From john at asimere.com Sun Jul 1 00:20:40 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. References: <46846560.90303 06@NTLworld.com><46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> <4684BC1B.6070602@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <008901c7bb64$e4219bc0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. 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. The great advantage of the decimal notation is it's easy to explain when asked. 14.8 (I really do need more than Tim) is explained as "about one-fifth of the 14-counts, those we've upgraded (and possibly not some 15's we've downgraded)". The walru, the secretary birds and the wabbits seem to be able to handle it. The tigers don't need to ask, they understand it perfectly anyway. > > [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 _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Jul 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:01:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Jul 1 01:01:01 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for June 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 52 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 49 hermandw (at) skynet.be 37 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 27 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 21 ehaa (at) starpower.net 15 svenpran (at) online.no 14 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 11 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 11 hermandw (at) hotmail.com 10 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 10 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 9 mustikka (at) charter.net 9 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 9 geller (at) nifty.com 8 twm (at) cix.co.uk 8 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 7 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 6 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 6 adam (at) tameware.com 5 cibor (at) poczta.fm 4 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 4 john (at) asimere.com 3 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 3 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 3 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 3 adam (at) irvine.com 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 2 sater (at) xs4all.nl 2 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 2 jeffford (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 1 sarahamos (at) onetel.net 1 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 1 kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 1 bridgelaws (at) j-s-nichols.com 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 albertgf (at) maltanet.net 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jul 1 03:27:11 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:27:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <008901c7bb64$e4219bc0$0701a8c0@john> References: <46846560.90303 06@NTLworld.com><46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> <4684BC1B.6070602@meteo.fr> <008901c7bb64$e4219bc0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <468702EF.6020901@NTLworld.com> [John Probst] The great advantage of the decimal notation is it's easy to explain when asked. 14.8 (I really do need more than Tim) is explained as "about one-fifth of the 14-counts, those we've upgraded (and possibly not some 15's we've downgraded)". The walru, the secretary birds and the wabbits seem to be able to handle it. The tigers don't need to ask, they understand it perfectly anyway. 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. [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 [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. [nige1] 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*? [John] no: 16.6-17.4 [nige1] 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*? [John] I would say: 14.2-17.4 [nige1] 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* [John] the mean value of the strongest hands you open 1NT is broadly under 18 according to your judgement: 15.3-17.6 [nige1] 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. [John] agreed! [nige2] Suppose we want to describe a range of 1 HCP --- say 12 HCP. My examples translate a 1 point range starting at the worst 17 HCP hand as *12.0-13.0* decimal. It seems that John would translate the same range as *11.5-12.5* decimal. The two declarations are similar but I started each interval on an integer whereas John started roughly half an interval below. Here I regard 12.0 as the *worst* 12 HCP hand; whereas for John 12.0 is a *typical* 12 HCP. Hence for John the worst 12 count is 11.5. That difference seems trivial and cosmetic -- a matter of taste. John and Tim, however, seem to be singing from different hymn books because, judging from Tim's earlier post (above) he would declare the same 1 HCP range as *9.5-14* decimal. Or have I misunderstood John and Tim again? Anticipating quibbles... (1) Is suppose a 1 HCP range starting at 12.0 is strictly 12.0 to 12.9 repeating i.e the end is open. 12.0-13.0 is OK to 1 decimal place. (2) The slight advantage of starting each decimal HCP range on an integer is that you avoid negative HCP. For example. it seems that the range for a 1D negative reply to a strong club is 0.0 to 8.0 in my notation but -0.5 to 7.5 in John's ? Presumably it is -2.5 to 9.0 in Tim's ? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jul 1 03:51:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:51:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706291925l3ba10043xa9ebbb6c216601be@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Would you believe that partner was wondering about where >>they parked their car? Wayne Burrows: >There is no point in the laws having "demonstrably >suggested" if you are going to use a 'balance of >probabilities' argument. Either the bid is demonstrably >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. Richard Hills: If there was a 40% chance partner was thinking about where they parked their car, and a 60% chance that partner was thinking about making an unambiguous slam try before partner choosing a reluctant apparent signoff in 4H, then surely the balance of probabilities demonstrably suggest proceeding towards slam, since between 60% to 100% of the time partner will have extra values, and only between 0% to 40% of the time will partner lack those extra values. Wayne Burrows: >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 demonstrably suggest one >action over another. It merely suggests that I needed >extra time to process an unusual or unfamiliar situation. Steve Willner: >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. WBF Code of Practice, Guidelines for Rulings - 5: " ... It is desirable to exhibit extra tolerance in relation to a "hesitation" when a player encounters an unprecedented situation in the auction ... there was also discussion of a possibility this might extend to abnormal situations encountered in the auction because of opponents' extraordinary agreements ... " Richard Hills: I disagree with Steve Willner that the WBF CoP "hot seat" ruling would in principle have applied to the Warsaw 13 case if screens had not been in use. Note that the CoP guideline refers to the _opponents'_ extraordinary agreements, not your own side's uncontested "extraordinary" auction. Furthermore, the hesitator undermined any suggestion that their own side's auction was actually unprecedented by alleging that their side had a special partnership agreement that the hesitator's reluctant apparent signoff in 4H was a cuebid of the king of hearts. Even if, for the sake of argument, the hesitator's statement about their alleged extraordinary partnership agreement was factual, the sloooow 4H could have reminded the hesitator's partner about this obscure extraordinary partnership agreement, while an in-tempo 4H might have seen the hesitator's partner carelessly pass a forcing bid. This has happened many times in partnerships using old- fashioned Texas: WEST EAST 1NT 4H (in tempo transfer to spades) Pass Law 40E2 footnote: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory ... " 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 Sun Jul 1 05:04:52 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:04:52 +1200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560706291925l3ba10043xa9ebbb6c216601be@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706302004v45119bcel836859331d766067@mail.gmail.com> On 01/07/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > Even if, for the sake of argument, the hesitator's > statement about their alleged extraordinary partnership > agreement was factual, the sloooow 4H could have reminded > the hesitator's partner about this obscure extraordinary > partnership agreement, while an in-tempo 4H might have > seen the hesitator's partner carelessly pass a forcing > bid. This seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred here. The East hand had undisclosed spade support and was not sure that there was in fact a heart fit. Therefore it is as close as certain as I have seen that East would take another bid. Its more likely on this auction that any misunderstanding would propell them to slam rather than keep them out IMHO. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jul 1 05:36:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:36:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706302004v45119bcel836859331d766067@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>an in-tempo 4H might have seen the hesitator's partner >>carelessly pass a forcing bid. Wayne Burrows: >This seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred here. >The East hand had undisclosed spade support Richard Hills: A minor but relevant for one imp quibble. It is because East had undisclosed spade support that the Director's ruling of eleven tricks in 4H was changed by the Appeals Committee to twelve tricks in 4S. Wayne Burrows: >It's more likely on this auction that any mis- >understanding would propel them to slam rather than >keep them out in my humble opinion. Richard Hills: Not so. In my humble opinion an in-tempo 4H might have seen the hesitator's partner reluctantly give up in 4S, due to not remembering the alleged partnership agreement that 4H was hypothetically a cuebid, rather than 4H with the obvious surface meaning of the weakest possible call attempting to signoff. Then the hesitator might pass 4S, due to the apparent rejection by their partner of their below-game try for slam. And even if, in the absence of unauthorised information, the partnership might misbid their way to slam due to misunderstanding their agreements (whatever those agreements might be), that is not relevant to a Law 16 ruling. All that is relevant is whether there are logical alternatives to bidding slam, and whether the unauthorised information demonstrably suggested bidding slam, and whether the deposit should be forfeited. In my humble opinion the answers to those three questions are Yes, Yes and Yes. In my humble opinion, an Appeals Committee is entitled to forfeit a deposit even when it gives the appealing side a one imp improvement on the Director's ruling, if the appealing side's basis for the appeal was a meritless request for a larger slam swing. 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 Sun Jul 1 08:12:07 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 18:12:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560706302004v45119bcel836859331d766067@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560706302312y4a934ebcsb30429b616f85eb6@mail.gmail.com> On 01/07/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>an in-tempo 4H might have seen the hesitator's partner > >>carelessly pass a forcing bid. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >This seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred here. > >The East hand had undisclosed spade support > > Richard Hills: > > A minor but relevant for one imp quibble. It is because > East had undisclosed spade support that the Director's > ruling of eleven tricks in 4H was changed by the Appeals > Committee to twelve tricks in 4S. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >It's more likely on this auction that any mis- > >understanding would propel them to slam rather than > >keep them out in my humble opinion. > > Richard Hills: > > Not so. In my humble opinion an in-tempo 4H might have > seen the hesitator's partner reluctantly give up in 4S, > due to not remembering the alleged partnership agreement > that 4H was hypothetically a cuebid, rather than 4H with > the obvious surface meaning of the weakest possible call > attempting to signoff. Then the hesitator might pass > 4S, due to the apparent rejection by their partner of > their below-game try for slam. > > And even if, in the absence of unauthorised information, > the partnership might misbid their way to slam due to > misunderstanding their agreements (whatever those > agreements might be), that is not relevant to a Law 16 > ruling. All that is relevant is whether there are > logical alternatives to bidding slam, and whether the > unauthorised information demonstrably suggested bidding > slam, and whether the deposit should be forfeited. In > my humble opinion the answers to those three questions > are Yes, Yes and Yes. There is much more that is relevant than that. It is relevant whether there has been damage. If no damage then no adjustment is warranted. There would be no damage if on choosing 4S West would take another move and slam would be reached anyway. It is unclear what the best ruling is here since we would need to know more about the the EW agreements. What West would bid over the 4S that the appeal committee required East to bid is far from clear to me. His partner has bid very strongly and he has the hK which he has already claimed he had shown but also significant other extras - six trumps to the AJ10 and a singleton club. I for one would be a bidder and not a passer of 4S but I could be convinced that this West might pass if there was some special understanding about the bidding that I do not understand. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 2 00:31:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:31:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560706302312y4a934ebcsb30429b616f85eb6@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >It is unclear what the best ruling is here since we would need to >know more about the EW agreements. Appeals Committee: >>Noticed that while West had stated that 4H showed the HK, East >>had never mentioned this. Richard Hills: Given that there is very strong evidence that West has already perpetrated a terminological inexactitude in describing the East- West partnership agreements, seeking further information about the third-round East-West agreements seems to be an exercise that only a credulous Appeals Committee would indulge in. Translation: Would you buy a used parked car from this man? :-) 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jul 2 11:25:53 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:25:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <468702EF.6020901@NTLworld.com> References: <46846560.90303 06@NTLworld.com><46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> <4684BC1B.6070602@meteo.fr ><008901c7bb64$e4219bc0$0701a8c0@john> <468702EF.6020901@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4688C4A1.9070407@meteo.fr> Nigel a ?crit : > Tim's suggestion is non-intuitive in some ways. > [John] > agreed! > > [nige2] > Suppose we want to describe a range of 1 HCP --- say 12 HCP. > My examples translate a 1 point range starting at the worst 17 HCP > hand as *12.0-13.0* decimal. > > It seems that John would translate the same range as *11.5-12.5* decimal. > yes > The two declarations are similar but I started each interval on an > integer whereas John started roughly half an interval below. > > Here I regard 12.0 as the *worst* 12 HCP hand; whereas for John 12.0 > is a *typical* 12 HCP. Hence for John the worst 12 count is 11.5. > > That difference seems trivial and cosmetic -- a matter of taste. not exactly. we start with a rough evaluation function: integer milton work HCP and nothing else. next we want to refine the function in order to take into account other factors than A, K, Q and J for balanced hands. the first move if we want to keep a practical link between both functions is that the corrections used for the new one are "without bias", that is to say that when we consider the complete set of 12 HCP balanced hands, some will be upgraded, some will be downgraded and the mean value of the hands of the set, using the refined function, will still be 12. thus, 12.0 is a typical 12 HCP hand. bad 12 HCP are downgraded to less than 12.0; if they still look more like 12 than like 11, they will be valued between 11.5 and 12. if they look more like 11, they will come between 11.0 and 11.5 or even lower (9.5 ?) if they are that awful. so, the most "logical" way to describe the range of "12 hcp hands" is, as i see it, 11.5-12.5 the reason of this difference of understanting maybe that bridge players are overoptimistic: they easily upgrade and never downgrade. when they pretend their 1NT range to be 15-17, the truth is that they embrace some 13 (10%?), many 14 (25%?), all of 15 and 16, only one part of 17 (70%?) and no 18, so that the decimal range should be something like 14.1-17.2 in place of the presumed 14.5-17.5 > > John and Tim, however, seem to be singing from different hymn books > because, judging from Tim's earlier post (above) he would declare the > same 1 HCP range as *9.5-14* decimal. > > Or have I misunderstood John and Tim again? > > Anticipating quibbles... > > (1) Is suppose a 1 HCP range starting at 12.0 is strictly 12.0 to 12.9 > repeating i.e the end is open. 12.0-13.0 is OK to 1 decimal place. in fact, you should say real numbers instead of decimal which is a misguided notion. the principle is to use a continuous scale. if 13 is the boundary, the upper interval starts at 13.000...1 and the inferior interval end at 12.999... > > (2) The slight advantage of starting each decimal HCP range on an > integer is that you avoid negative HCP. i dont't see this as a problem. considering the set of 0 hcp hands, there are good ones that are worth more than 0, normal that are worth 0 and bad ones that are worse than 0. > > For example. it seems that the range for a 1D negative reply to a > strong club is 0.0 to 8.0 in my notation but > -0.5 to 7.5 in John's ? - infinite to 7.5: no need to give an inferior limit: there are no hands too good for a 1D reply, for what i know about strong clubs. jpr > Presumably it is > -2.5 to 9.0 in Tim's ? > -- _______________________________________________ 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 2 11:06:23 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:06:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000101c7bc8e$24c8dd30$b3d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] 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.....??? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 2 11:32:56 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:32:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560706221701t6a23191fwe91d66b38e788ce0@mail.gmail.com><467CD24B.60800@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000201c7bc8e$25a90400$b3d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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. :-) > +=+ In Antalya at the EBL Open Championships over the last fotnight, we had a 'Head TD', an 'Assistant Head TD', three labelled 'Chief TD', three 'Assistant Chief TD', and six mere 'Tournament Directors'. What is in a name? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jul 2 12:55:58 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 02 Jul 2007 12:55:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges - nitpicking Message-ID: <20070702105558.3E42316A42D@poczta.interia.pl> > if 13 is > the boundary, the upper interval starts at 13.000...1 and the inferior > interval end at 12.999... If "..." means an infinite numbers of 9s then, to tell truth, 12.999... = 13.0 because 12 + 9/10 + 99/100 + 999/1000 + 9999/10000 + ... = 13 (a trivail sum of a series). The decimal notation of real numbers is ambiguous. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Horror na niebie >> Zobacz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1adf From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 2 13:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <4685A3A3.4090702@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > I am sorry that I misinterpreted your notation Tim. No problem. I think what you did was suggest a different method of interpreting the notation. > 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. The CCs will say "1N =12-14, Tim's partner is a walrus - if you notice Tim bidding 1N on 10/11/15 counts please don't *tell* the walrus as his sensibilities may be offended". NB, it's unlikely that any walrus will be prepared to pay me enough to make me play with him :) > 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 wouldn't use decimal notation for this sort of partner because I don't think it would help opponents. > I prefer the my Walrus-friendly version of the decimal notation to > Tim's version. Nor do I expect walrii to use a mechanism other than strict HCP for their disclosure. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 2 13:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <3419895C-D776-41B9-AECF-75C7106A42FD@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > I like the notation, but I would read the fraction as probabilistic > rather than evaluative. Not unreasonable, but not ideal either. I upgrade about 40% of 11 counts and downgrade about 10% of twelve counts - is that a probabilistic value of 11.6 or 11.9 (or c11.7)? I don't think there is a perfect method of disclosure which will suit everyone but I'm pretty sure that even the most hard-bitten walrus/greenest novice will realise he might need to ask a question if the CC uses decimal points, or brackets, or %ages, or mini-graphs of probability curves. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 2 14:58:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:58:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Eric wrote: > > > I like the notation, but I would read the fraction as probabilistic > > rather than evaluative. > > Not unreasonable, but not ideal either. I upgrade about 40% of 11 > counts and downgrade about 10% of twelve counts - is that a > probabilistic value of 11.6 or 11.9 (or c11.7)? > > I don't think there is a perfect method of disclosure which will suit > everyone but I'm pretty sure that even the most hard-bitten > walrus/greenest novice will realise he might need to ask a question if > the CC uses decimal points, or brackets, or %ages, or mini-graphs of > probability curves. Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting possible up- or down-grading? 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 2 16:09:16 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:09:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4689070C.9080308@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting possible up- or down-grading? 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) [nige1] Yes that is easy to understand and was suggested earlier. There seem to be at least six candidate notations, so far... - Approximate range. eg 15-17 HCP means there or thereabouts - True range. eg 14-18 HCP means 14-18 HCP. - Plus or minus. eg 14+-18- means some 14s and 18s qualify. - Bracket eg (14)15-17(18) means some 14s and 18s qualify. - Tim decimal. eg 14.0-18.0 means half the 14s and 18s qualify. - Walrus decimal. eg 14.5-18.5 means half the 14s and 18s qualify. Decimal notation (invented by Tim) is the most succinct and accurate I prefer the Walrus version ... eg 14.8-18.3 means 20% of 14s and 30% or 18s qualify. Any one of them would be OK, at a pinch, provided that it was the basic disclosure standard, recommended in the law-book. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jul 2 17:10:22 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:10:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <4689070C.9080308@NTLworld.com> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689070C.9080308@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> Nigel a ?crit : > [Sven Pran] > Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting > possible up- or down-grading? > 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) > > [nige1] > Yes that is easy to understand and was suggested earlier. > There seem to be at least six candidate notations, so far... > > - Approximate range. eg 15-17 HCP means there or thereabouts > - True range. eg 14-18 HCP means 14-18 HCP. > - Plus or minus. eg 14+-18- means some 14s and 18s qualify. > - Bracket eg (14)15-17(18) means some 14s and 18s qualify. > - Tim decimal. eg 14.0-18.0 means half the 14s and 18s qualify. > - Walrus decimal. eg 14.5-18.5 means half the 14s and 18s qualify. > > Decimal notation (invented by Tim) is the most succinct and accurate > I prefer the Walrus version ... > eg 14.8-18.3 means 20% of 14s and 30% or 18s qualify. this one can't be ok: it's inconsistent 14.8 lies between 14 (outside) and 15 (inside); you say it means that all 15 qualify, and some part of 14 (outside) qualify on the other side, 18.3 lies between 18 (inside) and 19 (outside) and it means that some part of 18 (inside) qualify and no 19 qualify. the treatment of both sides is non-symetric jpr > > Any one of them would be OK, at a pinch, provided that it was the > basic disclosure standard, recommended in the law-book. > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 2 17:31:25 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:31:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070702173000.02154ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:58 2/07/2007 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting possible >up- or down-grading? > >1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) Because, in some contexts, it is not allowed, on the grounds that it lets the door open to approximative information. And, BTW, neither are franctional points. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jul 2 17:21:38 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:21:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46891802.1060904@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> Eric wrote: >> >>> I like the notation, but I would read the fraction as probabilistic >>> rather than evaluative. >> Not unreasonable, but not ideal either. I upgrade about 40% of 11 >> counts and downgrade about 10% of twelve counts - is that a >> probabilistic value of 11.6 or 11.9 (or c11.7)? >> >> I don't think there is a perfect method of disclosure which will suit >> everyone but I'm pretty sure that even the most hard-bitten >> walrus/greenest novice will realise he might need to ask a question if >> the CC uses decimal points, or brackets, or %ages, or mini-graphs of >> probability curves. > > Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting possible > up- or down-grading? > > 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) imho a quite sensible notation. more precision is futile and could be, as we saw, misinterpreted. jpr > > regards Sven > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 2 14:00:08 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:00:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000601c7bcbc$b59c6e70$97ac87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** " Words are but the signs of ideas; I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent like the things they denote. " (Samuel Johnson) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psychs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Marvin French: > > [snip] > >>2) Psyching is part of the game, as recognized by the Laws. >>Should not a pair that has an agreement, explicit or >>implicit, that they never psych, be obliged to disclose >>that in advance? > > Richard Hills: > > When I upgraded my social pairs partnership with Dorothy > Jesner to a tournament imps partnership a few years ago, at > her insistence we came to an explicit agreement that I would > never psyche. > > So when I did psyche, it was a totally ethical action, since > all three of my opponents believed that it was a gross > misstatement of our partnership agreement. > > :-) > +=+ I think an 'agreement' not to psyche is an oxymoron. How can anyone 'agree' not to do something that excludes agreement. (A partnership can say "it is our practice not to psyche".) ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 2 17:30:04 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:30:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> Eric wrote: >> >>> I like the notation, but I would read the fraction as probabilistic >>> rather than evaluative. >> >> Not unreasonable, but not ideal either. I upgrade about 40% of 11 >> counts and downgrade about 10% of twelve counts - is that a >> probabilistic value of 11.6 or 11.9 (or c11.7)? >> >> I don't think there is a perfect method of disclosure which will suit >> everyone but I'm pretty sure that even the most hard-bitten >> walrus/greenest novice will realise he might need to ask a >> question if >> the CC uses decimal points, or brackets, or %ages, or mini-graphs of >> probability curves. > > Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting > possible > up- or down-grading? > > 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) There is nothing wrong with that standard, but BLML, where we seek perfection through dialectic, has decided to have a go at coming up with a more informative notation. The problem we seek to solve, such as it is, is that the notation above can mean different things to different people. "14(15)-..." can mean: (a) Our range starts with "good" 14-counts; it does not include "bad" 14-counts. (b) Our range is somewhat fungible; we open 14-counts that feel like 15-counts and pass 15-counts that feel like 14-counts. (c) Our range generally starts at 15, but we will upgrade particularly good-looking 14-counts. There are even some in this forum who argue that it could properly mean: (d) We really play 15-..., but one of us opened a 14-count once several years ago. Sensible souls may argue that it should always mean (a), since agreements (b) and (c) -- which are closer in meaning to Sven's "possible up- or down-grading" -- are "just bridge" and should be assumed as obvious when one writes "15-..." But that fails to satisfy the walrus lobby, who want "15" to mean "15, period", and feel cheated by pairs who fail to disclose that they actually mean (b) or (c). We seek a way to satisfy both camps. