bidding. > >3NT went down 1 (NS-50), but 2S by W would have made (NS-110). EW are >not sure South's 2NT was legal after North's questions and pause. Comments? AG : we know that South thought 2NT would be 2-suited (any ?). within that context, the bid is automatic. Pass isn't a LA. Letting EW play 2S when you hold such an unbalanced pattern ?? Perhaps even, South bent backwards, refusing to double after the array of questions. To cut it short : WTP ? Best regards Alain From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jun 29 10:00:27 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:00:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> References: <46846560.90303 06@NTLworld.com> <46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4684BC1B.6070602@meteo.fr> Nigel a ?crit : > tiny correction to summary > [Tim West-Meads] > The two are, IMO, different. 14+ - 17 means one opens about 50% of 14 > counts (but not about 5% of 15s) (14)- 17 means one opens around > 15-20% of 14s (and not about 15% of 15s) "About 15-17" means maybe 5% > of 14s and 5% of 18s. > > I also use decimal variants (11.5-14, 14.7-17). Indeed Chien Fou and > self had an argument about whether our 3rd/4th seat SNT should be > 14.7-17 or 14.8 to 17. We left the CC as 14.7-17 on the grounds that > I open 14.7 while he opens 14.8 (despite the fact that I play the > cards at least 0.4 better than him) due to limited space. The decimal > notation has the advantage of being orally reproducible but the key > thing (IMO) is giving walrii and novices and indication that one is > (by their standards) deviant. > > [nige1] > If I understand Tim's *decimal* notation, I like it is better than the > *bracket* notation; which is better than the *plus* notation; which in > turn is better than the *true range* (unqualified); and almost > anything is better than a partial range :) > > But unsure I've completely got to grips with Tim's decimal notation. > Please would Tim clarify a possible misunderstanding for me by > checking the following summary and examples (to *one decimal place*) there is a trap to be avoided when comparing standard notation and decimal notation. when using integer notation, boundaries of neighbouring intervals are distinct: 12-14 and 15-17 intervals cover all ranges from 12 to 17 HCP when using decimal notation, the strength evaluation function is supposed to be continuous and adjacent intervals have common boundaries. the translation in decimal notation of the previous ranges would be: 11.5-14.5 and 14.5-17.5 17.5 means that all hands considered nearer from 17 than from 18 are in the interval and hands nearer from 18 than 17 are outside. for "walrus" who only refer to raw HCP and open 1NT balanced hands of 15, 16 and 17, the accurate decimal zone is 14.5-17.5 which effectively corresponds to a width of 3 HCP. 15.0-17.0 would mean that, relating to factors other than HCP, you evaluate half of 17 hcp hands to be inside and half to be too strong. > > SUMMARY: By evaluating other relevant factors according to your agreed > methods, you can order eligible hands with a given raw HCP from worst > to best. Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the > bottom of each *one point range* and the best at the top for example > 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx ATx xx > > EXAMPLE A. You open over 90% of otherwise eligible 17 HCP hands but > nothing else. Surely your decimal HCP range is not *17.0-17.0* but > *17.0-17.9* or conceivably *17.1-18.0*? no: 16.6-17.4 > > EXAMPLE B. You open 30% or otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands and 90% of > otherwise eligible 17 HCP hands. Surely, your decimal HCP range is not > *14.7-17.0* but *14.7-17.9*? i would say: 14.2-17.4 > > EXAMPLE C. Like me, you open 20% of otherwise eligible 15 HCP hands > and 10% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. IMO, your decimal HCP > range is *15.8-18.1* the mean value of the strongest hands you open 1NT is broadly under 18 according to your judgement: 15.3-17.6 ... > > EXAMPLE D. You open less that 5% of otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands > and less than 5% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. Surely your > decimal HCP range is not *15.0-17.0* but *15.0-18.0*? > > As the last example shows, when a percentage is under 5%, Tim's > notation allows the occasional partial range to slip in under the back > door. > > Hitherto, I would have argued that the true range in example [D] is > *14-18 HCP*; but since no BLMLer agrees with my opinion, I am happy to > compromise and accept a decimal range of 15.0-18.0 HCP :) > > Tim's suggestion is non-intuitive in some ways. agreed! jpr > Nevertheless, IMO, it > deserves to be enshrined in the law-book because it would enforce a > beautifully simple uniform basis for disclosure. > > Thank you again Tim! We Walrus of the World salute you! > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 29 11:30:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the > bottom of each *one point range* and the best at the top for example > 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx ATx xx Not in my way of thinking. A 12.0 is an average looking 12 count of 4432 (median) shape with nothing special in intermediates or honour combinations. A953,K7,QT6,K842 would fit the bill. I'd have evaluated the two hands you give as about 9.5/14 respectively. The K&R evaluator tells me I have overvalued the quacky one considerably but neither it nor I are perfect. NB, my wife (and oft-times partner) would probably evaluate them as 11/13 - just to add to the complexity of disclosure. > As the last example shows, when a percentage is under 5%, Tim's > notation allows the occasional partial range to slip in under the back > door. Not really - the "About" prefix to the range gives notice to opps that my hand evaluation gives non-integral results. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 29 19:30:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:30:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. References: <69F9D7E8-3B68-4294-804F-B4EBB0F5B4E8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3419895C-D776-41B9-AECF-75C7106A42FD@starpower.net> On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:14 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 6/28/07, Nigel wrote: >> >> SUMMARY: By evaluating other relevant factors according to your >> agreed >> methods, you can order eligible hands with a given raw HCP from worst >> to best. Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the >> bottom of each *one point range* and the best at the top for example >> 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx ATx xx > > There is no chance that Tim means this. Few good bridge players > really believe that all balanced hands with 13 HCP are better than all > balanced hands with 12 HCP. > > Using decimal points, I would say that your flat 8-quack hand is worth > about 9.1 HCP, and the three-ace hand with good intermediates and a > five-card suit is worth about 14.2 HCP. It would be easy to give some > evidence for that assessment with a computer study that shows that the > better hand yields about 1.7 or so tricks more on average. Anyway, > their difference in strength is easily shown to be more than 9/10 of > jack. I like the notation, but I would read the fraction as probabilistic rather than evaluative. If we start to ask what sort of features of one's hand might be deemed to be worth 0.1 HCP, or seek examples that differentiate "14.2 HCP hands" from "14.3 HCP hands", we merely take the same problems we have with integer ranges to a more refined level, where they will be even more intractable. Since such values are inherently monotonic, there can be no agreement on even the roughest of scales as long as you can find two hands and two players who will disagree over which of the hands is better. Moreover, the finer the scale, the more disagreements there will be. But if a CC notation like "14.4-..." or "14.8-..." meant that one opened 60% or 20% (respectively) of one's 14-counts, that would seem to be relatively intuitive and provide some useful (if still necessarily approximate) information. If that scheme were in force, writing "15-17" would suggest that one opened over 95% of 15- and 17- counts and fewer than 5% of 14- and 18-counts. It works for me, and also works (by default) for walruses (although I'm not prepared to argue that it would work for the bridge community at large). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 29 19:52:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:52:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:40 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner: > >>> The player thinks and then makes a minimum bid (4H) in >>> partner's suit, which he has previously supported. What >>> bid could he have been thinking of that would have been >>> weaker? > > Wayne Burrows: > >> He may not have been thinking of any bid. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Get Smart. The old "may not have been thinking" trick. > Would you believe that partner was wondering about where > they parked their car? > > Missed it by that much. > > As Director I would rule partner's _actual_ thoughts not > relevant to the ruling. What is relevant is what, on the > balance of probabilities, is _demonstrably suggested_ by > the unauthorised information from partner. I am not familiar with the case and cannot comment on it. But I will defend Wayne, who, I suspect, is not thinking about parked cars. When one encounters an unfamiliar, complex auction, it may take several seconds to absorb and comprehend it, even if, having done so, one has no further problem whatsoever and can select one's call immediately. That's why "N second" rules don't work particularly well. Directors and committees often overlook the fact that "normal tempo" in a complex and difficult auction may entail a hesitation that would clearly constitute an obvious tempo break in an easy, familiar one. So to answer Steve's question, he might have been, in effect, thinking "what the f- does this auction mean?"; until he works that out, the question "what... would have been weaker" is meaningless. Of course, directors and committees will have to make (sometimes difficult) judgments as to whether a player's claim to have been "just absorbing the whole auction before thinking about what to bid" is justified. But they will have the hand and the auction to look at, thus, unlike the "where did I park my car?" cases, evidence beyond mere self-serving assertion on which to base their judgment. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 30 01:56:51 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:56:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <3419895C-D776-41B9-AECF-75C7106A42FD@starpower.net> References: <69F9D7E8-3B68-4294-804F-B4EBB0F5B4E8@starpower.net> <3419895C-D776-41B9-AECF-75C7106A42FD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46859C43.4060606@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] SUMMARY: By evaluating other relevant factors according to your agreed methods, you can order eligible hands with a given raw HCP from worst to best. Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the bottom of each *one point range* and the best at the top for example 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx ATx xx EXAMPLE A. You open over 90% of otherwise eligible 17 HCP hands but nothing else. Surely your decimal HCP range is not *17.0-17.0* but *17.0-17.9* or conceivably *17.1-18.0*? EXAMPLE B. You open 30% or otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands and 90% of otherwise eligible 17 HCP hands. Surely, your decimal HCP range is not *14.7-17.0* but *14.7-17.9*? EXAMPLE C. Like me, you open 20% of otherwise eligible 15 HCP hands and 10% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. IMO, your decimal HCP range is *15.8-18.1* EXAMPLE D. You open less that 5% of otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands and less than 5% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands. Surely your decimal HCP range is not *15.0-17.0* but *15.0-18.0*? [Eric Landau] But if a CC notation like "14.4-..." or "14.8-..." meant that one opened 60% or 20% (respectively) of one's 14-counts, that would seem to be relatively intuitive and provide some useful (if still necessarily approximate) information. If that scheme were in force, writing "15-17" would suggest that one opened over 95% of 15- and 17- counts and fewer than 5% of 14- and 18-counts. It works for me, and also works (by default) for walruses (although I'm not prepared to argue that it would work for the bridge community at large). [nige2] I think, in practice, Eric is agreeing with me -- in spite of protestations to the contrary. What I proposed seems to be an alternative formulation of what he now advocates. Except, IMO, his top ranges are wrong. His second example is the same as my example C. Hence, IMO, the declaration should be 15.0-18.0 (to *one decimal place*) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jun 30 02:28:19 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:28:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4685A3A3.4090702@NTLworld.com> [nige1] Presumably the worst hands with a given HCP are at the bottom of each *one point range* and the best at the top for example 12.0 might be QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 QJ32 whereas 12.9 might be ATxxx ATx ATx xx [Tim West-Meads] Not in my way of thinking. A 12.0 is an average looking 12 count of 4432 (median) shape with nothing special in intermediates or honour combinations. A953,K7,QT6,K842 would fit the bill. I'd have evaluated the two hands you give as about 9.5/14 respectively. The K&R evaluator tells me I have overvalued the quacky one considerably but neither it nor I are perfect. NB, my wife (and oft-times partner) would probably evaluate them as 11/13 - just to add to the complexity of disclosure. [nige2] Whenever I approach agreement with a BLMLer I suspect a flaw in my argument or a misunderstanding of their position. I am sorry that I misinterpreted your notation Tim. Suppose that I (or another Walrus) partner Tim. Suppose, also, that I insist that Tim rigidly adher to my bidding methods including what I call a 12-14 HCP no-trump. Presumably, Tim will rewrite the range as 9.5-16 HCP on his convention card. I suppose that BLMLers agree that Tim's *9.5-16* is a more accurate statement of the decimal HCP range than the my *12.0-15.0* I prefer the my Walrus-friendly version of the decimal notation to Tim's version. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 04:25:16 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:25:16 +1200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560706281917u740053b3w6f2da213c17eba4a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706291925l3ba10043xa9ebbb6c216601be@mail.gmail.com> On 29/06/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner: > > >>The player thinks and then makes a minimum bid (4H) in > >>partner's suit, which he has previously supported. What > >>bid could he have been thinking of that would have been > >>weaker? > > Wayne Burrows: > > >He may not have been thinking of any bid. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Get Smart. The old "may not have been thinking" trick. > Would you believe that partner was wondering about where > they parked their car? > > Missed it by that much. > > As Director I would rule partner's _actual_ thoughts not > relevant to the ruling. What is relevant is what, on the > balance of probabilities, is _demonstrably suggested_ by > the unauthorised information from partner. > There is no point in the laws having "demonstably suggested" if you are going to use a 'balance of probabilities' arguement. Either the bid is demonstably suggested or it is not. It doesn't make any sense to me to rule against someone because the break in tempo 'might have suggested' some action when obviously and alternatively it might not have suggested that alternative. In this particular case in a complex auction I will usually think for longer than usual even when it turns out after I have processed the information that I have only one possible action. Thinking in that type of situation does not and can not demonstably suggest one action over another. It merely suggests that I needed extra time to process an unusual or unfamiliar situation. Wayne From adam at tameware.com Sat Jun 30 06:23:45 2007 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:23:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the cases from St. Louis In-Reply-To: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40706241149o7d42e5b4s8eeb1d2d89f00b13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40706292123l57c9c8e2rcbb53ff61e71e322@mail.gmail.com> On 6/24/07, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > The cases are here: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/StLouis2007.html All commentary has been posted, except for case Non-NABC+ 3 which is still MIA. I've asked about having the PDFs combined into a single PDF in addition. No word on that yet. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jun 30 22:32:51 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:32:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] The dog in the night In-Reply-To: <200706291409.l5TE9gG9025542@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706291409.l5TE9gG9025542@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4686BDF3.9020509@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : we know that South thought 2NT would be 2-suited (any ?). We also know his partner thought otherwise. Might some players take that into account? > within that context, the bid is automatic. Pass isn't a LA. Even in the ACBL? Alain may have the whole answer here, but the actual ruling didn't depend on LA's. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jun 30 22:56:26 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:56:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 In-Reply-To: <200706291825.l5TIPPSD022194@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200706291825.l5TIPPSD022194@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4686C37A.5060609@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > I am not familiar with the case and cannot comment on it. ... > When one encounters an unfamiliar, complex auction, it may take > several seconds to absorb and comprehend it, While the principle is true, it doesn't seem relevant to the Warsaw case. Play was behind screens, and the pause would have had to be more than "several seconds" to be noticed. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 09:08:12 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:08:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <4682B5FC.20301@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <2da24b8e0706260646i2e1cfe7fn9aa5a51c69ebc499@mail.gmail.com> <46814391.9030101@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> <4682B5FC.20301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 27/06/07, Nigel wrote: > > [Eric Landau] > Of course you should "explain the basis for the exceptions" -- you > should explain whatever considerations may be relevant to your choice > of call; that's what full disclosure is about. > > But Nigel is still missing the point, which has nothing to do with > "exceptions". "Using a different point count" cannot validly be > contrasted with "adjusting for other factors", because using a > different point count has nothing whatsoever to do with adjusting for > anything at all! > > I think it would be a terrible idea to require "adjustments" to be > declared on the CC. 99.9% of pairs would need to write an essay > ("upgrade lots of 10s and 9s or good honor combinations, downgrade > lots of HC in Qs and Js or short or unguarded honors...") -- and > that's just for NT openers! -- and would merely be stating what is > near-universal and obvious to most. I'm talking about pairs who > really do use alternative evaluation methods (which can include far > more than merely "a different point count"); they are rare, but > definitely do exist. > > Nigel seems to have fallen into exactly the trap I anticipated, by > failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between using a > genuine alternative evaluation method and making adjustments to a > base evaluation using standard point-count. > > [nige1] > > Wallowing in Eric's Walrus trap :) > > I understand Eric's distinction and recognise its validity; I just > suggested the *same* solution to the two problems. > > My suggestion is that you disclose: > [A] True HCP range. > [B] Other requirements. > > As Richard Willey demonstrated, that does not work well with > alternative point counts (like Vienna's 7531) but it seems adequate > if there are adjustments for other factors. > > I recommend that you declare your 15-18 HCP notrump opener as, say... > [A] 15-18 HCP. > [B] Flat may have 5 card major. We adjust for factors like texture, > shape, distribution, and concentration. For example, we don't open > 4333 15 counts with poor texture; On 18 counts we open something else, > unless they are 4333 with poor texture. > > Your true 15-18 HCP range is more useful to opponents than a *16-17 > HCP* or *15-17 HCP* or *16-18 HCP* curtailment. For example, it is > clear that you don't open 1N on 14HCP or 19HCP. > > IMO you should still declare [B] but failure to do so is less damaging > to opponents because even Walrus know that there are often exceptions > at the extremes. I play 15-17NT myself, but upgrade some 14 counts. I've 'always' declared my 1NT openings as (14)15-17, which IMO is appropriate. This tells opps that the nominal range is 15-17 and that some 14-counts are upgraded. Some declare 14+-17, which to me indicates that they open more 14-counts 1NT than I do. Most people declare in Norway declare 12-14/13-15/14-16/15-17 with no qualifiers, which is also OK according to our LC. Everyone knows (even at club level I believe) that it's standard practice to upgrade (or downgrade even if that's more seldom) hands due to "texture", suit length and quality or other non-objective reasons. It's impossible to declare this sufficiently on a normal CC where there's no place for it. Declaring my 1NT as 14-17 would be nonsense IMO, since at least 80% of the 14-counts don't qualify for a 1NT opening. Here in Oslo we have a group of players playing their own system, using a hand evaluation method far more sophisticated than the Work point count. They don't evaluate hands themselves at all, their "point count" adds or subtracts points for suit lenght, honour placing, honour combinations, fit etc. It's impossible to accurately translate their hand evaluation to hcp. They declarer their 1NT openings as 12-16, but they could have 11, and it's possible to construct a 19 hcp hand they would open 1NT! The ZAR point count is also gaining popularity. That too is impossible to translate accurately to hcp. Those employing different evaluation methods might tell this on the front of their CC, and mention that hcp ranges is inaccurate, thus hands will fall outside the declared range more often than for others. This should be enough. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070628/f1c264cb/attachment-0001.htm