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 2 20:48:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting > possible up- or down-grading? > > 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) Firstly because it isn't standard here (there is no EBU standard). Secondly because I believe that (14)15 - suggests that upgrades aren't particularly common while 14.5-17(18) indicates that many 14 counts are upgraded and few 18 counts downgraded. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 2 23:35:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 07:35:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40706242144s7b46eb3ufe65bbe4c6b2c37b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >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, Richard Hills: The only 1997 Law that I have discovered which deals with multiple infractions is Law 64B2: "The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: to a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player." Adam Wildavsky: >or if you have a suggestion as to how the topic ought to be >addressed in the new Laws. Richard Hills: My preference is that multiple infractions should be rectified in chronological order, from first to last. This is particularly important when one player's infraction _partially causes_ an opponent's subsequent infraction. The paradigm case, previously discussed on blml, is when declarer's RHO leads a plain suit, declarer revokes by trumping, partially causing declarer's LHO to also revoke by over-trumping. Before either revoke is established, both declarer and LHO correct their revokes. Law 62B1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is a penalty card, but Law 62C1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is not a penalty card. If the chronological order rule was inserted into the new Laws, then it would be clear that Law 62C1 was the relevant Law, and justice would be served with LHO's withdrawn card _not_ being a penalty card. Adam Wildavsky: >====== > >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. 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 Tue Jul 3 00:48:39 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:48:39 +1200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707021548p6b7a1cd2ofa7efdff6b94d5fa@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:48 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > Sven wrote: > > > Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting > > possible up- or down-grading? > > > > 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) > > Firstly because it isn't standard here (there is no EBU standard). > Secondly because I believe that (14)15 - suggests that upgrades aren't > particularly common while 14.5-17(18) indicates that many 14 counts are > upgraded and few 18 counts downgraded. > But this seems to say nothing about any 15 counts that might be downgraded. And without a standard it is far from obvious how many 14 counts are upgraded when you write 14.5. Wayne From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 3 01:25:19 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:25:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006401c7bd00$41568f70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> Eric wrote: >> >> > I like the notation, but I would read the fraction as probabilistic >> > rather than evaluative. >> >> Not unreasonable, but not ideal either. I upgrade about 40% of 11 >> counts and downgrade about 10% of twelve counts - is that a >> probabilistic value of 11.6 or 11.9 (or c11.7)? >> >> I don't think there is a perfect method of disclosure which will suit >> everyone but I'm pretty sure that even the most hard-bitten >> walrus/greenest novice will realise he might need to ask a question if >> the CC uses decimal points, or brackets, or %ages, or mini-graphs of >> probability curves. It is for this reason that tim and I use the decimal notation; once a player asks we're in a good position to give full disclosure. John > > Why not use what I believe has become the "standard" way of noting > possible > up- or down-grading? > > 1NT: (14)15 - 17(18) > > regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 3 01:37:01 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 01:37:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c7bd01$e42d4ee0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ................. > Richard Hills: > > My preference is that multiple infractions should be rectified in > chronological order, from first to last. > > This is particularly important when one player's infraction > _partially causes_ an opponent's subsequent infraction. > > The paradigm case, previously discussed on blml, is when declarer's > RHO leads a plain suit, declarer revokes by trumping, partially > causing declarer's LHO to also revoke by over-trumping. Before > either revoke is established, both declarer and LHO correct their > revokes. > > Law 62B1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is a penalty card, but Law > 62C1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is not a penalty card. > > If the chronological order rule was inserted into the new Laws, > then it would be clear that Law 62C1 was the relevant Law, and > justice would be served with LHO's withdrawn card _not_ being a > penalty card. This question was addressed by WBFLC in Paris November 1st: 4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. The committee decided that the Director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C. This means that the Director should proceed directly to Law 64C and seek to restore equity as if no irregularities had occurred at all. There shall be no penalty as such from these irregularities. (Of course when there are multiple irregularities that are independent from each others then each irregularity should be treated separately.) Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 3 02:27:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 01:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707021548p6b7a1cd2ofa7efdff6b94d5fa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > > Firstly because it isn't standard here (there is no EBU standard). > > Secondly because I believe that (14)15 - suggests that upgrades > > aren't particularly common while 14.5-17(18) indicates that many > > 14 counts are upgraded and few 18 counts downgraded. > > > > But this seems to say nothing about any 15 counts that might be > downgraded. I have not come across any notation which fits in the cc box, will be universally understood, and communicates exactly what proportion of hands will be upgraded/downgraded and why in all seats and vulnerabilities and opinions of defensive competence of opps. > And without a standard it is far from obvious how many 14 counts are > upgraded when you write 14.5. Which obviously applies to any notation one might attempt. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 3 02:30:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:30:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c7bd01$e42d4ee0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >This question was addressed by WBFLC in Paris November 1st: [big snip] Richard Hills: Not quite. The WBF LC minute stated that Law 64C applied when both sides committed a revoke on the same trick. But Law 64C specifically states that it only applies to established revokes, and in such cases the Director awards an assigned adjusted score. Therefore, the WBF LC has not yet ruled on the issue of whether or not LHO's withdrawn card is a penalty card if both sides commit a NON-established revoke on the same trick. Or is Sven arguing, by analogy, that the Director must immediately award an assigned adjusted score as soon as both sides have committed a non-established revoke on the same trick, contrary to the Law 62A mandate which requires the correction of non-established revokes? 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 svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 3 08:47:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:47:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c7bd3e$03f4b7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >This question was addressed by WBFLC in Paris November 1st 2001: (Date corrected by me now, the year was missing in my first comment) > [big snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Not quite. The WBF LC minute stated that Law 64C applied > when both sides committed a revoke on the same trick. > > But Law 64C specifically states that it only applies to > established revokes, and in such cases the Director awards > an assigned adjusted score. Although Law 64C is written as to apply only after a revoke is established the minute has no such limitation. The minute doesn't in my opinion make sense unless it shall apply to all cases of two connected revokes in the same trick, whether established or not. (Note that it is quite possible for one such revoke to be established while the other is not!) > Therefore, the WBF LC has not yet ruled on the issue of > whether or not LHO's withdrawn card is a penalty card if > both sides commit a NON-established revoke on the same > trick. > > Or is Sven arguing, by analogy, that the Director must > immediately award an assigned adjusted score as soon as > both sides have committed a non-established revoke on the > same trick, contrary to the Law 62A mandate which requires > the correction of non-established revokes? I am arguing that the Director shall have all such revoke cards withdrawn by the respective players without any consequence other than that the existence of the card exposed by one defender shall be unauthorized information to his partner. Whether the situation should result in any adjusted score must be considered and ruled by the Director after the play of the board is completed. However, I shall accept an interpretation (by competent authority) that the card so withdrawn by a defender shall become a major penalty card. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 3 10:40:36 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:40:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c7bd3e$03f4b7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008c01c7bd4d$f3d14c60$269d87d9@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: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I am arguing that the Director shall have all such > revoke cards withdrawn by the respective players > without any consequence other than that the existence > of the card exposed by one defender shall be > unauthorized information to his partner. Whether the > situation should result in any adjusted score must be > considered and ruled by the Director after the play > of the board is completed. > > However, I shall accept an interpretation (by > competent authority) that the card so withdrawn by > a defender shall become a major penalty card. > > Regards Sven > +=+ As far as the WBFLC goes, even if ton picks this up for consideration no 'official interpretation' can be agreed until Shanghai. By that time the subject will perhaps have become largely academic - with the next Code of Laws imminently to be implemented. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 3 18:50:03 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:50:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c7bd3e$03f4b7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004301c7bd92$34258ee0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > However, I shall accept an interpretation (by competent authority) that > the > card so withdrawn by a defender shall become a major penalty card. > I think this is covered by Law, we don't need such an interpretation. John > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 3 19:54:41 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:54:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689070C.9080308@NTLworld.com> <4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com> [nige1] Decimal notation (invented by Tim) is the most succinct and accurate I prefer the Walrus version ... eg 14.8-18.3 means 20% of 14s and 30% or 18s qualify. [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] This one can't be ok: it's inconsistent. 14.8 lies between 14 (outside) and 15 (inside); you say it means that all 15 qualify, and some part of 14 (outside) qualify on the other side, 18.3 lies between 18 (inside) and 19 (outside) and it means that some part of 18 (inside) qualify and no 19 qualify. the treatment of both sides is non-symetric [nige1] The basis of the Walrus version of decimal HCP notation is that eligible hands with a given HCP span a one HCP range. Thus the worst 18 HCP hands are at the bottom end: 18.0, 18.1, 18.2... And the best are at the top end ...18.8, 18.9, 19.0. For example suppose the declared range is 14.8-18.3 HCP. The lower range limit of 14.8 means that only 20% of otherwise eligible 14 HCP hands qualify i.e. hands in the range 14.8-15.0 While an upper range limit of 18.3 means that 30% of otherwise eligible 18 HCP hands qualify i.e. hands in the range 18.0-18.3 We did point out that the notation isn't intuitive :) but once explained, I think experienced players could adapt to it and we walrus would take to it like a mermaid to water. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 3 20:20:08 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:20:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0706282114w8b1d1e2u25a2874cf7784bc9@mail.gmail.com> References: <46846560.9030306@NTLworld.com> <46847F55.2060900@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0706282114w8b1d1e2u25a2874cf7784bc9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <468A9358.8010200@NTLworld.com> [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 Fusselman] 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. [Eric Landau] 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). [nige2] [A] I agree with Jerry Fusselman that, for instance, good players rate some 13 HCP hands as worth less than some 12 HCP hands. For example, I concede that if your declare 12.0-14.0 as a notrump range, that does not imply that Jerry would open 1N on say QJx QJx QJx KJxx. But that does not prevent the Walrus version of Tim's scale from being practically useful, as explained by Eric Landau. In practice, IMO, it matters little whether you regard the scale as probabilistic or as representing a player's subjective ordering of eligible hands within each 1 HCP range. (Except in so far as one version may be easier to explain than the other). IMO decimal notation would promote more accurate disclosure for the bridge community at large but only if recommended by the law-book. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 3 20:47:31 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:47:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <468A99C3.80906@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I like the notation, but I would read the fraction as probabilistic rather than evaluative. [Tim West-Meades] Not unreasonable, but not ideal either. I upgrade about 40% of 11 counts and downgrade about 10% of twelve counts - is that a probabilistic value of 11.6 or 11.9 (or c11.7)? I don't think there is a perfect method of disclosure which will suit everyone but I'm pretty sure that even the most hard-bitten walrus/greenest novice will realise he might need to ask a question if the CC uses decimal points, or brackets, or %ages, or mini-graphs of probability curves. [nige1] IMO, if Tim upgrades 40% of otherwise eligible 11 HCP hands and downgrades say 20% of 15 HCP hands into the range, he should declare the decimal range as 11.6-15.2 IMO, down-grades and up-grades that *take hands out of the range* (for example a downgrade of 10% of 12 HCP hands) should not be included as part of the range. In spite numerous libels by BLMLers, we walrus know well that just because a hand lies within a declared range for a bid does not mean we must open it with that bid. For example, if we play 12-14 no-trump, we are under no obligation to open 1N when we hold xx Axx AKQJx xxx From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Jul 4 01:38:56 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 00:38:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. References: <468A99C3.80906@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c7bdcb$52794b00$0600a8c0@david> > > [nige1] > > IMO, if Tim upgrades 40% of otherwise eligible 11 HCP hands and > downgrades say 20% of 15 HCP hands into the range, he should declare > the decimal range as 11.6-15.2 > > IMO, down-grades and up-grades that *take hands out of the range* > (for example a downgrade of 10% of 12 HCP hands) should not be > included as part of the range. > > In spite numerous libels by BLMLers, we walrus know well that just > because a hand lies within a declared range for a bid does not mean we > must open it with that bid. For example, if we play 12-14 no-trump, > we are under no obligation to open 1N when we hold xx Axx AKQJx xxx > Am I missing something here? If I describe my method as upgrading half my 11 counts to fall within my no trump range then I am playing a 11.5-14 NT. If I describe it as downgrading half my 11 counts so that they fall outside my no trump range then I am playing an 11-14 NT. Is this what you saying? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 02/07/2007 15:35 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 4 05:17:49 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:17:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <000901c7bdcb$52794b00$0600a8c0@david> References: <468A99C3.80906@NTLworld.com> <000901c7bdcb$52794b00$0600a8c0@david> Message-ID: <468B115D.6010602@NTLworld.com> [nige1] IMO, if Tim upgrades 40% of otherwise eligible 11 HCP hands and downgrades say 20% of 15 HCP hands into the range, he should declare the decimal range as 11.6-15.2 IMO, down-grades and up-grades that *take hands out of the range* (for example a downgrade of 10% of 12 HCP hands) should not be included as part of the range. In spite numerous libels by BLMLers, we walrus know well that just because a hand lies within a declared range for a bid does not mean we must open it with that bid. For example, if we play 12-14 no-trump, we are under no obligation to open 1N when we hold xx Axx AKQJx xxx [David Barton] Am I missing something here? If I describe my method as upgrading half my 11 counts to fall within my no trump range then I am playing a 11.5-14 NT. If I describe it as downgrading half my 11 counts so that they fall outside my no trump range then I am playing an 11-14 NT. Is this what you saying? [nige1] No. in both cases the lower limit would be 11.5 :) Similarly, you could downgrade 40% your 15s so that they lie within the range for the bid; or, equivalently, upgrade 60% your 15s so that they lie outside the range for the bid; in either case, your upper limit would be 15.4. Having arrived at an 11.5-15.4 HCP range however, if you decide not to open specific 12, 13 or 14 HCP hands in the middle of the range, then that does *not* affect the range declaration. (Although it affects your description of the bid). I am sure that a simple walrus would have no trouble understanding and using Tim's notation, in any of its forms :) It is just sophisticated BLMLers like David Barton and Jean-Pierre Rocafort that envisage complications where none need exist :( From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jul 4 10:29:55 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:29:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689070C.9080308@NTLworl d.com><4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <468B5A83.90807@meteo.fr> Nigel a ?crit : > [nige1] > Decimal notation (invented by Tim) is the most succinct and accurate > I prefer the Walrus version ... eg 14.8-18.3 means 20% of 14s and 30% > or 18s qualify. > [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] > This one can't be ok: it's inconsistent. 14.8 lies between 14 > (outside) and 15 (inside); you say it means that > all 15 qualify, and some part of 14 (outside) qualify on the other > side, 18.3 lies between 18 (inside) and 19 (outside) and it > means that some part of 18 (inside) qualify and no 19 qualify. > the treatment of both sides is non-symetric > > [nige1] > > The basis of the Walrus version of decimal HCP notation is that > eligible hands with a given HCP span a one HCP range. decimal notation and HCP appeared to be 2 distinct notions from previous posts, but... ok for the range of 1 which means that every 18 hcp hand will remain weaker than any 19 hcp hand. > Thus i disagree with "thus", the following is not a consequence of the premise. > the worst 18 HCP hands are at the bottom end: 18.0, 18.1, 18.2... > And the best are at the top end ...18.8, 18.9, 19.0. i don't see your "convention" as logical, nor convenient, nor intuitive. as a simple soul, i would understand 18.0 to correspond to the most "normal" 18 hcp hands. the worst 18 hcp would be worth less than 18.0, say 17.5 for the purpose of the normalisation to 1-range, and the best 18.5 > > For example suppose the declared range is 14.8-18.3 HCP. > The lower range limit of 14.8 means that only 20% of otherwise > eligible 14 HCP hands qualify i.e. hands in the range 14.8-15.0 > While an upper range limit of 18.3 means that 30% of otherwise > eligible 18 HCP hands qualify i.e. hands in the range 18.0-18.3 > > We did point out that the notation isn't intuitive :) agreed again! > but once > explained, I think experienced players could adapt to it and we walrus > would take to it like a mermaid to water. i fear the category of experienced players would be very limited and walrus would be very puzzled. jpr > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 4 11:43:47 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:43:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c7bd3e$03f4b7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <004301c7bd92$34258ee0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001f01c7be1f$e9a33780$4e9e87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." ~ Martin Luther King. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> However, I shall accept an interpretation (by competent >> authority) that the card so withdrawn by a defender shall > > become a major penalty card. >> > > I think this is covered by Law, we don't need such an > interpretation. John > +=+ Hence there can be no argument about it? ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 4 15:00:21 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:00:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <468B5A83.90807@meteo.fr> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689070C.9080308@NTLworl d.com><4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com> <468B5A83.90807@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <468B99E5.7090803@NTLworld.com> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] i don't see your "convention" as logical, nor convenient, nor intuitive. as a simple soul, i would understand 18.0 to correspond to the most "normal" 18 hcp hands. the worst 18 hcp would be worth less than 18.0 say 17.5 for the purpose of the normalisation to 1-range, and the best 18.5 [nige1] Then you prefer Tim and John's variation :) From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 4 16:58:20 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:58:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689070C.9080308@NTLworl d.com><4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com><468B5A83.90807@meteo.fr> <468B99E5.7090803@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003201c7be4b$c2e59940$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. > [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] > i don't see your "convention" as logical, nor convenient, nor > intuitive. as a simple soul, i would understand 18.0 to correspond to > the most "normal" 18 hcp hands. the worst 18 hcp would be worth less > than 18.0 say 17.5 for the purpose of the normalisation to 1-range, > and the best 18.5 > > [nige1] > Then you prefer Tim and John's variation :) Well, I do :) even for non-walruses 12-14 means just that.; so 11.8-14 means "a few more hands" and 12-13.8 means a few fewer hands. Surely the walrus can count in a straight line.? I agree there's a difference between 12 and 12.0 in the context 12-14. The first is walrus, the 2nd judgement. The latter meaning we discard some 12's and add a similar number of 11's. The walrus method suffers from trying to make each number work alone, I think; In decimal notation we use the context of the two numbers. cheers john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jul 4 19:07:21 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:07:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <003201c7be4b$c2e59940$0701a8c0@john> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689070C.9080308@NTLworl d.com><4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com><468B5A83 .90807@meteo.fr><468B99E5.7090803@NTLworld.com> <003201c7be4b$c2e59940$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <468BD3C9.1080606@meteo.fr> John Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 2:00 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. > > >> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] >> i don't see your "convention" as logical, nor convenient, nor >> intuitive. as a simple soul, i would understand 18.0 to correspond to >> the most "normal" 18 hcp hands. the worst 18 hcp would be worth less >> than 18.0 say 17.5 for the purpose of the normalisation to 1-range, >> and the best 18.5 >> >> [nige1] >> Then you prefer Tim and John's variation :) > > Well, I do :) even for non-walruses 12-14 means just that.; so 11.8-14 means > "a few more hands" and 12-13.8 means a few fewer hands. Surely the walrus > can count in a straight line.? I agree there's a difference between 12 and > 12.0 in the context 12-14. The first is walrus, the 2nd judgement. unfortunately, i am afraid there is more of a difference. the "classical" notation 12-14, for a walrus needs the set of 3 integer numbers (12, 13, 14) in which 12 shows a hand of precisely 12 hcp the same notation means about the same thing for a non-walrus: the set of 3 numbers (12, 13, 14) in which 12 shows a hand the value of which approximates a mean hand of 12 hcp, maybe it is a hand of 12 hcp, maybe a weak 13 hcp hand which looks more like 12 than 13, maybe a strong 11 hcp hand... when using the continuous notation (with real numbers or decimal numbers as you see fit) 12.0-14.0 means the interval [12,14] that is to say the set of all numbers greater than 12 and lower than 14. unfortunately if you want to make a correspondance between both notations, you must use different numbers: the equivalent of the set of 3 numbers 12-14, is the interval 11.5-14.5. in order to avoid confusion the first thing to do if wanting to use a continuous scale, would be to use the correct notation [11.5, 14.5] with brackets instead of the ambiguous 11.5-14.5 jpr The > latter meaning we discard some 12's and add a similar number of 11's. The > walrus method suffers from trying to make each number work alone, I think; > In decimal notation we use the context of the two numbers. > > cheers john >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ 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 tzimnoch at comcast.net Wed Jul 4 21:33:54 2007 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:33:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001f01c7be1f$e9a33780$4e9e87d9@Hellen> References: <000001c7bd3e$03f4b7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <004301c7bd92$34258ee0$0701a8c0@john> <001f01c7be1f$e9a33780$4e9e87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <468BF622.4@comcast.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Sven Pran" >>To: "blml" >>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:47 AM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) > > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> >>>However, I shall accept an interpretation (by competent >>>authority) that the card so withdrawn by a defender shall >>>become a major penalty card. >>> >> >>I think this is covered by Law, we don't need such an >>interpretation. John >> > > +=+ Hence there can be no argument about it? ~ G ~ +=+ On the specific question of withdrawn cards, the law is clear. The general question of how to resolve multiple infractions, either committed by the same side or alternating sides, could use clarification, if not in these Laws then the next. -Todd From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 4 23:25:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 23:25:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001f01c7be1f$e9a33780$4e9e87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000501c7be81$d15d4dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............... > >> However, I shall accept an interpretation (by competent > >> authority) that the card so withdrawn by a defender shall > > > become a major penalty card. > >> > > > > I think this is covered by Law, we don't need such an > > interpretation. John > > > +=+ Hence there can be no argument about it? ~ G ~ +=+ The effect of ruling MPC on the defender's revoke card when there has been a revoke from both sides in the same trick is rather curious: When a defender revokes it will usually work to his advantage if he announces his revoke in time to avoid the revoke becoming established. The major penalty card will seldom cost his side more than the penalty for the established revoke. But when there will be no penalty at all for an established revoke because both sides revoked in the same trick a defender can never gain anything by avoiding his revoke becoming established if the consequence is that he is penalized with a major penalty card! This is my reason for applying the following "ruling" by WBFLC (part of the minute quoted below) literally to the extent that all penalties should be waived when there are revokes by both sides in the same trick: "The committee decided that the Director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred" Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 4 23:43:26 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:43:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001f01c7be1f$e9a33780$4e9e87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: North is dealer. South opens 1H out of turn. East, mistakenly believing that the dealer has opened 1H, overcalls 1S. How do you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 4 23:57:36 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:57:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <468BD3C9.1080606@meteo.fr> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689070C.9080308@NTLworl d.com><4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com><468B5A83 .90807@meteo.fr><468B99E5.7090803@NTLworld.com> <003201c7be4b$c2e59940$0701a8c0@john> <468BD3C9.1080606@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <468C17D0.3070906@NTLworld.com> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] unfortunately, i am afraid there is more of a difference. the "classical" notation 12-14, for a walrus needs the set of 3 integer numbers (12, 13, 14) in which 12 shows a hand of precisely 12 hcp the same notation means about the same thing for a non-walrus: the set of 3 numbers (12, 13, 14) in which 12 shows a hand the value of which approximates a mean hand of 12 hcp, maybe it is a hand of 12 hcp, maybe a weak 13 hcp hand which looks more like 12 than 13, maybe a strong 11 hcp hand... when using the continuous notation (with real numbers or decimal numbers as you see fit) 12.0-14.0 means the interval [12,14] that is to say the set of all numbers greater than 12 and lower than 14. unfortunately if you want to make a correspondance between both notations, you must use different numbers: the equivalent of the set of 3 numbers 12-14, is the interval 11.5-14.5. in order to avoid confusion the first thing to do if wanting to use a continuous scale, would be to use the correct notation [11.5, 14.5] with brackets instead of the ambiguous 11.5-14.5 {nige1] Or... using the Walrus variation 12.0-15.0, as previously explained. Or... Jean-Pierre might prefer [12.0, 15.0) because the "*real interval*" is *closed below* but *open above*. Strictly, of course, *none are real intervals* because the number of bridge hands is finite :) as any walrus could tell you :) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jul 5 00:58:29 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:58:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9221D59841C54CBEB08C73452ECE8FE2@erdos> Richard Hills writes: > North is dealer. > > South opens 1H out of turn. > > East, mistakenly believing that the > dealer has opened 1H, overcalls 1S. > > How do you rule? L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call based on his own misunderstanding. Thus East's 1S overcall must stand as being made, and E-W must pay any penalty. (This law more frequently applies when a player makes an insufficient bid because he misheard the auction; he still pays the penalty.) However, it does not condone or negate the out-of-turn 1H call; L28B says that only the player whose turn it was to call may negate an opponent's out-of-turn call by calling in turn, and L29A allows only offender's LHO, not offender's RHO, to accept the call with a subsequent call. E-W did not gain anything from action taken in ignorance of the penalty, so L11A does not apply. Thus South has bid out of turn. I will not allow West to accept the 1H call once East has taken an action, so South's out-of-turn 1H is withdrawn, and North is barred from the rest of the auction. Now, East bid 1S at North's turn to call when North was required by law to pass, and this is no longer an infraction under L28A but the bid stands. I would still rule that West has UI that East's 1S was intended as an overcall rather than as an opening bid, since East was responsible for that piece of information. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 5 01:57:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:57:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9221D59841C54CBEB08C73452ECE8FE2@erdos> Message-ID: David Grabiner: >I will not allow West to accept the 1H call >once East has taken an action, Richard Hills: Under what Law are you over-riding Law 29A? If my preferred chronological order rule was part of the Scope, then as Director I would: (1) Ask West if West wanted to accept South's 1H opening bid out of turn, then (2) Ask South if South wanted to accept East's overcall out of turn. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 were both "Yes", then the auction would be: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH (Dealer) --- --- --- 1H --- --- 1S ? and there would be no further penalty to either North-South or East-West. :-) 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 Jul 5 01:58:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:58:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <468BF622.4@comcast.net> Message-ID: John Probst: >>>I think this is covered by Law, we don't need such an >>>interpretation. John Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Hence there can be no argument about it? >> ~ G ~ +=+ Todd M. Zimnoch: >On the specific question of withdrawn cards, the law is >clear. Richard Hills: Well, 99% of the time the Laws on withdrawn cards is clear. But in this anomalous 1% situation under debate, Laws 62B1 and 62C1 are as clear on whether a withdrawn card is a penalty card or without penalty as Schrodinger was clear on whether his cat is alive or is dead. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 5 09:45:24 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 08:45:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <008b01c7bed8$eedc0b00$479687d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." ~ Martin Luther King. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > If my preferred chronological order rule was > part of the Scope, << +=+ It seems to me that any such material should come as a recommendation rather than as a Law. It is not for me to say, but since Ton Kooijman is no doubt reading this thread he may perhaps opt to include it as a subject for the appendix he will devise as illustrations of the application of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 5 14:24:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 Message-ID: I have seen it suggested that the EBL has delegated to its member countries the authority to forbid L12c3 to Appeals Committees. However, I can find no record (on the EBL website or elsewhere) of this having happened. Can anybody shed any light on the issue? Thanks, Tim. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 5 15:27:34 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:27:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meades] I have seen it suggested that the EBL has delegated to its member countries the authority to forbid L12c3 to Appeals Committees. However, I can find no record (on the EBL website or elsewhere) of this having happened. Can anybody shed any light on the issue? [nige1] In the paragraph below, the author takes pains to make it clear that the WBF Law Committee itself has not changed L12C3. The appeals committee decided to do so, on its own initiative: Presented with a fait-accompli, the law-committee seems to have decided to go along with the appeals-committee's new version of the law, as an interim measure. Disgracefully, The EBU Orange book allows TDs and directors the option of applying the notorious L12C3. It is hard to imagine any situation in which a weighted score would "restore equity" so, in theory, L12C3 should rarely be invoked. Unfortunately, in practice, directors and committees find it hard to resist playing with this dangerous and intriguing toy. Hence: law-breakers are delighted; victims of infractions are learning to abandon any hope of justice. Tim's putative EBL directive (if it exists) is a tentative step in the right direction. Perhaps Richard Hills will again search the locked cabinet in the disused lavatory with the "Beware of the Leopard" sign? [WBFLC 2000] The Laws Committee not having so far changed Law 12C3, the Appeals Committee at the World Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued the following directive to the Chief Tournament Director: "As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but the fact that a judgmental ruling by the Director is made with these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert opinion, means that appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." The WBF Laws Committee will return to the question of Law 12C3 at a future time. In the meantime it has stated that it finds it acceptable if other regulating authorities adopt this method of achieving the intention of the Code of Practice. [Orange Book 7D1A] L12C3 applies so a TD or appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity by assigning weighted scores. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 5 15:54:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:54:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) In-Reply-To: <9221D59841C54CBEB08C73452ECE8FE2@erdos> References: <9221D59841C54CBEB08C73452ECE8FE2@erdos> Message-ID: <56AC27B9-BDB4-4A28-B4B3-39F45E062F08@starpower.net> On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:58 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call based on his own > misunderstanding. Thus East's 1S overcall must stand as being > made, and E-W > must pay any penalty. (This law more frequently applies when a > player makes an > insufficient bid because he misheard the auction; he still pays the > penalty.) > > However, it does not condone or negate the out-of-turn 1H call; > L28B says that > only the player whose turn it was to call may negate an opponent's > out-of-turn > call by calling in turn, and L29A allows only offender's LHO, not > offender's > RHO, to accept the call with a subsequent call. E-W did not gain > anything from > action taken in ignorance of the penalty, so L11A does not apply. > > Thus South has bid out of turn. I will not allow West to accept > the 1H call > once East has taken an action, so South's out-of-turn 1H is > withdrawn, and North > is barred from the rest of the auction. Now, East bid 1S at > North's turn to > call when North was required by law to pass, and this is no longer > an infraction > under L28A but the bid stands. > > I would still rule that West has UI that East's 1S was intended as > an overcall > rather than as an opening bid, since East was responsible for that > piece of > information. I cannot accept the finding that "East bid 1S... when North was required by law to pass". Regardless of what the law says about the infraction in question, I don't believe that anybody is ever "required to pass" unless and until the director has been called and has so ruled. This is even clearer in David's scenario, where North may have been forced to pass only because of David's ruling "not [to] allow West to accept the 1H call once East has taken an action". But that doesn't really matter; I stand by the previous paragraph. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 5 16:35:06 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:35:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Single Authoritative Source In-Reply-To: <008b01c7bed8$eedc0b00$479687d9@Hellen> References: <008b01c7bed8$eedc0b00$479687d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <468D019A.7020207@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] >> If my preferred chronological order rule was >> part of the Scope, [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ It seems to me that any such material should come as > a recommendation rather than as a Law. It is not for me to > say, but since Ton Kooijman is no doubt reading this thread > he may perhaps opt to include it as a subject for the appendix > he will devise as illustrations of the application of the laws. [nige1] I feel strongly that if Richard Hills' rule is worth implementing, it should be incorporated in the law-book itself. I welcome illustrations of how the law should be applied, especially in borderline contexts. Nevertheless, I feel that the law-book should itself be as complete as possible. A frequent question in Bridge discussion groups is "Where do I find information on ". That is an indictment of the system. I am sure that Bridge rule-makers aren't really jealous and secretive about the rules of our game; but they often give that impression. This is ridiculous state if affairs when the solution is so simple and obvious. There is no sensible reason to leave gaps in a rule-book to be completed by local legislatures. Even in controversial areas, the law-book can provide *defaults*, which local legislatures are given explicit permission to over-ride. If the WBFLC wants to change or clarify a Bridge rule, it can edit the WBF master web edition rule-book itself rather than bury its deliberations in obscure minutes, commentaries and interpretations. Changes would be highlighted, in place; and a list of dated modifications would be appended to the law-book (Like Ton's examples). Similarly, if a local legislature insists on changing the WBFLC version, it can edit a local web version of the complete WBFLC rule-book, clearly marking and recording such changes. The local legislature would be responsible for keeping the local version synchronised with changes to the global WBFLC edition. If unnecessary rules were scrapped and the remaining rules made as simple and clear as possible, then a single local rule-book would save rain-forests of trees compared with current libraries of laws, regulations, interpretations, minutes, and so on. Thus, players and directors would have a single complete authoritative local source of Bridge-Rules. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 5 17:02:52 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:02:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: Message-ID: <012701c7bf15$a8cb4260$c49887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." ~ Martin Luther King. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ It has long been the EBL practice to delegate to NBOs, for tournaments within their domains, those powers of regulation that Zonal Authorities possess. I am not aware of a specific mention of 12C3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ---------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:24 PM Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 >I have seen it suggested that the EBL has delegated to its member > countries the authority to forbid L12c3 to Appeals Committees. > > However, I can find no record (on the EBL website or elsewhere) of this > having happened. Can anybody shed any light on the issue? > > Thanks, > > Tim. > From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 5 23:08:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 22:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <012701c7bf15$a8cb4260$c49887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ It has long been the EBL practice to delegate to > NBOs, for tournaments within their domains, those > powers of regulation that Zonal Authorities possess. > I am not aware of a specific mention of 12C3. The one I'm familiar with is L40D (specifically stated in the laws as "may be delegated"). I've haven't seen anything official on either L12c3 or L61B (neither of which mentions delegation explicitly) so I guess the EBL haven't delegated those. In response to Nigel's comments the official (or otherwise) extension of L12c3 to TDs is a complete red herring. Any TD who believes a L12c3 ruling justified can send the matter to appeal himself. Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 5 23:13:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:13:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Single Authoritative Source In-Reply-To: <468D019A.7020207@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000201c7bf49$56ca3a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel > [Richard Hills] > >> If my preferred chronological order rule was > >> part of the Scope, > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ It seems to me that any such material should come as > > a recommendation rather than as a Law. It is not for me to > > say, but since Ton Kooijman is no doubt reading this thread > > he may perhaps opt to include it as a subject for the appendix > > he will devise as illustrations of the application of the laws. > > [nige1] > I feel strongly that if Richard Hills' rule is worth implementing, it > should be incorporated in the law-book itself. > > I welcome illustrations of how the law should be applied, especially > in borderline contexts. > > Nevertheless, I feel that the law-book should itself be as complete as > possible. ......... (snip) The above would have been a very good suggestion hadn't it been for the fact that such a complete law book (with commentaries) was compiled by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen in 1992 (for the laws of 1987). It had more than 400 pages of size A4! I still often use that book as a reference, but I cannot carry it around in my pocket like I do with the "standard" laws. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 6 01:24:49 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 00:24:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Single Authoritative Source References: <008b01c7bed8$eedc0b00$479687d9@Hellen> <468D019A.7020207@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000201c7bf5b$e2ac2490$17c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:35 PM Subject: [blml] Single Authoritative Source > > [nige1] > I feel strongly that if Richard Hills' rule is worth implementing, it > should be incorporated in the law-book itself. > +=+ I was first introduced to the chronological sequence of dealing with multiple irregularities in the auction and play by Roy Higson when he was EBU CTD, which would probably be some forty years ago or thereabouts. I seem to remember that Kojak and his predecessor as WBF CTDs also took this route. I have always thought it a natural and logical approach. For it to enter into the law book I feel it would need an initiative from the WBF CTD and/or the WBF CTD Emeritus. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 6 01:35:03 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:35:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <468CF1C6.90101@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the "Multiple infractions" thread, Grattan Endicott noted: >>.....no 'official interpretation' can be agreed until >>Shanghai. By that time the subject will perhaps have become >>largely academic - with the next Code of Laws imminently to >>be implemented. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Nigel Guthrie asked: >Perhaps Richard Hills will again search the locked cabinet in >the disused lavatory with the "Beware of the Leopard" sign? Richard Hills metaphors: Given Grattan's statement above, post-Shanghai the cabinet may be unlocked, the lavatory may be scrubbed, and the Leopard may be a purring Aslan. :-) 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 geller at nifty.com Fri Jul 6 02:28:59 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:28:59 +0900 Subject: [blml] archives problem In-Reply-To: <000201c7bf5b$e2ac2490$17c9403e@Mildred> References: <000201c7bf5b$e2ac2490$17c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200707060028.AA09708@geller204.nifty.com> Hi all, Has anyone else noticed this? The BLBL archives are already up to July 2014(!!) http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2014-July/thread.html which contains the following spam: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2014-July/016359.html This should probably be cleaned up. Best, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Fri Jul 6 08:49:55 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:49:55 +0900 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <012701c7bf15$a8cb4260$c49887d9@Hellen> References: <012701c7bf15$a8cb4260$c49887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <200707060649.AA09718@geller204.nifty.com> In the case of Zone 6 (Pacific Asia), the following was decided (delegation to each country's discretion as to elections, but with a standard default). (see extract from minutes, below). presumably the EBL made a similar official decision that can be found in old minutes. -Bob ************************************** MINUTES OF THE PABF DELEGATES MEETINGS First Meeting Thursday May 20, 1999 Second Meeting Friday May 21, 1999 Held at Zhejiang World Trade Center Grand Hotel, Hangzhou, China (snip) 11 The Decisions on the matters delegated to Zone 6 under the 1997 Laws The meeting resolved to apply the relevant laws to the PABF Championships as follows; Law 12C3 an appeal committee may vary an assigned score to do equity. Law18F PABF authorises different method of making calls. Law 61B ...Defenders may ask declarer, but not one another. Law93B1 Footnote deleted. Notwithstanding above, NCBOs of Zone 6 may choose a different version to suit their own tournaments. ************************************* Grattan Endicott ????????: > >Grattan Endicott >grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk >[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] >********************** >"All progress is precarious, and >the solution of one problem brings >us face to face with another problem." > ~ Martin Luther King. >vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv >+=+ It has long been the EBL practice to delegate to >NBOs, for tournaments within their domains, those >powers of regulation that Zonal Authorities possess. >I am not aware of a specific mention of 12C3. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >---------------------------------------------------- > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-Meads" >To: >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:24 PM >Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 > > >>I have seen it suggested that the EBL has delegated to its member >> countries the authority to forbid L12c3 to Appeals Committees. >> >> However, I can find no record (on the EBL website or elsewhere) of this >> having happened. Can anybody shed any light on the issue? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tim. >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 6 11:02:06 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:02:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] archives problem In-Reply-To: <200707060028.AA09708@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000701c7bfac$543d4490$6400a8c0@WINXP> Sure, I called Henk's attention to this fact many years ago and was told that there were some technical issues making a cleanup difficult. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 6. juli 2007 02:29 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] archives problem > > Hi all, > > Has anyone else noticed this? > The BLBL archives are already up to July 2014(!!) > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2014-July/thread.html > which contains the following spam: > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2014-July/016359.html > > This should probably be cleaned up. > > Best, > Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 6 14:55:36 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:55:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > The one I'm familiar with is L40D (specifically stated in the laws as > "may be delegated"). I've haven't seen anything official on either > L12c3 or L61B (neither of which mentions delegation explicitly) so I > guess the EBL haven't delegated those. One could argue that since there is in one law a specific authority to delegate a zonal option, where in other laws that authority is not written, it does not exist. Which will not, I suppose, prevent any ZA from delegating, nor any NBO/SO from assuming, such authority. :-( From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 6 19:03:13 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:03:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00ac01c7bfef$c38e99a0$0ba887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." ~ Martin Luther King. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ I think that the reference to achievement of equity relates to the inaccuracy in the 1997 Law Book as published in England. The correct version of Law 12C3, promulgated by the WBF, may be found in the ACBL publication. It reads : "....... vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." The drafting committee for 1997 did not commit the error of supposing that any assigned adjusted score necessarily "achieves" equity. It allowed that the target is "equity" but that the achievement may be nothing more than a closer approximation to equity. The word 'do' was to reflect the effort to target a closer equity, not with any assurance or expectation that an absolute equity would be achieved. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 > [Orange Book 7D1A] > L12C3 applies so a TD or appeals committee > may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to > achieve equity by assigning weighted scores. > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jul 7 01:31:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:31:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >One could argue that since there is in one law a specific >authority to delegate a zonal option, where in other laws >that authority is not written, it does not exist. > >Which will not, I suppose, prevent any ZA from delegating, >nor any NBO/SO from assuming, such authority. :-( Grattan Endicott (13th December 2006): >>+=+ The history books may record that General Semantics >>was a World War I officer who executed his orders from >>GHQ in London with scrupulous fidelity to the language in >>which they were set. Whether it will be recorded also that >>casualties within his command were significantly above the >>average is not certain. +=+ :-) 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 Jul 8 05:02:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:02:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3A623300-9AEC-4A39-9F1F-AB886F4E1321@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >>if a cheat is someone who deliberately and knowingly violates >>the rules of a game *whatever the reason* [snip] >>I think the latter definition is more accurate, which I do, [snip] Richard Hills: Suppose that a hypothetical game had the following hypothetical rules: First Law "It is always required to perform action X." Second Law "This Law is ambiguously written, so it is possible that an idiosyncratic individual might interpret it to read that in circumstance Q it is forbidden to perform action X." Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): >You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if >you pick the proper postulates. Richard Hills: Suppose that a hypothetical idiosyncratic individual had the following belief: Postulate "If one of the rules of a hypothetical game is written in an ambiguous way, one must interpret that rule in such a way that in circumstance Q the rules taken as a whole are paradoxical." If in circumstance Q that idiosyncratic individual chooses to follow their interpretation of the Second Law, declining to perform action X, has that person "knowingly" violated the rules of that hypothetical game, so is therefore a cheat? Or has that idiosyncratic individual merely foolishly selected a postulate which does not correspond to reality, so is therefore simply a misguided believer in Unintelligent Design? :-) 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jul 8 19:31:21 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:31:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] The dog in the night In-Reply-To: <468468E6.8080705@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <468468E6.8080705@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46911F69.3070609@cfa.harvard.edu> A couple of weeks ago, I offered: > MP/EW vul/Dlr W > K32 > 972 > AQ752 > A8 > QJ84 AT76 > A6 JT8 > KJT96 84 > J3 QT96 > 95 > KQ543 > 3 > K7542 > 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. There were no comments on this except that pass was not a LA for South. The ruling at the table didn't reach that question. The TD ruled (after consultation), that North's actions didn't suggest anything except trying to come to grips with an unfamiliar situation. That seems a fair enough ruling. The problem is, at the table, it was quite clear that North was showing values. (I was West.) Is there any way the TD could have known that, other than the obviously-biased EW testimony? Later on, it occurred to me that there might have been. Doesn't a North who is just trying to understand what's going on ask about the alerted 1D bid? (In practice, virtually every pair we meet asks about the bid; it is highly unusual for anyone not to do so.) We're all used to drawing inferences in the play when an opponent fails to so something expected. (Hence the subject line, which will be familiar to Sherlock Holmes fans.) Is this an instance where a TD could draw the same sort of inference? I don't think I've seen this suggested before; is there anything to it? (A different ruling wouldn't have changed our results; we got quite a good score on the board anyway.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jul 8 19:37:07 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:37:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200707051416.l65EGbAF009144@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707051416.l65EGbAF009144@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <469120C3.1070202@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ It seems to me that any such material should come as > a recommendation rather than as a Law. The question is whether you want multiple infractions to be handled the same worldwide or whether it's a proper subject for regional variation. My personal opinion is that handling should be uniform worldwide. If a deal produces two infractions and is later replayed with the identical two infractions, why should the results differ if the replay is in a different jurisdiction? From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 8 20:35:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:35:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The dog in the night In-Reply-To: <46911F69.3070609@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000a01c7c18e$c6176fd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 8. juli 2007 19:31 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The dog in the night > > A couple of weeks ago, I offered: > > MP/EW vul/Dlr W > > K32 > > 972 > > AQ752 > > A8 > > QJ84 AT76 > > A6 JT8 > > KJT96 84 > > J3 QT96 > > 95 > > KQ543 > > 3 > > K7542 > > > 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. > > There were no comments on this except that pass was not a LA for South. > The ruling at the table didn't reach that question. The TD ruled (after > consultation), that North's actions didn't suggest anything except > trying to come to grips with an unfamiliar situation. > > That seems a fair enough ruling. The problem is, at the table, it was > quite clear that North was showing values. (I was West.) Is there any > way the TD could have known that, other than the obviously-biased EW > testimony? > > Later on, it occurred to me that there might have been. Doesn't a North > who is just trying to understand what's going on ask about the alerted > 1D bid? (In practice, virtually every pair we meet asks about the bid; > it is highly unusual for anyone not to do so.) We're all used to > drawing inferences in the play when an opponent fails to so something > expected. (Hence the subject line, which will be familiar to Sherlock > Holmes fans.) Is this an instance where a TD could draw the same sort > of inference? I don't think I've seen this suggested before; is there > anything to it? > > (A different ruling wouldn't have changed our results; we got quite a > good score on the board anyway.) If North is really trying to understand what is going on for the purpose of selecting his call there is of course good reason for asking. But generally I can imagine at least two good reasons for not asking, at least not asking until the play period is about to begin: You do not believe at the time that the explanation will influence your selection of a call. (So sorry if you later find out that it would in fact have done!) You suspect that there can be some misunderstanding and do not want to help opponents finding out. (Not considering the reality in your situation). Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 8 22:32:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:32:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c7c19f$0ab16ff0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > David Grabiner: > > >I will not allow West to accept the 1H call > >once East has taken an action, > > Richard Hills: > > Under what Law are you over-riding Law 29A? > > If my preferred chronological order rule was > part of the Scope, then as Director I would: > > (1) Ask West if West wanted to accept > South's 1H opening bid out of turn, then > > (2) Ask South if South wanted to accept > East's overcall out of turn. > > If the answers to questions 1 and 2 were > both "Yes", then the auction would be: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > (Dealer) > --- --- --- 1H > --- --- 1S ? > > and there would be no further penalty to > either North-South or East-West. Be aware that with this procedure (which I in fact find most interesting) the Director MUST inform West that if he accepts the OBOOT by South then his partner (East) will be subject to possible penalty under Law 31, while if West does NOT accept South's OBOOT then East's bid will in fact be in turn under Law 28A! Failure to give West this information is a serious error by the Director! Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 9 00:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > One could argue that since there is in one law a specific authority > to delegate a zonal option, where in other laws that authority is not > written, it does not exist. It's possible. I think the actual wording doesn't preclude such delegation but I would say that a *presumption* of delegation would be flawed and that one would need evidence of it having occurred before trying to disable L12c3. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 9 11:22:14 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:22:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: Message-ID: <00ba01c7c20f$4eb6f6a0$d19b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 > Ed wrote: >> >> One could argue that since there is in one law a specific authority >> to delegate a zonal option, where in other laws that authority is not >> written, it does not exist. > > It's possible. I think the actual wording doesn't preclude such > delegation but I would say that a *presumption* of delegation would be > flawed and that one would need evidence of it having occurred before > trying to disable L12c3. > > Tim > +=+ At the moment I am a bit overwhelmed with other things. Perhaps someone can see what the WBFLC minute on the delegation of 12C3 decisions to TDs says. There may be an inference to draw from it. Sometimes the WBF, or a Zonal Authority, will act by doing nothing in the face of a subordinate decision. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 9 11:24:14 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:24:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200707051416.l65EGbAF009144@cfa.harvard.edu> <469120C3.1070202@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00bb01c7c20f$4f996760$d19b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "The history books may record that General Semantics was a World War I officer who executed his orders from GHQ in London with scrupulous fidelity to the language in which they were set. Whether it will be recorded also that casualties within his command were significantly above the average is not certain." ~ G.E. (December 2006) vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ I agree that the question is as Steve says. However, the general position is that NBOs and Zones are responsible for the training of TDs and the current drafting committee is wary of coming between them in matters of procedure. All I would add is that, personally, I do not see how a Director can hope to implement the law other than by dealing with multiple infractions in chronological sequence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ..................................................................... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ It seems to me that any such material should come as >> a recommendation rather than as a Law. > > The question is whether you want multiple infractions to be handled the > same worldwide or whether it's a proper subject for regional variation. > > My personal opinion is that handling should be uniform worldwide. If a > deal produces two infractions and is later replayed with the identical > two infractions, why should the results differ if the replay is in a > different jurisdiction? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 9 12:43:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:43:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] The dog in the night In-Reply-To: <46911F69.3070609@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <468468E6.8080705@cfa.harvard.edu> <468468E6.8080705@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070709123609.02811b40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:31 8/07/2007 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >Later on, it occurred to me that there might have been. Doesn't a North >who is just trying to understand what's going on ask about the alerted >1D bid? (In practice, virtually every pair we meet asks about the bid; >it is highly unusual for anyone not to do so.) Sorry, I don't agree. Many pairs look at their opp's CC to see what their openings are, but don't care about responses. When you discussed what to do against artificial 1D (which is often the case), you don't ask. And when you know what 1D means, you aren't allowed to ask, according to some contributors. But an alerted 1-level response is a horse of a deeper color. Believe it or not, we had the case last saturday : 1D ! p 1S ! They were playing Fantoni/Nunes' system (but not as well as the originals ;-) 1D : natural, but constructive and forcing. We had time to discover this. 1H : natural, but could be a yarborough. We didn't look at this (3-board rounds). So, Alex, on his second turn to speak, enquired about the sequence, but he didn't directly over 1D. What's the heck ? Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 9 13:02:18 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:02:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <00ba01c7c20f$4eb6f6a0$d19b87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000901c7c218$9e36e5b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............. > +=+ At the moment I am a bit overwhelmed with other things. > Perhaps someone can see what the WBFLC minute on the > delegation of 12C3 decisions to TDs says. There may be an > inference to draw from it. > Sometimes the WBF, or a Zonal Authority, will act by > doing nothing in the face of a subordinate decision. > ~ G ~ +=+ Bermuda 2000 Jan 11th: 4. The committee noted the invitation of the Code of Practice Group for the committee to add to Law 12C3 an option allowing regulating authorities to extend its powers to the Chief Director of a Tournament. The committee was reluctant to make the change at this time, preferring to leave it until the next major revision. However, it was agreed that in the meantime the committee would raise no challenge to the manner in which the WBF had made the arrangement in the current championships, and given this approach in WBF events the committee does not see reason to object when Zonal or national organizations give the Chief Director this power on an experimental basis. Clear enough? Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 9 15:37:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <000901c7c218$9e36e5b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: The WBFLC minute is clear but entirely tangential to the issue of Zonal delegation. Where L12c3 is enabled it makes little difference to results whether a TD can give a L12c3 ruling or merely refer to an AC a recommended L12c3 in cases where he feels it necessary to "do equity". The WBF minute essentially recognises that allowing TDs to use L12c3 simplifies logistics. The delegation in question is whether the EBL have (as Zone 6 did) empowered the various NAs/SOs to *forbid* L12c3 to ACs and/or to allow revoke enquiries between defenders. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 10 12:10:26 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:10:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: Message-ID: <005c01c7c2da$c845dfb0$d4ae87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "No matter whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' supreme court follows th' iliction returns." - Finley Peter Dunne, 1901. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 > > The delegation in question is whether the EBL > have (as Zone 6 did) empowered the various > NAs/SOs to *forbid* L12c3 to ACs and/or > to allow revoke enquiries between defenders. > > Tim > +=+ My view is that, at the very least, the delegation is established by custom and practice over the last thirty-five to forty years. During that time the EBL has not challenged any exercise of Zonal options by a NBO. In the mists of time I believe that something was probably once said on the point.(If I can make time I will dig in my old box files to see if I can turn up any mention.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 10 16:20:49 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:20:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070710155936.028112e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Here are two cases from last saturday's tournament. 1. pass 1C pass pass 1S 1NT ...pass pass ? Would you allow : a) a double b) a new-suit bid c) a 2S bid, each time on a well-textured 9-count? In other words, what is suggested by the slow pass ? W E 2. 1NT p 2D p $$$ p 4D p ...4H p 4S etc. East put on the table "stop-4D", only to be told that he shan't do that, as 4D isn't a skip bid : now he realizes partner had bid 3D. May East bid again, assuming that he had told about everything with his "splinter" ? Would you admit the following arguments ? a) The slow pass isn't related to West's hand, but to the unusual situation created by the alert, and West was wondering what would be ethcical and what wouldn't. b) Usually, one wouldn't be allowed to bid again after partner's slow bid, if it doesn't tell more than one knew on the previous round (as after a rejected trial bid). But here, East had more information : he knows that his partner has made a very encouragong bid on the round before, something he didn't know at the time, as his use of the "stop" card shows. Thank you for your advice. Alain. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 11 01:18:27 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:18:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070710155936.028112e0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: Case 2 is particularly interesting. Law 21A states: "A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding." And in this auction it is clear that East carelessly had a misunderstanding that West had simply accepted East's transfer with a 2H bid, when West actually super-accepted the transfer with a 3D bid. Alain Gottcheiner: >b) Usually, one wouldn't be allowed to bid >again after partner's slow bid, if it doesn't >tell more than one knew on the previous round >(as after a rejected trial bid). But here, >East had more information : he knows that his >partner has made a very encouraging bid on >the round before, something he didn't know at >the time, as his use of the "stop" card shows. Richard Hills: But this "more information" that East has gained is _unauthorised_ information, since the footnote to Law 40E2 states: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Ergo, under Law 21A and the Law 40E2 footnote, East must assume that the auction has gone: WEST EAST 1NT 2D(1) 2H(2) 4D(3) 4H(4) ? (1) Transfer to hearts (2) Not a super-accept (3) Splinter bid, slam interest (4) Not interested in slam The unauthorised information that East has received demonstrably suggests bidding slam. Therefore, if on the above authorised auction a Pass is a logical alternative for East, then that Pass is the only legal call that East may select. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 11 13:11:29 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:11:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070710155936.028112e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00a901c7c3ac$40752a00$aa9a87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ********************** "No matter whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' supreme court follows th' iliction returns." - Finley Peter Dunne, 1901. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:20 PM Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases > Here are two cases from last saturday's tournament. > > 1. pass 1C pass pass > 1S 1NT ...pass pass > ? > > Would you allow : a) a double b) a new-suit bid c) a 2S > bid, each time on a well-textured 9-count? > In other words, what is suggested by the slow pass ? > +=+ The answer to this is 'action other than Pass'. The 9 count is, I assume, within the range for the 1S bid. That being so, I would want a lot of convincing that any action may be allowed other than Pass . A question might arise over bid of a second suit; the Director/AC has to decide whether this is 'evident' to the extent that Pass is not a logical alternative, but the hurdle must be kept high. Yet stay! Since you ask the question someone somewhere must have taken a different view. I wonder what elephant trap we are walking into? Telling some distinguished and competent AC that it is wrong? That is not for me to do, so let's have the full story. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 12 14:43:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070710155936.028112e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > *From:* Alain Gottcheiner > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Date:* Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:20:49 +0200 > > Dear blmlists, > > Here are two cases from last saturday's tournament. > > 1. pass 1C pass pass > 1S 1NT ...pass pass > ? > > Would you allow : a) a double b) a new-suit bid c) a 2S bid, each > time on a well-textured > 9-count? In other words, what is suggested by the slow pass ? The slow pass really doesn't suggest anything. Holding a 9 count and hearing the auction one already knows that partner has 7+ points (probably more) and the fact that he thinks about 1N gives no further info. > 2. 1NT p 2D p > $$$ p 4D p > ...4H p 4S etc. > > East put on the table "stop-4D", only to be told that he shan't do > that, as 4D isn't a skip bid : now he realizes partner had bid 3D. > > May East bid again, assuming that he had told about everything with > his "splinter" ? > Would you admit the following arguments ? > a) The slow pass isn't related to West's hand, but to the unusual > situation created by the alert, and West was wondering what would be > ethcical and what wouldn't. I assume you mean UI provided "by the stop". And yes, an ethical partner is going to have to stop and think before bidding 4H. I'd also doubt than passing 4H can be an LA for a hand with slam interest (splintered) over a normal accept given there was actually a superaccept. One would hope a veil could be drawn over any Hillsian flights of fancy about the legal auction being UI to a player. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 13 00:29:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The dog in the night In-Reply-To: <46911F69.3070609@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > That seems a fair enough ruling. The problem is, at the table, it > was quite clear that North was showing values. (I was West.) Is > there any way the TD could have known that, other than the > obviously-biased EW testimony? It's a judgement ruling. The testimony of EW is evidence that the TD can weight or ignore as he sees fit. I've ruled (in money games) that "While a hesitation in this position does not, per se, indicate values the acknowledged demeanour of hesitator did..." WTP? Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 13 02:47:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:47:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: [snip] >>One would hope a veil could be drawn over any Hillsian flights of >>fancy about the legal auction being UI to a player. Wikipedia, Straw Man fallacy: >One can set up a straw man in the following ways: > >1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute >it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been >refuted. [snip] >5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which >can then be attacked. [snip] >An example of a straw man fallacy: > >Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets. >Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all >day. > >By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more draconian than >it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. 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 Jul 13 09:47:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:47:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Off with her head! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C(1) 1S Pass(2) Pass 1NT(3) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Precision Club, alerted (2) 6-8 hcp, alerted (3) 17-19 hcp, balanced North leads a fourth-best five of spades. EAST (dummy) T72 T85 T5 AK762 SOUTH (you) Q9 KJ974 J76 JT8 East is pining for the fjords, so dashes out of the room as soon as dummy is displayed. As West leans over to play the ten of spades from dummy at trick one, West inadvertently shows you that West holds the Ace, King and Four of spades. Law 74C5: "...it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card..." Your queen of spades is duly captured by West's king. At trick two declarer plays the four of clubs, partner plays the five of clubs, and dummy plays the six of clubs. You decide to avoid a revoke, so win the trick. What card do you play at trick three? What other cards do you consider playing at trick three? 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 23:20:19 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:20:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> References: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 05/07/07, Nigel wrote: > > [Tim West-Meades] > I have seen it suggested that the EBL has delegated to its member > countries the authority to forbid L12c3 to Appeals Committees. > > However, I can find no record (on the EBL website or elsewhere) of > this having happened. Can anybody shed any light on the issue? > > [nige1] > In the paragraph below, the author takes pains to make it clear that > the WBF Law Committee itself has not changed L12C3. The appeals > committee decided to do so, on its own initiative: Presented with a > fait-accompli, the law-committee seems to have decided to go along > with the appeals-committee's new version of the law, as an interim > measure. > > Disgracefully, The EBU Orange book allows TDs and directors the option > of applying the notorious L12C3. IBTD. I don't find this disgraceful at all. I rather applaud this decision. It is hard to imagine any situation in which a weighted score would > "restore equity" so, in theory, L12C3 should rarely be invoked. > Unfortunately, in practice, directors and committees find it hard to > resist playing with this dangerous and intriguing toy. You seem to equate penalize to equity, which is not at all the same. Have you tried to read what's the scope of the laws? Hence: law-breakers are delighted; victims of infractions are learning > to abandon any hope of justice. I find most of the L12C3 rulings to do justice. If the TD/AC think the score awarded the NOS isn't tough enough for the OS, they might award them some other score (12C3 scores awarded to the two sides don't have to balance) or a PP/DP, depending on the actual case. When weighting the score, one always weighs in favour of the NOS when in doubt. Both as a player, TD and AC-member I like L12C3. The problem with L12C2 if applied by the letter, is that it's far too harsh on the OS (maybe not a big problem if you want to treat all offenders as cheats) and also far too generous for the NOS (which is a problem for the rest of the field). -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran Tim's putative EBL directive (if it exists) is a tentative step in the > right direction. > > Perhaps Richard Hills will again search the locked cabinet in the > disused lavatory with the "Beware of the Leopard" sign? > > [WBFLC 2000] > The Laws Committee not having so far changed Law 12C3, the Appeals > Committee at the World Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued > the following directive to the Chief Tournament Director: "As part of > its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the > Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals > process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the > provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of > the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an > adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve > equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the > Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, > but the fact that a judgmental ruling by the Director is made with > these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and > expert opinion, means that appeals committees will require strong > evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be > varied." The WBF Laws Committee will return to the question of Law > 12C3 at a future time. In the meantime it has stated that it finds it > acceptable if other regulating authorities adopt this method of > achieving the intention of the Code of Practice. > > [Orange Book 7D1A] > L12C3 applies so a TD or appeals committee may vary an assigned > adjusted score in order to achieve equity by assigning weighted scores. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070705/7307d2db/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 11 15:04:14 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:04:14 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Two_UI/AI_cases?= References: <00a901c7c3ac$40752a00$aa9a87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <4694D54E.000004.76977@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > Would you allow : a) a double b) a new-suit bid c) a 2S > bid, each time on a well-textured 9-count? > In other words, what is suggested by the slow pass ? > +=+ The answer to this is 'action other than Pass'. The 9 count is, I assume, within the range for the 1S bid. That being so, I would want a lot of convincing that any action may be allowed other than Pass . Since you ask the question someone somewhere must have taken a different view. I wonder what elephant trap we are walking into? Telling some distinguished and competent AC that it is wrong? That is not for me to do, so let's have the full story. Okay, here is the full story. The hesitation strongly suggests a strong, misfitting hand, so that passing (with vul opponents, for a probable +200) or doubling could be suggested by the hesitation. In that case, bidding 2H (as was made at the table) or 2S could be considered "bending backwards". So I thought it would be interesting to ask. No trap here, except perhaps partner's trap-pass ;-) NB : the TD wasn't called, opener stating that he "would have done the 2H bid himself". 2H, in the 4-3 fit, made 140. 1NT could have gone for 200, but it needs good defensive timing. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070711/babf25e6/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/20070711/babf25e6/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/20070711/babf25e6/attachment-0001.gif From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jul 17 07:58:08 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:58:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00e701c7c837$74c9fee0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Harald Skj?ran" >Both as a player, TD and AC-member I like L12C3. The problem with L12C2 if applied by the letter, is that it's far too harsh on the OS (maybe not a big problem if you want to treat all offenders as cheats) and also far too generous for the NOS (which is a problem for the rest of the field). I take it then that you would change the revoke laws in order to "restore equity" instead of applying the automatic penalty. Most of us players want simple laws that are easy to apply and result in identical penalties or score adjustments for identical irregularities. Like L12C2. Protecting the field is not a legitimate part of the game, nor is the denial of an occasional windfall for the NOS. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jul 16 10:22:37 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:22:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] ? Message-ID: <469B2ACD.3050605@aol.com> I sent you (blml) a contribution yesterday ("severely limited importance") but it has not yet appeared. Why not? JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jul 16 10:52:17 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:52:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: severely limited importance] Message-ID: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: severely limited importance Datum: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:17:49 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: blml-owner at amsterdamned.org "Tolerance is the realisation that it isn't worthwhile to get excited about something" Helmut Qualtinger Duplicate bridge is based on certain fundamental concepts insuring equality. Some are: each player/pair is vulnerable or not vulnerable the (roughly) same amount of hands, each player sits in the 1st position the same amount of times, and the same amount of times as he is second, third or fourth to call. These premises are so fundamental that we rarely even think about them. In most of the clubs in which I play or direct the usual movement is a mitchell with two boards per round. Either complete (for example 13 tables, 26 bds.) or incomplete (17 tables, 34 bds. but each pair plays only 26). I daresay this is valid for the great majority of club games. In some of these clubs there are a few pairs in which one of the players is much stronger than the other and definitely the dominant player of the pair. These pairs have learned to always play EW. In a typical mitchell (example 13 tables) the same player on EW is first hand for the first seven tables played (even amount of tables slightly changes this but a clever EW pair can counteract this) and then third hand for the last six. It is usually possible for them to change positions after the seventh round and no one notices. (Illegal of course, but rarely noticed or enforced.) In an incomplete mitchell (17 tables as above) one player is first hand for the first nine rounds, and third for only four rounds, even if they don't bother to change positions. Can this be remedied? Yes, quite easily. When placing the bds. on the tables work with "double-sets" of tables. That is: table 1, bds. 1 &2; table 2, bds. 5 & 6; table 3, bds. 3 & 4; table 4, bds. 7 & 8. And further in this way. For what it's worth, JE From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 16 11:30:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: >>>One would hope a veil could be drawn over any Hillsian flights of >>>fancy about the legal auction being UI to a player. > > Wikipedia, Straw Man fallacy: > > >One can set up a straw man in the following ways: > > > >1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute > >it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been > >refuted. Fine, but relevant how? You previously wrote: East must assume that the auction has gone: WEST EAST 1NT 2D(1) 2H(2) 4D(3) 4H(4) ? When the legal auction (which East is *always* entitled to know) was something different. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 16 11:31:36 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: severely limited importance] In-Reply-To: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> Message-ID: <000f01c7c78c$1b322b10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > "Tolerance is the realisation that it isn't worthwhile to get excited > about something" Helmut Qualtinger > > Duplicate bridge is based on certain fundamental concepts insuring > equality. Some are: each player/pair is vulnerable or not vulnerable > the (roughly) same amount of hands, each player sits in the 1st position > the same amount of times, and the same amount of times as he is second, > third or fourth to call. These premises are so fundamental that we > rarely even think about them. > > In most of the clubs in which I play or direct the usual movement is a > mitchell with two boards per round. Either complete (for example 13 > tables, 26 bds.) or incomplete (17 tables, 34 bds. but each pair plays > only 26). I daresay this is valid for the great majority of club games. > > In some of these clubs there are a few pairs in which one of the players > is much stronger than the other and definitely the dominant player of > the pair. These pairs have learned to always play EW. In a typical > mitchell (example 13 tables) the same player on EW is first hand for the > first seven tables played (even amount of tables slightly changes this > but a clever EW pair can counteract this) and then third hand for the > last six. It is usually possible for them to change positions after the > seventh round and no one notices. (Illegal of course, but rarely > noticed or enforced.) > In an incomplete mitchell (17 tables as above) one player is first hand > for the first nine rounds, and third for only four rounds, even if they > don't bother to change positions. > Can this be remedied? Yes, quite easily. When placing the bds. on the > tables work with "double-sets" of tables. That is: table 1, bds. 1 &2; > table 2, bds. 5 & 6; table 3, bds. 3 & 4; table 4, bds. 7 & 8. And > further in this way. > > For what it's worth, JE Why not simply try something else than Mitchell? I have noticed that outside Scandinavia Mitchell still seems to be the predominant schedule used. We very seldom use it, not for the reasons discussed above but simply because we in most cases consider even Howell much better than Mitchell unless we have two distinct flights to be seated in the separate directions. (Yes I know about arrow switching, we detest it!) But the normal schedule for pair events here in Norway these days seems to be barometer, either round robin or Swiss pairs. Players love it and I believe it has raised the quality of our events tremendously from the time when traditional Howell or Mitchell were the "only" schedules used. I do know that I may stir up traditional feelings ("we have always done it this way"), but give it a try. I dare say it is well worth the effort. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 16 11:36:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:36:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: severely limited importance] In-Reply-To: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> References: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> Message-ID: <469B3C1C.10905@skynet.be> I think there is a far easier way of dealing with this problem: notice it, tell the pairs that what they are doing is illegal, watch them closely and then punish them if they still do it. I don't believe there are too many players who realize this (I did, and once thought of employing a similar tactic with a weaker partner but decided against it). Those who do are easily discovered, and checked. I even doubt if their partners are aware of it, and if they would allow it to continue if they were. Most weaker players are quite proud of their (limited) abilities and would not play one-way transfers een if they were allowed. Jeff Easterson wrote: > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: severely limited importance > Datum: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:17:49 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: blml-owner at amsterdamned.org > > "Tolerance is the realisation that it isn't worthwhile to get excited > about something" Helmut Qualtinger > > Duplicate bridge is based on certain fundamental concepts insuring > equality. Some are: each player/pair is vulnerable or not vulnerable > the (roughly) same amount of hands, each player sits in the 1st position > the same amount of times, and the same amount of times as he is second, > third or fourth to call. These premises are so fundamental that we > rarely even think about them. > > In most of the clubs in which I play or direct the usual movement is a > mitchell with two boards per round. Either complete (for example 13 > tables, 26 bds.) or incomplete (17 tables, 34 bds. but each pair plays > only 26). I daresay this is valid for the great majority of club games. > > In some of these clubs there are a few pairs in which one of the players > is much stronger than the other and definitely the dominant player of > the pair. These pairs have learned to always play EW. In a typical > mitchell (example 13 tables) the same player on EW is first hand for the > first seven tables played (even amount of tables slightly changes this > but a clever EW pair can counteract this) and then third hand for the > last six. It is usually possible for them to change positions after the > seventh round and no one notices. (Illegal of course, but rarely > noticed or enforced.) > In an incomplete mitchell (17 tables as above) one player is first hand > for the first nine rounds, and third for only four rounds, even if they > don't bother to change positions. > Can this be remedied? Yes, quite easily. When placing the bds. on the > tables work with "double-sets" of tables. That is: table 1, bds. 1 &2; > table 2, bds. 5 & 6; table 3, bds. 3 & 4; table 4, bds. 7 & 8. And > further in this way. > > For what it's worth, JE > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 16 14:05:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: Réf. : Re: [blml] Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469B5CA6.000001.97363@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > AG : The problem, and the reason for my question, is the following > : there are some situations where you're not allowed to use > information that was at your disposal in full legality, because > somebody (especially partner) has reminded you of that information. Maybe, but the L16 intro is unequivocal on this particular one: "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays" Taken together with L20b: "During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated when it is his turn to call, unless he is required by law to pass; Alerts should be included in the restatement." We simply cannot deny knowledge of the *actual* auction to a player. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 16 14:48:57 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:48:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c7c7a7$ad0dd820$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Alain wrote: > > > AG : The problem, and the reason for my question, is the following > > : there are some situations where you're not allowed to use > > information that was at your disposal in full legality, because > > somebody (especially partner) has reminded you of that information. > > Maybe, but the L16 intro is unequivocal on this particular one: "Players > are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal > calls and plays" > Taken together with L20b: "During the auction period, a player is > entitled to have all previous calls restated when it is his turn to call, > unless he is required by law to pass; Alerts should be included in the > restatement." > > We simply cannot deny knowledge of the *actual* auction to a player. But we can deny a player the correct understanding of the auction if it is possible (likely?) that his understanding is the result of unauthorized information. In Norway we deny a player the right to "suddenly remember" an agreement he had apparently forgotten if he effectively has had a reminder from his partner. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 16 15:41:45 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:41:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: 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: <469E7909-67E1-441B-A884-6F44AB71214A@starpower.net> On Jun 28, 2007, at 3:05 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 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. To reinforce Harold's point, one has to wonder how Nigel would want us to deal with the original (albeit quickly superceded) form of "Animal Acol", a system that had its brief moment in the sun 35-40 years ago in the New York area. It mandated evaluation by "losing trick count", which, compared to point-count methods, heavily overvalues distribution relative to to high cards. Unlike subsequent (and rather more playable) variants of AA, it initially abjured the use of point-count altogether. The minimum strength for an opening bid in this system was seven or fewer "unadjusted" losers. Playing this way (I didn't say it was any good, did I?), you opened the bidding as dealer with a 6-6 zero-count, but passed a 4-3-3-3 hand with four aces and four jacks. I don't see how one might translate these requirements into Nigel's "true HCP range" and "other requirements" in any meaningful way. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 12:58:53 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:58:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Off with her head! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 13/07/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C(1) 1S Pass(2) Pass > 1NT(3) Pass 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Precision Club, alerted > (2) 6-8 hcp, alerted > (3) 17-19 hcp, balanced > > North leads a fourth-best five of spades. > > EAST (dummy) > T72 > T85 > T5 > AK762 > SOUTH (you) > Q9 > KJ974 > J76 > JT8 > > East is pining for the fjords, so dashes > out of the room as soon as dummy is > displayed. As West leans over to play > the ten of spades from dummy at trick > one, West inadvertently shows you that > West holds the Ace, King and Four of > spades. > > Law 74C5: > > "...it is appropriate to act on > information acquired by inadvertently > seeing an opponent's card..." > > Your queen of spades is duly captured > by West's king. At trick two declarer > plays the four of clubs, partner plays > the five of clubs, and dummy plays the > six of clubs. You decide to avoid a > revoke, so win the trick. > > What card do you play at trick three? > > What other cards do you consider > playing at trick three? Partner is marked with 6-8 hcp on the bidding. >From your view of declarer's spades and the play in clubs, partner is known to hold the SJ and the CQ, thus hold 3-5 hcp in the red suits. You can count 2 spade and 4 club tricks for declarer. If declarer holds DAKQxx, he could have taken 9 tricks at once, playing for the 3-3 diamond split. If declarer holds AK4 Qx AKQx xxx, you need to switch to a heart to beat the contract. If declarer holds AK4 Qxx AKQx xxx, you need to switch to the HJ, and beats the contract if declarer covers it. If declarer holds AK4 AQx AQxx xxx, he can always win by endplaying partner in spades after having cashed the clubs. So, all in all, your best chance of beating the contract is to continue spades and hope partner holds the DA, then there's nothind declarer can do. The only alternartive is switching to the HJ, hoping for Axx with partner or an erronous cover from declarer holding Qxx. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070716/ecbf65c7/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 16 16:27:24 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:27:24 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Two_UI/AI_cases____=5BS?= =?iso-8859-1?q?EC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <469B804B.000004.97363@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 11/07/2007 03:22:51 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Hills: WEST EAST 1NT 2D(1) 2H(2) 4D(3) 4H(4) ? (1) Transfer to hearts (2) Not a super-accept (3) Splinter bid, slam interest (4) Not interested in slam The unauthorised information that East has received demonstrably suggests bidding slam. AG : after much thought and several exchanges, I still have a problem with this opinion : could Richard explain which part of the information is unauthorised ? I think Tim is right in stating that, according to the introduction to L16, the 3D bid is AI. Well, once again (or rather twice), perfectly mundane problems brought totally opposed and categorical opinions from very experienced contributors. That's a bit perplexing. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070716/fdec5f35/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/20070716/fdec5f35/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/20070716/fdec5f35/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 16 16:30:11 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:30:11 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Rif=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Two_U?= =?iso-8859-1?q?I/AI_cases____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <000001c7c7a7$ad0dd820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <469B80F3.000007.97363@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 16/07/2007 15:17:44 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In Norway we deny a player the right to "suddenly remember" an agreement he had apparently forgotten if he effectively has had a reminder from his partner. AG : granted, but is the situation comparable with the case I told ? Calls and plays are explicitly stated as AI, while you system isn't (proof : you may not look at your CC). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070716/9a5f3ac4/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/20070716/9a5f3ac4/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/20070716/9a5f3ac4/attachment-0001.gif From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 16 17:58:54 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:58:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: 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: <469B95BE.5010304@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. [Harald Skj?ran] 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. [nige2] I don't think that is nearly enough. Not all players are like Harald, happy to learn a radical new evaluation method from scratch, every two boards. I feel that if you invent a sophisticated evaluation method, you must try to disclose your agreement *in simple terms* that your opponents understand. For example, as Richard Willey demonstrated, it is possible to translate any consistent method of evaluation into a true HCP range. If you don't feel that declaring a *true range* is appropriate, I am equally happy with a *decimal range*, as suggested by Tim West-Meades: (You include a point only if you open more than 5% of hands with that number of HCP). For example suppose that your Oslo group open 32% of 11HCP hands and 6% of 19HCP hands, they can declare their range as 11.3-19.1HCP (Walrus decimal notation). Of course, then, I should *also* explain the complete complex evaluation calculation. but the latter seems insufficient, on its own, as opponents are unlikely to grasp it in the time available. Currently, this is all just a matter of opinion. In future, IMO, the basis on which you disclose such things should be a matter of simple law. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 16 18:02:12 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:02:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity Message-ID: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> [nige1] ...Disgracefully, The EBU Orange book allows TDs and directors the option of applying the notorious L12C3. [Harald Skj?ran] IBTD. I don't find this disgraceful at all. I rather applaud this decision. [nige1] It is hard to imagine any situation in which a weighted score would "restore equity" so, in theory, L12C3 should rarely be invoked. Unfortunately, in practice, directors and committees find it hard to resist playing with this dangerous and intriguing toy. [Harald] You seem to equate penalize to equity, which is not at all the same. Have you tried to read what's the scope of the laws? [nige1] Hence: law-breakers are delighted; victims of infractions are learning to abandon any hope of justice. [Harald] I find most of the L12C3 rulings to do justice. If the TD/AC think the score awarded the NOS isn't tough enough for the OS, they might award them some other score (12C3 scores awarded to the two sides don't have to balance) or a PP/DP, depending on the actual case. When weighting the score, one always weighs in favour of the NOS when in doubt. Both as a player, TD and AC-member I like L12C3. The problem with L12C2 if applied by the letter, is that it's far too harsh on the OS (maybe not a big problem if you want to treat all offenders as cheats) and also far too generous for the NOS (which is a problem for a while) [nige2] I prefer the normal definition of "Equity" -- roughly -- "Fairness, lack of bias, consistency". I certainly don't equate "Penalize" to "Equity". That would be as ludicrous a definition as "Restoring the status quo" -- the bizarre interpretation, seemingly preferred by some law-makers. Bridge Law currently encourages infraction in the following ways... Some infractions go unnoticed. Few players know the law. So other infractions go unrecognised. Regular law-breakers regard a director call as a personal affront. Players balk at reporting an infraction because it can be such a daunting and traumatic experience. As a tournament progresses, more and more pairs fall out of contention. Such pairs have no incentive to call the director even when they do notice an infraction. They certainly will not appeal a ruling in their opponents' favour. Even without L12C3, regulations are heavily biassed against victims of infraction, especially the less experienced. For example, in many jurisdictions, you lose the right to redress, if you "fail to protect yourself" (when, for example, opponents fail to alert). Another example. The director will often deny compensation to victims of an infraction who subsequently take an action, deemed to be "wild and gambling". The prospect of insult being added to injury, in these ways, further deters the victims of infraction from calling the director. In spite of all this, some infractions are reported and a few do attract adverse rulings. Under L12C3 rulings, persistent law-breakers still escape with a substantial net profit (assuming that, when, eventually, they are unlucky enough to be reported and ruled against, they avoid that particular offence for a while). Harald says that a director can impose procedural and disciplinary penalties as a last ditch attempt at equity. In practice, PPs and DPs are a futile and belated attempt to close the stable door. IMO, directors seem to find it hard to impose such penalties, especially on friends or compatriots. It is no surprise that these penalties are so rare and so inconsistenlty applied. Many regard such rulings as slanderous. They make no attempt to provide redress to the victims. So they further discourage the reporting of infractions. Few BLMLers attempt to refute the central arguments above; preferring instead to be sidetracked into attacking straw-men. For example, please may we shred and burn a favourite straw man, one final time. Most regular law-breakers are *not cheats*. A few persistent law-breakers are ignorant or careless; but, IMO, many rationalise their illegal actions... Respected senior BLMLers sometimes argue that some action is legal -- although the consensus is that what they do is against the Rules of Bridge. Analogously, we ordinary players sometimes delude ourselves in similar but less sophisticated ways. IMO, to become equitable, Bridge Law should be more deterrent and less biassed in favour or law-breakers. In the long-term, continuing to actively encourage infraction is likely to have an adverse effect on our enjoyment of the game. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 18:08:32 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:08:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <469B95BE.5010304@NTLworld.com> References: <000f01c7b4ba$3c936d80$0201a8c0@PAPA> <2da24b8e0706261006p649f5003u4ba83409fbc2c67a@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0706261041x5d59b215tdb19a60eb7d80f64@mail.gmail.com> <4681AA56.2050208@NTLworld.com> <46829C66.4040903@NTLworld.com> <4682B5FC.20301@NTLworld.com> <469B95BE.5010304@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707160908qbeb3da1h98cc8b14ecd6ffa9@mail.gmail.com> > I feel that if you invent a sophisticated evaluation method, you must > try to disclose your agreement *in simple terms* that your opponents > understand. > > For example, as Richard Willey demonstrated, it is possible to > translate any consistent method of evaluation into a true HCP range. It is critical that you recall the necessary corollary: The information that you are calling the "True High Card Point range" doesn't provide useful (actionable) information. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 16 18:13:28 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:13:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] adjudication In-Reply-To: <469B95BE.5010304@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> <469B95BE.5010304@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <469B9928.7030107@NTLworld.com> I wrote "For example suppose that your Oslo group open 32% of 11HCP hands and 6% of 19HCP hands, they can declare their range as 11.3-19.1HCP (Walrus decimal notation). That should read 11.7-19.1 HCP. Sorry From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 20:33:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:33:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> > > [nige2] > > In spite of all this, some infractions are reported and a few do > attract adverse rulings. Under L12C3 rulings, persistent law-breakers > still escape with a substantial net profit (assuming that, when, > eventually, they are unlucky enough to be reported and ruled against, > they avoid that particular offence for a while). > I don't fully understand the paranthetical. Can you give an example explaining what you mean? -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 20:46:06 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:46:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: severely limited importance] In-Reply-To: <469B3C1C.10905@skynet.be> References: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> <469B3C1C.10905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707161146j6f7e3473h233e8b2bc694901c@mail.gmail.com> [Jeff] > In an incomplete mitchell (17 tables as above) one player is first hand > for the first nine rounds, and third for only four rounds, even if they > don't bother to change positions. > ... [Herman:] > I think there is a far easier way of dealing with this problem: > notice it, tell the pairs that what they are doing is illegal, watch > them closely and then punish them if they still do it. Herman, I know that West and East switching directions during the round is illegal, but Jeff was also referring to just choosing to play West or East and knowingly getting to open more hands in an incomplete Mitchell "even if they don't bother to change positions". Are you saying the latter is illegal? Also, what punishment do you have in mind? -Jerry Fusselman From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 20:25:19 2007 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:25:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: <468C17D0.3070906@NTLworld.com> References: <000301c7bca8$aa2d94b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4689155E.7050803@meteo.fr> <468A8D61.7020806@NTLworld.com> <468B99E5.7090803@NTLworld.com> <003201c7be4b$c2e59940$0701a8c0@john> <468BD3C9.1080606@meteo.fr> <468C17D0.3070906@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 7/4/07, Nigel wrote: > > [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] > unfortunately, i am afraid there is more of a difference. the > "classical" notation 12-14, for a walrus needs the set of 3 integer > numbers (12, 13, 14) in which 12 shows a hand of precisely 12 hcp > the same notation means about the same thing for a non-walrus: the set > of 3 numbers (12, 13, 14) in which 12 shows a hand the value of which > approximates a mean hand of 12 hcp, maybe it is a hand of 12 hcp, > maybe a weak 13 hcp hand which looks more like 12 than 13, maybe a > strong 11 hcp hand... > > when using the continuous notation (with real numbers or decimal > numbers as you see fit) 12.0-14.0 means the interval [12,14] that is > to say the set of all numbers greater than 12 and lower than 14. > > unfortunately if you want to make a correspondance between both > notations, you must use different numbers: the equivalent of the set > of 3 numbers 12-14, is the interval 11.5-14.5. in order to avoid > confusion the first thing to do if wanting to use a continuous scale, > would be to use the correct notation [11.5, 14.5] with brackets > instead of the ambiguous 11.5-14.5 > > {nige1] > > Or... using the Walrus variation 12.0-15.0, as previously explained. > > Or... Jean-Pierre might prefer [12.0, 15.0) because the "*real > interval*" is *closed below* but *open above*. > > Strictly, of course, *none are real intervals* because the number of > bridge hands is finite :) as any walrus could tell you :) What all of this about high card point ranges seems to overlook is that some, (are they called Zonal Authorities?). the ACBL for example, regulate conventional responses to 1NT openers based on the width of the range (presumably measured in Work HCP). How is a TD to interpret such a regulation in the face of a disclosure of a pairs NT range as a probabilistic measure? Or is it the view of people who are trying to get such information into disclosure that such a regulation is not legitimate? Thanks Collins > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070716/2c806d25/attachment-0001.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 16 21:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7c7a7$ad0dd820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > We simply cannot deny knowledge of the *actual* auction to a > > player. > > But we can deny a player the correct understanding of the auction > if it is possible (likely?) that his understanding is the result of > unauthorized information. Sure Sven, but there has been no suggestion that the 3D bid would have been interpreted as anything other than some sort of super-accept and there is no UI about the 3D bid in this instance. It remains AI that the auction was 1N-2H-3D-4D-4H and *that* is knowledge we cannot deny the 4D bidder. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 16 22:45:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:45:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] severely limited importance In-Reply-To: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> References: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> Message-ID: <35937070-B4FC-4ACA-A29C-7A0FBFC81C36@starpower.net> On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:52 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > In some of these clubs there are a few pairs in which one of the > players > is much stronger than the other and definitely the dominant player of > the pair. These pairs have learned to always play EW. In a typical > mitchell (example 13 tables) the same player on EW is first hand > for the > first seven tables played (even amount of tables slightly changes this > but a clever EW pair can counteract this) and then third hand for the > last six. It is usually possible for them to change positions > after the > seventh round and no one notices. (Illegal of course, but rarely > noticed or enforced.) JOOC, do these pairs put their stronger player in 1st/2nd seat or in 3rd/4th seat? My intuition says that you would want your stronger declarer in 1st/ 2nd, but would want the player with the more acute bidding judgment in 3rd/4th. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 16 23:13:45 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:13:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c7c7ee$31ce0e40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: 16. juli 2007 21:12 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sven wrote: > > > > We simply cannot deny knowledge of the *actual* auction to a > > > player. > > > > But we can deny a player the correct understanding of the auction > > if it is possible (likely?) that his understanding is the result of > > unauthorized information. > > Sure Sven, but there has been no suggestion that the 3D bid would have > been interpreted as anything other than some sort of super-accept and > there is no UI about the 3D bid in this instance. > > It remains AI that the auction was 1N-2H-3D-4D-4H and *that* is knowledge > we cannot deny the 4D bidder. Absolutely true, and I was noting a general approach to differentiating between authorized and unauthorized information from an auction. (In my copy of the thread the 3D bid was actually written $$$ so I was rather confused for a long time wondering what was the problem) regards Sven From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 17 01:28:05 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:28:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] severely limited importance References: <469B31C1.8030605@aol.com> <35937070-B4FC-4ACA-A29C-7A0FBFC81C36@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01c7c800$f63b8700$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] severely limited importance > On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:52 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > snip >> after the >> seventh round and no one notices. (Illegal of course, but rarely >> noticed or enforced.) > > JOOC, do these pairs put their stronger player in 1st/2nd seat or in > 3rd/4th seat? "Even beginners can get the opening bid right, it goes rapidly downhill from the reponse onwards" ~ attrib. one of the Am. pros. > > My intuition says that you would want your stronger declarer in 1st/ > 2nd, but would want the player with the more acute bidding judgment > in 3rd/4th. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 17 02:50:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:50:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads questioned: >Fine, but relevant how? You previously wrote: > >East must assume that the auction has gone: > >WEST EAST >1NT 2D(1) >2H(2) 4D(3) >4H(4) ? > >When the legal auction (which East is *always* entitled >to know) was something different. Richard Hills relevantises: Not *always*. If East has misinterpreted the authorised- to-know legal auction, but an infraction of the footnote to Law 40E2 and Law 73A1 by West, "Pard, you did not have to use the Stop! card for your 4D bid," causes East to re-examine the authorised-to-know legal auction, then the unauthorised information from West means that East must proceed in accordance with East's original misinterpretation. Similar reasoning applies to East forgetting their authorised-to-know partnership agreement, but an alert or failure to alert by West awakening East to their error. Alain Gottcheiner concurred: >there are some situations where you're not allowed to >use information that was at your disposal in full >legality, because somebody (especially partner) has >reminded you of that information. Tim West-Meads unequivocated: >Maybe, but the L16 intro is unequivocal on this >particular one: "Players are authorised to base their >calls and plays on information from legal calls and >plays" Richard Hills re-unequivocates: An analogy from the calculus could be used here. The first derivative is "authorised to base". The second derivative is "authorised to be reminded of". And the footnote to Law 40E2 and Law 73A1 are unequivocal - a second derivative reminder from partner is *not* authorised. 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 Tue Jul 17 03:25:19 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:25:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> [nige2] In spite of all this, some infractions are reported and a few do attract adverse rulings. Under L12C3 rulings, persistent law-breakers still escape with a substantial net profit (assuming that, when, eventually, they are unlucky enough to be reported and ruled against, they avoid that particular offence for a while). [Jerry Fuesselman] I don't fully understand the paranthetical. Can you give an example explaining what you mean? [nige2] I'm sure that Jerry understands my simple straightforward English but I'll play along to discover his punchline :) I mean that... With luck and care, regular law-breakers will escape adverse rulings (for reasons already explained in the post that Jerry has just read). If the law-breakers are unfortunate enough to be reported and ruled against, however, then they would be well advised to eschew that infraction for the remainder of the event, so as to avoid the possibility of a procedural or disciplinary penalty. In the rare and unlikely event that the infraction has been recorded, they should avoid an identical offence, in the same jurisdiction, for a while. I assume that, like prominent BLMLers, the putative "law-breakers" believe that the normal interpretation of the law is wrong in this instance, so that they are not, in fact, committing any offence. Let me hasten to clarify that I, personally, disagree that you have a license to "break" a law, simply because you interpret it in peculiar way. But some high profile BLMlers publicly state that they *do* break such laws (as interpreted by most). Ordinary players who lack the time and legal sophistication to explore the maze of rule ramifications have an easier time rationalising their habitual infractions. A concrete example? Threr are several but most take a long time to explain. Here is a simple one that may ring a bell (but please do not take this version too seriously): You believe that you are acting within the law to open one heart, in third seat, when you have 0-5 HCP, whatever the rest of your hand. You don't disclose this convention to your opponents but regular partners (and readers of BLML) know of your habit. You are adamant that this is perfectly legal, in spite of a horrified clamour of protest from anybody with a smattering of relevant law :) You are likely to get away with this several times before a director is called :) :) :) Suppose, at last, litigious opponents call a punctilious director, who fails to recognise you, undertakes a thorough investigation, and eventually has the effrontery to rule against you :( I suggest that, however self-righteous you feel, you should *not appeal* :( Furthermore, you should *avoid this gambit* for the rest of the event :( :( :( and, perhaps, even longer if some officious jobsworth has the cheek to record it (: (: (: :( :( :( IMO, if you are an ordinary player and blatantly continue, you are risking a severe disciplinary penalty. You can console yourself with the thought that if the law *encouraged* victims to report infractions (with deterrent rulings that provided consistent and generous redress to the victims), then it would be harder to get away with this kind of thing. But don't worry too much. The concept of "Equity" (in the dictionary sense of the word) seems foreign the the collective mind of WBFLC. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 17 04:30:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:30:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Off with her head! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: >Partner is marked with 6-8 hcp on the bidding. > >From your view of declarer's spades and the play in clubs, >partner is known to hold the SJ and the CQ, thus hold 3-5 hcp in >the red suits. > >You can count 2 spade and 4 club tricks for declarer. > >If declarer holds AK4 Qx AKQx xxx, you need to switch to a heart >to beat the contract. Richard Hills: No, you need to summon the Director, since declarer has only twelve cards. Harald Skj?ran: [snip] >If declarer holds AK4 Qxx AKQx xxx, you need to switch to the >HJ, and beats the contract if declarer covers it. > >If declarer holds DAKQxx, he could have taken 9 tricks at once, >playing for the 3-3 diamond split. > >So, all in all, your best chance of beating the contract is to >continue spades and hope partner holds the DA, then there's >nothing declarer can do. Richard Hills: An interesting point of game theory - a 68% chance of a 3-2 club break is better than a 36% chance of a 3-3 diamond break, so if declarer holds Qx in hearts and AKQxx in diamonds, declarer may well smoothly duck a club at trick three, judging that there is a better than 36% chance of a spade continuation. Harald Skj?ran: >The only alternative is switching to the HJ, hoping for Axx >with partner or an erroneous cover from declarer holding Qxx. Richard Hills: Yes, the possibility of an erroneous cover in an "unbeatable" 3NT contract was a factor that the original Appeals Committee ignored, as it only assessed the less likely possibility that West held a doubleton heart queen, rather than the highly likely possibility that West held a tripleton heart queen and would carelessly cover an honour with an honour. The complete deal: AJ653 63 9432 Q5 K84 T72 AQ2 T85 AKQ8 T5 943 AK762 Q9 KJ974 J76 JT8 West hesitated a long time before playing the ten of spades at trick one, then hesitated again before playing the king of spades on the queen. South foolishly assumed that West had a bridge reason for both hesitations - a holding of AKx in spades - so South chose the unsuccessful switch to the Jack of hearts at trick three. -400. 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 Tue Jul 17 07:44:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:44:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Equity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469B9684.5040001@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I prefer the normal definition of "Equity" -- roughly -- "Fairness, >lack of bias, consistency". Richard Hills: And I prefer the normal definition of "Rank" -- roughly -- "Rancid". :-) >From the June thread, "Law 1 - mephitic order" >>it is easy to recklessly misinterpret Law if one chooses to >>abandon the principle that words and Laws should be interpreted in >>context. Law 84D (Director's Option): "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified penalty and the award of an adjusted score, he attempts to restore *equity*, resolving any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side." Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >For example, please may we shred and burn a favourite straw man, >one final time. > >Most regular law-breakers are *not cheats*. Richard Hills: Indeed, most regular law-breakers - such as Mrs Guggenheim, who regularly and carelessly revokes - damage their own cause. Not only does Mrs Guggenheim get a worse score than if she had not revoked, but she is so flustered by her error that she plays badly on the next deal. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >IMO, to become equitable, Bridge Law should be more deterrent and >less biased in favour of law-breakers. Richard Hills: The David Burn Death Penalty for revokes, the offending side losing the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks, would be less biased in favour of Mrs Guggenheim than the current rules. But such a Death Penalty would offend Mrs Guggenheim's sense of equity and justice, so she would abandon bridge and take up bingo instead. Nigel Guthrie: >In the long-term, continuing to actively encourage infraction is >likely to have an adverse effect on our enjoyment of the game. Richard Hills: In the short term, draconian "punishment does not fit the crime" Death Penalties would offend my sense of equity and justice, so cause me to abandon bridge and take up multi-player strategy boardgames instead. Off-topic note - see the website BoardGameGeek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/newuser.php Anyway, debate on what the Laws of Bridge *should* say is moot until circa 2015. Grattan Endicott, "Multiple infractions" thread, 3rd July 2007: >>> ... Shanghai ... the next Code of Laws imminently to be >>>implemented. >>> ~ 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 16 14:17:37 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:17:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000801c7c848$63ec0080$32cd87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we will discuss your options afterwards." ~ Bill Shankly. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: Harald Skj?ran To: BLML Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 +=+ Harald quotes Nigel Guthrie, as set out below. I do not see anywhere here a change of law. What I see is establishment of an appeals procedure under Law 80G. The Appeals Committee, and not the Laws Committee, is mandated by WBF statute to set up and control procedures of appeal. Is Nigel seeking to deny the Appeals Committee its statutory powers? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- [nige1] In the paragraph below, the author takes pains to make it clear that the WBF Law Committee itself has not changed L12C3. The appeals committee decided to do so, on its own initiative: Presented with a fait-accompli, the law-committee seems to have decided to go along with the appeals-committee's new version of the law, as an interim measure. .................................. \x/ ................................ [WBFLC 2000] The Laws Committee not having so far changed Law 12C3, the Appeals Committee at the World Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued the following directive to the Chief Tournament Director: "As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but the fact that a judgmental ruling by the Director is made with these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert opinion, means that appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." The WBF Laws Committee will return to the question of Law 12C3 at a future time. In the meantime it has stated that it finds it acceptable if other regulating authorities adopt this method of achieving the intention of the Code of Practice. ========================================== From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 17 10:17:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:17:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> For some reason I feel personally involved in this discussion ... Nigel wrote: > [nige2] > In spite of all this, some infractions are reported and a few do > attract adverse rulings. Under L12C3 rulings, persistent law-breakers > still escape with a substantial net profit (assuming that, when, > eventually, they are unlucky enough to be reported and ruled against, > they avoid that particular offence for a while). > > [Jerry Fuesselman] > I don't fully understand the paranthetical. Can you give an example > explaining what you mean? > I don't really see how L12C3 rulings are needed with "persistent law breakers". L12C3 is used on ordinary cases of MI. I know of few "persistent" MI offenders. In cases where people generally give too little information, I doubt if L12C2 corrections are enough to counteract them. But let's read on. > [nige2] > > I'm sure that Jerry understands my simple straightforward English but > I'll play along to discover his punchline :) I mean that... > > With luck and care, regular law-breakers will escape adverse rulings > (for reasons already explained in the post that Jerry has just read). > > If the law-breakers are unfortunate enough to be reported and ruled > against, however, then they would be well advised to eschew that > infraction for the remainder of the event, so as to avoid the > possibility of a procedural or disciplinary penalty. > > In the rare and unlikely event that the infraction has been recorded, > they should avoid an identical offence, in the same jurisdiction, for > a while. > > I assume that, like prominent BLMLers, the putative "law-breakers" > believe that the normal interpretation of the law is wrong in this > instance, so that they are not, in fact, committing any offence. > > Let me hasten to clarify that I, personally, disagree that you have a > license to "break" a law, simply because you interpret it in peculiar > way. But some high profile BLMlers publicly state that they *do* break > such laws (as interpreted by most). > Ehm ... You don't believe that a person has a right to break a law which he thinks he is not breaking? Simply because a "majority" has a particular interpretation of that law? What you are saying is that this person is not allowed to hold a minority interpretation then? And of course the majority interpretation is yours. No need to consult anyone else, you decide what the majority interpretation is? > Ordinary players who lack the time and legal sophistication to explore > the maze of rule ramifications have an easier time rationalising their > habitual infractions. > > A concrete example? Threr are several but most take a long time to > explain. Here is a simple one that may ring a bell (but please do not > take this version too seriously): > Why should we take anything you write with any degree of seriousness? > You believe that you are acting within the law to open one heart, in > third seat, when you have 0-5 HCP, whatever the rest of your hand. You > don't disclose this convention to your opponents but regular partners > (and readers of BLML) know of your habit. > I believe that I am acting within the law to open whatever I damn well choose. L40A says so. Where I would not be acting within the law is if I were to do so as a "convention". Your simple mention of the word "convention" in the second sentenc is a straw argument. Of course it would be illegal if it were a convention. I maintain that it isn't and your simple calling it thus does not make it so. OK? And as far as I know, Habits don't create conventions. They create knowledge of habits, knowledge which must be disclosed, which it is. > You are adamant that this is perfectly legal, in spite of a horrified > clamour of protest from anybody with a smattering of relevant law :) I have a "smattering of relevant law". I don't protest. There are others. But of course, we live on planet Nigel, where only the protest of Nigel is relevant. > You are likely to get away with this several times before a director > is called :) :) :) Suppose, at last, litigious opponents call a > punctilious director, who fails to recognise you, undertakes a > thorough investigation, and eventually has the effrontery to rule > against you :( > On the basis of which law? The only law I could see is if I did it too many times - which is contradicted by your idea that this TD does not know me ... > I suggest that, however self-righteous you feel, you should *not > appeal* :( > > Furthermore, you should *avoid this gambit* for the rest of the event > :( :( :( and, perhaps, even longer if some officious jobsworth has > the cheek to record it (: (: (: :( :( :( > considering that the specific circumstances for this opening arrive about once every six months, there is little chance that I will have to "avoid the gambit". > IMO, if you are an ordinary player and blatantly continue, you are > risking a severe disciplinary penalty. > > You can console yourself with the thought that if the law *encouraged* > victims to report infractions (with deterrent rulings that provided > consistent and generous redress to the victims), then it would be > harder to get away with this kind of thing. > > But don't worry too much. The concept of "Equity" (in the dictionary > sense of the word) seems foreign the the collective mind of WBFLC. > And then the question is left - what has any of this got to do with a discussion of L12C3? Even if this "infraction" is ruled against, what AS do you suggest and how would that differ under L12C2 or L12C3? Really Nigel, I am going to follow advice given to me recently and stop reading some posters and/or reacting to them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 17 13:37:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Richard Hills relevantises: > > Not *always*. If East has misinterpreted the authorised- > to-know legal auction, but an infraction of the footnote > to Law 40E2 and Law 73A1 by West, "Pard, you did not have > to use the Stop! card for your 4D bid," causes East to > re-examine the authorised-to-know legal auction, then the > unauthorised information from West means that East must > proceed in accordance with East's original misinterpretation. No it doesn't. The legal auction is still and always AI. There is UI in the fact that parter drew attention to the stop card irregularity. There is UI in the "stop" itself. I'm not convinced either of those suggests very much but would bear it in mind if ruling. BTW according to my calculations there's only a 1 in 3 chance that it was the partner who drew attention to the "stop" in the original case. > Similar reasoning applies to East forgetting their > authorised-to-know partnership agreement, but an alert or > failure to alert by West awakening East to their error. L16 does not start by saying "..their system and partner's alerts.." > An analogy from the calculus could be used here. The > first derivative is "authorised to base". The second > derivative is "authorised to be reminded of". And the > footnote to Law 40E2 and Law 73A1 are unequivocal - a > second derivative reminder from partner is *not* > authorised. The footnote to Law40e2 is a red herring. The Bidding cards being on the table is not an "artificial aid" (and a player is always entitled to a restatement of the auction). I have not disputed the fact that partner's *reminder* is, of itself, UI. Bear in mind that if it was the partner (rather than an opp) who drew attention and the TD wasn't called immediately (he wasn't in the original case) I can penalise that partner as much as I want for failure to call before bidding 4H. I'll deal appropriately with any illegal communication without having to forbid a player from knowing the auction. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 17 13:37:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Collins Williams" wrote: > > What all of this about high card point ranges seems to overlook is > that some, (are they called Zonal Authorities?). System regulations are matter for the Sponsoring Organisation which might the WBF (for a world event), a Zonal Org/National Authority/County/District/Club/Charity or even an individual. > the ACBL for example, regulate conventional > responses to 1NT openers based on the width of the range (presumably > measured in Work HCP). > > How is a TD to interpret such a regulation in the face of a > disclosure of a pairs NT range as a probabilistic measure? The TD makes a judgement as to whether the range of hands covered by the probabilistic agreement is wider than the range permitted. For example if the permitted range was 5Hcp and the probabilistic range included 5% of 11 and 17 counts and only 15% of 12/16s I'd judge it to be within legal tolerances (it covers many fewer hands than a Walrus 12-16). > Or is it the view of people who are trying to get such information > into disclosure that such a regulation is not legitimate? Such regulations are legal - reprehensible and morally abhorrent IMO - but legal. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 13:53:31 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:53:31 +1200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707170453yc8ea6ffr8777f2e21582f231@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:37 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > "Collins Williams" wrote: > > > > What all of this about high card point ranges seems to overlook is > > that some, (are they called Zonal Authorities?). > > System regulations are matter for the Sponsoring Organisation which might > the WBF (for a world event), a Zonal Org/National > Authority/County/District/Club/Charity or even an individual. > > > the ACBL for example, regulate conventional > > responses to 1NT openers based on the width of the range (presumably > > measured in Work HCP). > > > > How is a TD to interpret such a regulation in the face of a > > disclosure of a pairs NT range as a probabilistic measure? > > The TD makes a judgement as to whether the range of hands covered by the > probabilistic agreement is wider than the range permitted. > For example if the permitted range was 5Hcp and the probabilistic range > included 5% of 11 and 17 counts and only 15% of 12/16s I'd judge it to be > within legal tolerances (it covers many fewer hands than a Walrus 12-16). This might be practical and sensible but I don't like it when the regulation is interpreted in a way that is in conflict with standard usage of a word. 'Range' normally means the biggest value less the smallest value and I can see no reason not to interpret it as such here. The problem of course is an implicit assumption by the Walrus who happened to write the regulations that everyone uses hcp to evaluate their hands. > > > Or is it the view of people who are trying to get such information > > into disclosure that such a regulation is not legitimate? > > Such regulations are legal - reprehensible and morally abhorrent IMO - > but legal. > Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 17 15:06:03 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:06:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <000801c7c848$63ec0080$32cd87d9@Hellen> References: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> <000801c7c848$63ec0080$32cd87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <469CBEBB.3000009@NTLworld.com> [nige1] In the paragraph below, the author takes pains to make it clear that the WBF Law Committee itself has not changed L12C3. The appeals committee decided to do so, on its own initiative: Presented with a fait-accompli, the law-committee seems to have decided to go along with the appeals-committee's new version of the law, as an interim measure. [WBFLC 2000] The Laws Committee not having so far changed Law 12C3, the Appeals Committee at the World Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued the following directive to the Chief Tournament Director: "As part of its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, but the fact that a judgmental ruling by the Director is made with these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and expert opinion, means that appeals committees will require strong evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be varied." The WBF Laws Committee will return to the question of Law 12C3 at a future time. In the meantime it has stated that it finds it acceptable if other regulating authorities adopt this method of achieving the intention of the Code of Practice. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Harald quotes Nigel Guthrie, as set out below. I do not see anywhere here a change of law. What I see is establishment of an appeals procedure under Law 80G. The Appeals Committee, and not the Laws Committee, is mandated by WBF statute to set up and control procedures of appeal. Is Nigel seeking to deny the Appeals Committee its statutory powers. [nige2] I'm slowly learning a lesson from BLML discussion and letters to law-comittees: it is futile for an ordinary player to seek to influence any of the current legal establishment in any way :( Still it's challenging and amusing to try :) The appeals committee did change the law. As I understand it, Law 12C3 lets the *appeals committee* reduce the penalty/redress awarded under 12C2. The appeals committee decided to change L12C3 to devolve this power to the *Chief tournament director*. Players can of course, appeal such rulings, but, IMO, this change in law has no more directly to do with appeals procedure than any other change in law. The new law has manifest benefits: law-breakers are delighted with reduced penalties, so directors have an easier (and more interesting) job. Justice and the victim are the losers. The victim, deprived of compensation, tends to grit his teeth and bear it, realising that protest and appeal are likely to be unproductive. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 17 15:32:59 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:32:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <469CC50B.3070100@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] Really Nigel, I am going to follow advice given to me recently and stop reading some posters and/or reacting to them. [nige1] I apologise that my light treatment of a serious subject has offended Herman. I admire Herman for publicly advertising and defending actions that he believes to be right -- although, I feel it would be better to refrain from such actions until the law is clarified. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 17 15:40:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:40:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 -- OT nitpick In-Reply-To: <000801c7c848$63ec0080$32cd87d9@Hellen> References: <468CF1C6.90101@NTLworld.com> <000801c7c848$63ec0080$32cd87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <151A6CEF-3B4F-45B6-B59B-710AE3C095C4@starpower.net> On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > [WBFLC 2000] > The Laws Committee not having so far changed Law 12C3, the Appeals > Committee at the World Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued > the following directive to the Chief Tournament Director: "As part of > its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the > Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals > process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the > provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of > the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an > adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve > equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the > Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling, > but the fact that a judgmental ruling by the Director is made with > these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and > expert opinion, means that appeals committees will require strong > evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be > varied." The WBF Laws Committee will return to the question of Law > 12C3 at a future time. In the meantime it has stated that it finds it > acceptable if other regulating authorities adopt this method of > achieving the intention of the Code of Practice. "...requires the Chief Director of his own volition..."? Isn't that a textbook example of a self-contradiction? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 17 16:46:27 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:46:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <469CD643.3010908@NTLworld.com> [Herman de Wael -- current topic] I believe that I am acting within the law to open whatever I damn well choose. L40A says so. Where I would not be acting within the law is if I were to do so as a "convention". Your simple mention of the word "convention" in the second sentence is a straw argument. Of course it would be illegal if it were a convention. I maintain that it isn't and your simple calling it thus does not make it so. OK? And as far as I know, Habits don't create conventions. They create knowledge of habits, knowledge which must be disclosed, which it is. [Herman de Wael -- topic "I did it again" 18-May-2005] And this is where we part company. You are correct in the sense that opponents are entitled to know this. You are correct in the sense that they do not know it, because we have not found a way to properly disclose it. But you are not correct in concluding malicious intent from this. It is impossible to alert all bids and explain "might be psychic". That much ought to be covered in "general bridge knowledge". I opened 2000 third-in-hand 1H's in the past twelve months. Impossible to alert them all. It is equally impracticable to pre-announce a psychic tendency. It is practicable to put something on the CC. But the problem with that one is that many directors will not allow it. Erroneously, but there. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 17 11:28:00 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:28:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000701c7c886$921b3d20$ae9c87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we will discuss your options afterwards." ~ Bill Shankly. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Law 84D (Director's Option): > > "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified penalty > and the award of an adjusted score, he attempts to restore *equity*, > resolving any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side." > +=+ 'Attempts to' is right - it does not say 'he restores' since rarely may an absolute equity be achievable. +=+ > > In the short term, draconian "punishment does not fit the crime" > Death Penalties would offend my sense of equity and justice, > +=+ Administration of the game calls for avoidance of conditions that will drive players away in numbers. +=+ < < > Grattan Endicott, "Multiple infractions" thread, 3rd July 2007: > >>>> ... Shanghai ... the next Code of Laws imminently to be >>>>implemented. > +=+ Richard, you were a mite harsh in this response. I have no wish to stifle the opinions, however unlikely of implementation, of such as Nigel. Much occasions no more than a wry smile and the delete button, but occasionally, one could say rarely, amongst the slurry one catches the sparkle of a tiny diamond to be sieved, washed, cut and polished. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 17 18:29:52 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:29:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> References: <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070717180806.0282a050@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:17 17/07/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > You believe that you are acting within the law to open one heart, in > > third seat, when you have 0-5 HCP, whatever the rest of your hand. You > > don't disclose this convention to your opponents but regular partners > > (and readers of BLML) know of your habit. > > > >I believe that I am acting within the law to open whatever I damn well >choose. L40A says so. Where I would not be acting within the law is if >I were to do so as a "convention". Your simple mention of the word >"convention" in the second sentenc is a straw argument. Of course it >would be illegal if it were a convention. I maintain that it isn't and >your simple calling it thus does not make it so. OK? >And as far as I know, Habits don't create conventions. They create >knowledge of habits, knowledge which must be disclosed, which it is. Of course, what psyches you're prone to produce isn't a convention, but it's an important piece of knowledge. The problem is indeed equity, here. When I play against Herman, I'll be wary of his Spanish 1H's, because he spoke and wrote to me about his habit. Other competitors are entitled to the same knowledge. Whence such an habit should be displayed explicitly on his CC, under the heading "psychics" and/or "important notes", and in a such a way as to attract attention (bold font). Exactly in the same way as pairs who frequently adjust ranges should write it in a very conspicuous way. Or pairs who frequently adjust patterns (I'm within this group : weak suits are often shown as if one card shorter). I know of a pair, not a pair anymore but still friends, who wrote on their CC, under the heading "psyches" : "only when angry". Well, if that's the case (it was), it's knowledge of partner's habits, so must be disclosed. Because it would be impractical to alert a possible psyche as such every time (especially in the latter case, because you aren't allowed to alert a bid according to table situation), you have to disclose it otherwise. And because it's rather important for understanding auctions, it should be put to the fore in every possible way. Another example of those things that should be made especially conspicuous is the fact that some openings differ according to vulnerability. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious all along my message, but I intended to stress one thing : you're both splitting hairs here, arguing about whether something is a convention or not. The fact that ranges are a convention while psyches aren't isn't relevant : they are allowed to know about it before the round begins, in both cases. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 17 19:14:41 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:14:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... Message-ID: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> Many rules in the law-book need clarification. For example, psyching is a thorny and contentious subject. The first step would be to define a useful vocabulary. Another questio is whether misinfornation is worse that unauthorised information (De WAel et al) Here are some other concrete examples. Please supply more... [L76B, TFLB, 1997] A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director. [nige1] In its present form, this law it needs clarification. Does it mean that a conscientious director, at his discretion, *can* ask spectators to draw his attention to any irregularities that they happen to notice? Some say that the comma precludes such an interpretation. Anyway, IMO law 76B should be scrapped. Surely the law should *encourage* spectators to report infractions, as would be expected of any good citizen who witnessed law-breaking? If current law applied in 1965, then Reese and Schapiro were illegally convicted! [L81C6, TFLB, 1997] The Director?s duties and powers normally include the following... ...to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. [nige1] Many law-makers and directors express the opinion that the director should avoid interference unless called by a player; they argue that singling out a particular table for attention would be unfair to the law-breakers at that table, when law-breakers at other tables might be getting away with similar infractions. IMO law 81C6 should be clarified to mean that, on the contrary, time permitting, it is a director's duty to pro-actively seek out and investigate possible infractions. This would help to deter to law-breaking at all tables, especially against less experienced players who might be unaware of an opponent's infraction. [L45C2, TFLB, 1997] Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. [nige1] There has been a long dispute as to whether the card must be held *stationary* before it is deemed to have been played. IMO, the rule could be simplified eg "Declarer plays a card when he takes it from his hand and reveals its face." [l65A] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table [L45E1] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies. Is it legal to lead to the next trick, while there are still cards faced from the current trick? These laws seem to imply that such a card should be treated as a penalty card. But that is not the current official interpretation. IMO a defender should not be allowed to keep an advantage gained by leading to the next trick before the current trick is quitted, when such a ploy is likely to cause a flustered declarer to make a mistake. I feel strongly that the law on this matter should be clarified before its interpretation features in the destination of another Bermuda Bowl. From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 18 06:08:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:08:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:14 PM Subject: [blml] Clarification... Many rules in the law-book need clarification. For example, psyching is a thorny and contentious subject. The first step would be to define a useful vocabulary. There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. read law 40 until you understand it. When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it. Where is the friggin problem? john From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 18 06:14:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:14:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Ehm ... >You don't believe that a person has a right to break a law which he >thinks he is not breaking? Richard Hills: Ignorantia juris non excusat. Nigel Guthrie: >>You believe that you are acting within the law to open one heart, >>in third seat, when you have 0-5 HCP, whatever the rest of your >>hand. You don't disclose this convention to your opponents but >>regular partners (and readers of BLML) know of your habit. Herman De Wael: >I believe that I am acting within the law to open whatever I damn >well choose. L40A says so. Richard Hills: Again, ignorantia juris non excusat. Law 40A does not say so. Rather, Law 40A does not give a player the right to open whatever that player chooses if such a bid is "based on a partnership understanding". Herman De Wael: >Where I would not be acting within the law is if I were to do so as >a "convention". Your simple mention of the word "convention" in the >second sentence is a straw argument. Of course it would be illegal >if it were a convention. I maintain that it isn't and your simple >calling it thus does not make it so. OK? Richard Hills: A partnership understanding to open 1H with 0-5 hcp and any shape is by definition a convention, since such a call does not guarantee at least three hearts. A partnership understanding to open 1H with 0-5 hcp and at least three hearts is not a convention, since "an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention". However, such a non-conventional automatic opening of 1H with at least three hearts and 0-5 hcp in third seat is still subject to regulation under Law 40D. Herman De Wael: >And as far as I know, Habits don't create conventions. Richard Hills: As far as you know. Ignorantia juris non excusat. The WBF Code of Practice has given a detailed amplification of Law 75B, and the CoP has specifically stated that habits can create implicit partnership understandings. And, of course, conventions are a subset of partnership understandings. Herman De Wael: >Really Nigel, I am going to follow advice given to me recently and >stop reading some posters and/or reacting to them. Nigel Guthrie: >>I apologise that my light treatment of a serious subject has >>offended Herman. I admire Herman for publicly advertising and >>defending actions that he believes to be right -- although, I feel >>it would be better to refrain from such actions until the law is >>clarified. Richard Hills: And I apologise for my heavy treatment of a serious subject, using quotes from the WBF Code of Practice and an untranslated Latin legal phrase. :-) 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 Jul 18 08:23:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:23:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Probst: >There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. Read law 40 until >you understand it. Richard Hills: A smidgeon of an overstatement. The 1997 version of Law 40, especially Law 40A, is written in Kaplanese, not English. John Probst: >When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it. Richard Hills: Another smidgeon of an overstatement, given that either: (a) most of us, or (b) the acolytes of the De Wael School, have still failed to achieve an understanding of the Kaplanese used in the 1997 version of Law 75. John Probst: >Where is the friggin problem? Richard Hills: Perhaps the problem is the late Edgar Kaplan, and preference for the nuanced choice of a single word, rather than several clarifying words? 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 Jul 18 09:10:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:10:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070718085947.02909ba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:14 17/07/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote: >Surely the law should *encourage* spectators to report infractions, as >would be expected of any good citizen who witnessed law-breaking? Surely not. Subjectivity is too high, in this domain, to allow reporting. We're already flooded by difficult-to-sort suspicions. >If current law applied in 1965, then Reese and Schapiro were illegally >convicted! Perhaps they were. The arguments never seemed very convincing to me. >[L81C6, TFLB, 1997] >The Director's duties and powers normally include the following... >...to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in >any manner, within the correction period established in accordance >with Law 79C. > >[nige1] >Many law-makers and directors express the opinion that the director >should avoid interference unless called by a player; they argue that >singling out a particular table for attention would be unfair to the >law-breakers at that table, when law-breakers at other tables might be >getting away with similar infractions. This law should remain as such (or there may be two paragraphs, the present one and your suggestion below) to allow director to immediately correct irregularities that would worsen if one waited until they were known to the players, e.g. wrong shifting of the boards. >IMO law 81C6 should be clarified to mean that, on the contrary, time >permitting, it is a director's duty to pro-actively seek out and >investigate possible infractions. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 18 09:17:12 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:17:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091146.02912cf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:08 18/07/2007 +0100, John Probst wrote: >There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. read law 40 until you >understand it. > >When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it. > >Where is the friggin problem? The problem could be that it is considered, most notably for law-of-somenumber purposes, that a psyche has to be a substantial distortion, a notion that doesn't lie in TFLB and is rather subjective, and that lesser distortions are usually disallowed, contrary to L40A. The problem is also that the law-of-18, itself, goes against L40C, which only allows the banning of much weaker openings (7 or fewer HCP, typically). Therefore, TFLB should state clearly whether L40A is absolute or bows to local regulations. And if the former, this should be binding on organizers Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 18 09:24:36 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:24:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:14 18/07/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >A partnership understanding to open 1H with 0-5 hcp and any shape is >by definition a convention, since such a call does not guarantee at >least three hearts. The WBF Code of Practice has given a detailed amplification of Law 75B, and the CoP has specifically stated that habits can create implicit partnership understandings. AG : so, by a plain syllogism, psyching habits can create conventions by their mere existence ? There must be something wrong here. IMOBO, what's wrong is that an habit creates implicit understandings only if a player takes this habit into account, which is not the case of Herman's partners. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 18 10:20:28 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:20:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c7c914$801cd2d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > At 14:14 18/07/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >A partnership understanding to open 1H with 0-5 hcp and any shape is > >by definition a convention, since such a call does not guarantee at > >least three hearts. > > > > The WBF Code > of Practice has given a detailed amplification of Law 75B, and the > CoP has specifically stated that habits can create implicit > partnership understandings. > > AG : so, by a plain syllogism, psyching habits can create conventions by > their mere existence ? > There must be something wrong here. No, there is nothing wrong here: >From "Definitions" in the laws: "Psychic Call: A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length." >From Law 75B: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements" Once particular psychic habits become part of partnership implicit agreements as stated in L75B the calls according to such habits no longer enjoy the privilege of being classified as psychic calls under Law 40A. Instead, as being part of the partnership agreements they are subject to all laws and regulations applicable to partnership agreements and as such may cause those agreements to become directly illegal or for instance classified as HUM system. > IMOBO, what's wrong is that an habit creates implicit understandings only > if a player takes this habit into account, which is not the case of > Herman's partners. I really do not see how the partner to a notorious psycher can be able to completely ignore this psyching habit, but I agree that if he demonstrably succeeds in always completely disregarding the possibility of a psyche there is at least good reason to still accept the psychic calls as such and grant the privilege under Law 40A. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 18 10:30:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:30:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <469DCF96.5050007@skynet.be> Hello Richard, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Ehm ... >> You don't believe that a person has a right to break a law which he >> thinks he is not breaking? > > Richard Hills: > > Ignorantia juris non excusat. I don't claim ignorance, I claim knowledge - not the same thing! We may disagree about what the law says, but Nigel cannot force me to follow a law under Nigel's interpretation, when my interpretation does not correspond to his. > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>> You believe that you are acting within the law to open one heart, >>> in third seat, when you have 0-5 HCP, whatever the rest of your >>> hand. You don't disclose this convention to your opponents but >>> regular partners (and readers of BLML) know of your habit. > > Herman De Wael: > >> I believe that I am acting within the law to open whatever I damn >> well choose. L40A says so. > > Richard Hills: > > Again, ignorantia juris non excusat. Law 40A does not say so. > Rather, Law 40A does not give a player the right to open whatever > that player chooses if such a bid is "based on a partnership > understanding". > I was argueing against Nigel. I was using shorthand. There is no need to go commenting on my comments when they don't tackle every single comma of a law text. > Herman De Wael: > >> Where I would not be acting within the law is if I were to do so as >> a "convention". Your simple mention of the word "convention" in the >> second sentence is a straw argument. Of course it would be illegal >> if it were a convention. I maintain that it isn't and your simple >> calling it thus does not make it so. OK? > > Richard Hills: > > A partnership understanding to open 1H with 0-5 hcp and any shape is > by definition a convention, since such a call does not guarantee at > least three hearts. A partnership understanding to open 1H with 0-5 > hcp and at least three hearts is not a convention, since "an > agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention". > However, such a non-conventional automatic opening of 1H with at > least three hearts and 0-5 hcp in third seat is still subject to > regulation under Law 40D. > We've been there before. There is no partnership "understanding". The call remains a psyche. The fact that a particular psyche can be made is knowledge which can exist and which must be disclosed. But the mere fact that such knowledge exists cannot be enough to make the call no longer psychic. If that were so, then all psyches would be effectively banned, and the WBF have often stated that this is not their wish. The fact that I am more freely admitting to perpetrating one particular type of psyche should not mean that I am forbidden to psyche. That would merely lead to psychers no longer admitting to the frequency of their psyches. Let's stop this argument, Richard, it does not hold water. > Herman De Wael: > >> And as far as I know, Habits don't create conventions. > > Richard Hills: > > As far as you know. Ignorantia juris non excusat. The WBF Code > of Practice has given a detailed amplification of Law 75B, and the > CoP has specifically stated that habits can create implicit > partnership understandings. And, of course, conventions are a > subset of partnership understandings. > Indeed they can, that does not say they always do. If I have a habit of opening 1NT (15-17) on 14, then that creates an understanding that the range is (14)15-17. To use the same argument on the Spanish 1He is a logical fallacy. > Herman De Wael: > >> Really Nigel, I am going to follow advice given to me recently and >> stop reading some posters and/or reacting to them. > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>> I apologise that my light treatment of a serious subject has >>> offended Herman. I admire Herman for publicly advertising and >>> defending actions that he believes to be right -- although, I feel >>> it would be better to refrain from such actions until the law is >>> clarified. > > Richard Hills: > > And I apologise for my heavy treatment of a serious subject, using > quotes from the WBF Code of Practice and an untranslated Latin legal > phrase. > This particular phrase was within my limited knowledge of Latin. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 10:51:31 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:51:31 +1200 Subject: [blml] Equity In-Reply-To: <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com> <469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707180151p2342ef94ndd5f37e4400442d@mail.gmail.com> > And as far as I know, Habits don't create conventions. They create > knowledge of habits, knowledge which must be disclosed, which it is. Habits "may" create implicit agreements. Those agreements may or may not be conventional. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 18 11:12:27 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:12:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7c914$801cd2d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070718110426.029227f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:20 18/07/2007 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Once particular psychic habits become part of partnership implicit >agreements as stated in L75B the calls according to such habits no longer >enjoy the privilege of being classified as psychic calls under Law 40A. And that's the wrong part. L40C grants organizers the right to regulate some calls (weak openings), thereby limiting L40A's power to non-explicitly-mentioned calls. It doesn't grant them the right to regulate all calls. The text above therefore contravenes L40A. One example where it would be easy to claim that partner doesn't take into account the possibility of a psyche is psychic cue-bids. If partner always acts as if the control does exist, then there is obviously no "implicit agreement". Come to think of it, if partner needed to check, then the whole effect of the "cue" would be lost. Regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 18 11:57:56 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:57:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070718110426.029227f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c7c922$1df00a10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > At 10:20 18/07/2007 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Once particular psychic habits become part of partnership implicit > >agreements as stated in L75B the calls according to such habits no longer > >enjoy the privilege of being classified as psychic calls under Law 40A. > > And that's the wrong part. > L40C grants organizers the right to regulate some calls (weak openings), > thereby limiting L40A's power to non-explicitly-mentioned calls. It > doesn't grant them the right to regulate all calls. The text above > therefore contravenes L40A. Excuse me! Have I anywhere stated anything that makes this comment relevant? The fact that a particular call no longer enjoys the privilege of being classified as a psychic call (because of Law 75B) does not automatically make that call illegal or contrary to regulations. But when a call has become part of partnership implicit agreements under Law 75B _then_ that call no longer is protected by the Law 40A freedom to select any call because it violates the condition in Law 40A: "provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding". And if the nature of that otherwise psychic call is such that it violates regulation then of course it is illegal. > One example where it would be easy to claim that partner doesn't take into > account the possibility of a psyche is psychic cue-bids. If partner always > acts as if the control does exist, then there is obviously no "implicit > agreement". Come to think of it, if partner needed to check, then the > whole effect of the "cue" would be lost. Indeed Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 18 14:50:10 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:50:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c7c922$1df00a10$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c7c922$1df00a10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <469E0C82.9080801@NTLworld.com> [Sven pran] But when a call has become part of partnership implicit agreements under Law 75B _then_ that call no longer is protected by the Law 40A freedom to select any call because it violates the condition in Law 40A: "provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding". And if the nature of that otherwise psychic call is such that it violates regulation then of course it is illegal. [nige1] Sven has elucidates it better than I can his explanantion is how I understand the relevant law. [Alain Gottcheiner] One example where it would be easy to claim that partner doesn't take into account the possibility of a psyche is psychic cue-bids. If partner always acts as if the control does exist, then there is obviously no "implicit agreement". Come to think of it, if partner needed to check, then the whole effect of the "cue" would be lost. [Sven Pran] Indeed [Nigel] I disagree with Alain and Sven here. If opponents are unaware but I know that partner often "psyches" cue-bids, IMO, those "psyches" become an illegal concealed partnership understanding. For example, if opponents knew of your partner's propensities, it may influence *their* actions: it may affect their decision as to whether or not to double a "cue-bid" and it might also effect their leads might take different actions in a cue-bidding auction. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that "partner always acts as if such a control exists". For example, at teams, suppose partner opens a natural flat 1N and you bid up to 6N. During the auction partner cue-bids to show first or second round spade control, the only suit about which you have any worry. The opponent, on lead, doubles 6N. You are aware that partner "psychs" cue-bids in such auctions. Do you redouble? OK. OK. Maybe I'm being cynical. If Alain and Sven really would redouble, I respect them; but in this sort of context, many would chicken out with some plausible rationalisation e.g. "Somebody does not have their bid and I trust opponents rather than partner. Anyway just making 6NX, probably with an overtrick, will be a good score". Partner's propensity to psych did not affect your decision? Pull the other one, it's got bells on! From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 18 13:59:49 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:59:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we will discuss your options afterwards." ~ Bill Shankly. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ I think Alain should disabuse himself of the misconception that an implicit understanding exists only if a player will take his partner's habit into account. Laws 40B, 75A and 75C provide.to the contrary. For the avoidance of doubt the WBF Code of Practice says this: "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." If through partnership experience the partner is aware of his partner's habit he must disclose that awareness. If he fails to do so and the information turns out to be crucial for the opponent's choice of action redress is due for any damage and in his discretion the Director may apply a procedural penalty. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > an habit creates implicit understandings only > if a player takes this habit into account, which > is not the case of Herman's partners. > From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 18 15:30:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:30:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469E0C82.9080801@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel ............. > [Alain Gottcheiner] > One example where it would be easy to claim that partner doesn't take > into account the possibility of a psyche is psychic cue-bids. If > partner always acts as if the control does exist, then there is > obviously no "implicit agreement". Come to think of it, if partner > needed to check, then the whole effect of the "cue" would be lost. > > [Sven Pran] > Indeed > > [Nigel] > > I disagree with Alain and Sven here. If opponents are unaware but I > know that partner often "psyches" cue-bids, IMO, those "psyches" > become an illegal concealed partnership understanding. I suppose your disagreement with me here is caused by the fact that I never brought up or considered the obligation to fully disclose all your (relevant) agreements to your opponents. If your partner cue-bids and you act according to the assumption that the control is there then all is OK as far as the question of psyche is concerned. But if you have an experience that your partner could very well cue without the control then you indeed have a concealed partnership understanding unless your opponents have been duly informed of this fact. And whether or not your actions in that case are based on the assumption that the control is present becomes completely irrelevant. This is no longer a question of psyche; the question is Concealed Partnership Understanding! Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 18 16:29:27 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:29:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> [John Probst] There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. read law 40 until you understand it. When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it. Where is the friggin problem? [nigel] If John thinks there's no problem. In the light of his admission I hope that John isn't consulted about clarifiying the law on psychs :) and I'm relieved that I usually disagree with John on this subject. [A] Herman de Wael and I argue about the simplest basic case (An implicit agreement, not disclosed to opponents, that Herman opens 1H, 3rd in hand, on 0-3HCP and any shape), This argument has never been officially resolved on BLML. The rest of the world may be wiser, but the law certainly needs clarification, at least for BLMLers :) [B] The definitions (e.g. Orange Book Glossary) need a thorough overhaul. One example... "A psych is a deliberate gross mistatement of honour strength and or suit length". IMO it should be made clear that a psych is a mistatement of your *disclosed* agreements; otherwise a "fielded psych" or "red psych" is almost an oxymoron. [C] Most dubious practices do not involve gross departures from disclosed agreements -- they concern *minor deviations* not psychs -- and the laws should reflect that. [E] In theory, *psych controls* are usually illegal. In practice, this is another contentious area. For example Drury could be used to cater simply for light opening bids; but it also functions as a control for out and out psychs. Is it legal to psych when a reply like Drury is available to partner? [D] *Tactical bids* aka "Expert psyches" are a large grey area. (for example, cue-bids, trial bids, exclusion asks). IMO, experienced partnerships are aware of when and how partner is likely to "operate" and so more legislation about disclosure is needed. Arguably, some "tactical bids" are controlled psychs. [F] Legislatures try to *regulate methods*, for example by specifying HCP ranges or lower limits for calls. Of course, in a sensible world, all such rules should be scrapped. If we *must* have them however, then it should be made clear when and how you can *psych* such regulated calls. [G] One attempt to discourage calls outwith the regulations is to forbid subsequent conventional calls. A suggested way of circumventing this rule is to confine subsequent conventional calls to the putative psycher. If he psyched, he then passes or bids naturally. Otherwise he has the option of conventional calls (but all his partner's bids are natural). IMO this practice flouts the spirit of the law. It is not clear whether it is against the letter of the law. [H] I think that the law book should no longer skirt round the psych issue. It should clearly define a psych vocabulary. Then mandate that, after partner psychs, you must act on the odds: if you suspect that somebody lacks the values for his bid then you must consider that it is more likely that one of your two opponents rather than partner has psyched or misbid, unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary. If you appear to field a psych then you should be penalized, even on the evidence of a single board. (As I understand it, this is the gist of the EBU position). [I] I have always advocated psychs. They add interest and variety to the game. Meredith and Collins developed them into an Art form. I still maintain that you must desist from those that become implicit understandings. From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Jul 18 16:54:23 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:54:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Grattan, So what you're actually saying (and so does Sven, in his reply to Nigel's post) is that psyching is basically illegal in anything other than a new partnership - that you're more or less on the ACBL's "One psyche per position per partner per lifetime". Let me give you an example. My regular online partner and I have played something close to 100,000 hands over the past 10 years, initially on OKBridge, now on BridgeBase. Over that period, she may have seen me psyche (guesstimate) 400-500 times. It's obviously a logical nonsense to say that she's not aware of the fact that I psyche occasionally. Moving on, you say that the fact that her actions have been entirely normal is no defence. What kind of defence *IS* there, then? What exactly is it that you want her to do, if bidding normally is no defence? Or is it just the case that if a regular partnership is accused of a CPU when one of them psyches, they should just accept it? If so, then what prevents unscrupulous opponents making allegations of a CPU *EVERY* time a player psyches, knowing that the psycher has no defence unless it turns out to be a new partnership? It seems to me that the Laws are contradictory. Psyches are part of the game, but the Laws you quote below mean that you're going to get nailed for it each and every time your opponents complain. Given your WBF Code of Practice, it looks like the WBF would actually like to ban psyching, at least by anything other than new partnerships, but hasn't got the collective balls to say so. Now, please prove me wrong. Take an *experienced* partnership. Construct a hand where one of them psyches - and then please explain, in English rather than Grattanese, just exactly how that partnership is supposed to extablish that the psyche was a legitimate one, given that partner's actions were entirely normal isn't sufficient. As above, my partner and I play online, where self-alerts are the standard. What would you have me do in order to give opponents the "equal and timely awareness" that you require - explain (for example) my 1H opener as 5+H, 11-15 HCP, but on 0.05% of hands, I opened it with only four hearts and/or 8-10 HCP, on 0.02% of hands I had 0-2 hearts and 8-10 HCP, on another 0.02% of hands, I had 5 hearts but only 0-3 HCP, while on 0.01% of hands, I had 0-2 hearts AND only 0-3 HCP - etc. etc. Apart from the length of time taken to key in all this information, what exactly is oppo supposed to do with it? Play me for one of the psyches as opposed to the 99%+ of times that I'll have a genuine 1H opener? Must we all keep databases of the hand records in order to be able to specify our (our partner's) psyching tendencies? You're making me think Nigel has a point with his repeated demands for clear and unambiguous Laws - it seems to me to be fundamental to any game that the players are entitled (if they put the work in) to understand the rules under which they're playing. Telling them that they can do something in one law while telling them they're going to get nailed for doing it in a different law (CoP) seems to make that understanding impossible to acheive, unless you boil it down to "Don't psyche, even though it's supposed to be permitted". Brian. >On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:59:49 +0100 >"Grattan Endicott" wrote: > > +=+ I think Alain should disabuse himself of the > misconception that an implicit understanding > exists only if a player will take his partner's habit > into account. Laws 40B, 75A and 75C provide.to > the contrary. For the avoidance of doubt the WBF > Code of Practice says this: "A partnership may not > defend itself against an allegation that its psychic > action is based upon an understanding by claiming > that, although the partner had an awareness of the > possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the > partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have > been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled > to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, > explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice > of action and for this reason the understanding must > be disclosed." > If through partnership experience the partner > is aware of his partner's habit he must disclose that > awareness. If he fails to do so and the information > turns out to be crucial for the opponent's choice of > action redress is due for any damage and in his > discretion the Director may apply a procedural > penalty. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > --------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:24 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > an habit creates implicit understandings only > > if a player takes this habit into account, which > > is not the case of Herman's partners. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGnimgX39R2QaHMdMRAohDAJ9rX+oapKsxS25iuRwQvk6fdf0bJQCfYnPK H7EFALAtEGk6emKyx19A578= =suYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 18 17:58:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:58:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <469E38AE.8060907@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "If you're not sure what to do with > the ball, just pop it in the net and > we will discuss your options afterwards." > ~ Bill Shankly. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > +=+ I think Alain should disabuse himself of the > misconception that an implicit understanding > exists only if a player will take his partner's habit > into account. Laws 40B, 75A and 75C provide.to > the contrary. For the avoidance of doubt the WBF > Code of Practice says this: "A partnership may not > defend itself against an allegation that its psychic > action is based upon an understanding by claiming > that, although the partner had an awareness of the > possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the > partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have > been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled > to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, > explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice > of action and for this reason the understanding must > be disclosed." I am fully with Grattan on this issue. If a player has a particular tendency to perform a particular type of psyche, and partner might be aware of this, then opponents are entitled to such knowledge. Whether partner actually is aware or not. Whether partner caters for it or not. > If through partnership experience the partner > is aware of his partner's habit he must disclose that > awareness. If he fails to do so and the information > turns out to be crucial for the opponent's choice of > action redress is due for any damage and in his > discretion the Director may apply a procedural > penalty. But I am not with Grattan here. Opponents are entitled to the knowledge of the psyching tendencies, and if they are not made aware of it, they are possibly entitled to redress, but no particular obligation should rest on the partnership to alert or pre-explain. The ways in which information are usually given to opponents preclude sensible giving of information is these cases. It is not good for bridge if my partner starts alerting all my third-in-hand 1He openings just because 1/1000 of them are psychic. John would need an alert cars stuck to his forehead. Of course, some players may go too far and procedural penalties are always available for them, but for the ordinary psyche, nothing needs to change. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jul 19 18:48:18 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:48:18 -0700 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> Message-ID: <024701c7ca26$3ae80280$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> ----- From: "Brian" - it seems to me to be fundamental to any > game that the players are entitled (if they put the work in) to > understand the rules under which they're playing. Telling them that > they can do something in one law while telling them they're going to > get nailed for doing it in a different law (CoP) seems to make that > understanding impossible to acheive, unless you boil it down to "Don't > psyche, even though it's supposed to be permitted". > Save your breath, Brian, these people do not have an understanding of the spirit of bridge or of L75. They ignore the word "special" in that law, as if it had no meaning. If my partner opens 1S with favorable vulnerability, next hand doubles, I redouble with my 13 HCP, fourth seat jumps to 3H and the doubler raises to 4H, it is plain that partner has psyched and I will pass. This whether I have never met my partner before or he is a regular partner. This is from my "general knowledge and experience," not from any *special* partnership agreement, other than that we agree to bid rationally in all situations. Partnership experience does not trump general knowledge and experience, making it *special*. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 18 19:36:02 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] I suppose your disagreement with me here is caused by the fact that I never brought up or considered the obligation to fully disclose all your (relevant) agreements to your opponents. If your partner cue-bids and you act according to the assumption that the control is there then all is OK as far as the question of psyche is concerned. But if you have an experience that your partner could very well cue without the control then you indeed have a concealed partnership understanding unless your opponents have been duly informed of this fact. And whether or not your actions in that case are based on the assumption that the control is present becomes completely irrelevant. This is no longer a question of psyche; the question is Concealed Partnership Understanding! [nige1] No Sven, the basis of our disagreement is the paragraph that you conveniently *snipped* :), the gist of which was... Even if *you* don't ever act on your undisclosed implicit agreements, *your opponents* are entitled know about them so that *they* can act on them. As I surmised, Herman de Wael is in excellent company. Now, Alain Gottcheiner and Sven Pran both rationalise what appears to me to be law-breaking. Even if Alain and Sven are right and I'm wrong, Bridge rules are so ambiguous, fragmented, subjective, and sophisticated, that I am sure that most BLMLers rationalise rule-breaking. I hope that, at last, BLMLers accept that a claim that many players habitually break the law is *not* an accusation of cheating. Eventually, I hope that some will agree that a unified, complete simple, clear, objective, deterrent set of rules would make the game much more fun for players. Arguing with BLMLers can be like nailing jelly to the ceiling, frustrating and completely pointless. It is puzzling that BLMLers so often go into denial when faced with simple truths. I find it easier to apologise as soon as I'm shown to be wrong. Yes. I've had some practice :) From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Jul 18 19:36:14 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:36:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:29:27 +0100 Nigel wrote: > > [I] I have always advocated psychs. They add interest and variety to > the game. Meredith and Collins developed them into an Art form. I > still maintain that you must desist from those that become implicit > understandings. > In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly when something becomes an implicit understanding. Lots of luck in writing it, because there is something which is *definitely* going to depend on the class of players involved. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGnk+PX39R2QaHMdMRAgJgAJ9EjGHfz/9AhdnFBZTY3OJD7nDAmgCgv7H9 JxmCsWdzZRQsZBlhIkXBNMM= =1tUM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 18 19:53:13 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:53:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> Message-ID: <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> [Brian Meadows] In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly when something becomes an implicit understanding. Lots of luck in writing it, because there is something which is *definitely* going to depend on the class of players involved. [nigel] I agree with Brian that the WBFLC need to define observable criteria that indicate a psychic tendency has become an implicit understanding. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 19 00:11:13 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:11:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com><20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Clarification... > [Brian Meadows] > In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly > when something becomes an implicit understanding. > Lots of luck in writing it, because there is something > which is *definitely* going to depend on the class > of players involved. > > [nigel] > I agree with Brian that the WBFLC need to define > observable criteria that indicate a psychic tendency > has become an implicit understanding. > +=+ The Code of Practice sought to give guidance on the matter. Perhaps some blml researcher will find the relevant passage. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Jul 19 00:58:27 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:58:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> <007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:11:13 +0100 wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "He makes simple things look easy." > ++ Ray Wilkins, > of a star performer .......++ > =============================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:53 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Clarification... > > > > [Brian Meadows] > > In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly > > when something becomes an implicit understanding. > > Lots of luck in writing it, because there is something > > which is *definitely* going to depend on the class > > of players involved. > > > > [nigel] > > I agree with Brian that the WBFLC need to define > > observable criteria that indicate a psychic tendency > > has become an implicit understanding. > > > +=+ The Code of Practice sought to give guidance on > the matter. Perhaps some blml researcher will find the > relevant passage. I assume this is what you mean... A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding. No penalty or score adjustment may be awarded against such lawful action. A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: 1. similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or 2. in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or 3. psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or 4. the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic call. Which, IMHO, is *far* too woolly a definition to be of any use to players. To comply with section 1), I must know exactly which psychic calls have "faded from my partner's mind" and which haven't. Mind-reading time, anyone? Section 2) is equally useless - I can guess who does the considering, but using what criteria? Aren't players entitled to know? Section 3) - just as woolly. Basically it says that the rules can be made up as desired, or damn close to it. What the hell is "such frequency, and sufficiently recently" supposed to mean if not that? To make these rules/CoP/whatever in any way fair to the players, you need something along the lines of 1) Psyching more than X times in any N boards is considered to create an implicit understanding. 2) Psyching the same call on more than X% of occasions is considered to create an implicit understanding. And so on - I'm sure you get the idea. IMO, if you're going to consider that players create implicit agreements by psyching, then players have the right to a much clearer idea of where the boundaries are than currently appears to be the case. No, it's not easy to do that. I've no idea what the values of X and N above should be, for example. Just pick a couple of numbers out of the air, if need be, because that will be far better than all the (location dependent, no doubt) suches and sufficientlies that we appear to have at the moment. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGnpsUX39R2QaHMdMRAkFKAJ4+o5e4D2cIn4UnKI//76rvlNWxZACgovSr +Kt+TpmOkshO+0zt1CQEml4= =N73L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mustikka at charter.net Thu Jul 19 01:21:05 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:21:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] Clarification... References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com><004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john><469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox><469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com><007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> Message-ID: <000a01c7c992$51bbf870$f8065e47@DFYXB361> >> >> > [Brian Meadows] >> > In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly >> > when something becomes an implicit understanding. >> > Lots of luck in writing it, because there is something >> > which is *definitely* going to depend on the class >> > of players involved. >> > >> > [nigel] >> > I agree with Brian that the WBFLC need to define >> > observable criteria that indicate a psychic tendency >> > has become an implicit understanding. >> > [Grattan Endicott responded} >> +=+ The Code of Practice sought to give guidance on >> the matter. Perhaps some blml researcher will find the >> relevant passage. > > Brian again: > I assume this is what you mean... > > > > A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding. > No penalty or score adjustment may be awarded against such lawful > action. A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed > by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the > implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem that > such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the > partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in > the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only > if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances > is established: > > 1. similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several > occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the > actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified > when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or > > 2. in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the > partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it > cannot have faded from mind; or > > 3. psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with > such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly > aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or > > 4. the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some > significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic > call. > > > > > Which, IMHO, is *far* too woolly a definition to be of any use to > players. > > To comply with section 1), I must know exactly which psychic > calls have "faded from my partner's mind" and which haven't. > Mind-reading time, anyone? > > Section 2) is equally useless - I can guess who does the > considering, but using what criteria? Aren't players entitled to know? > > Section 3) - just as woolly. Basically it says that the rules can be > made up as desired, or damn close to it. What the hell is "such > frequency, and sufficiently recently" supposed to mean if not that? > > To make these rules/CoP/whatever in any way fair to the players, you > need something along the lines of > > 1) Psyching more than X times in any N boards is considered to create > an implicit understanding. > > 2) Psyching the same call on more than X% of occasions is considered to > create an implicit understanding. > > > And so on - I'm sure you get the idea. IMO, if you're going to consider > that players create implicit agreements by psyching, then players have > the right to a much clearer idea of where the boundaries are than > currently appears to be the case. > > No, it's not easy to do that. I've no idea what the values of X and N > above should be, for example. Just pick a couple of numbers out of the > air, if need be, because that will be far better than all the > (location dependent, no doubt) suches and sufficientlies that we appear > to have at the moment. > > > Brian. Hi, I think Brian brings very valid points. But how would the numbers be collected for the X's and N's of _whatever the formulas might be_ . And by whom? Percentages particularly would require recording of all deals a potential psycher has played, but then, all players are potential psychers.... Poor as the present system may be, recordkeeping and/or enforcement of both specific rates of frequency and/or of percentages of psyches in all played hands, will be impossible and therefore even a poorer method. I believe that if a regulation exists, it should be possible to enforce it. Something that cannot be enforced, should not be regulated because it would diminish the value and cause disrespect of all regulation if it consists items that will not or cannot be enforced. IMHO. Raija From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 01:28:50 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:28:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> <007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707181628u4ac0dba7q9a9114e3e6956c27@mail.gmail.com> "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership." Though this may sound logical, I believe it is naive and incorrect in some cases. If Mr. Scientist convinces Mr. Beginner to play really-difficult-convention X, even if they explicitly agree to this, it seems to me misinformation for Mr. Scientist to alert that Mr. Beginner's call is part of convention X if the director, on questioning Mr. Beginner, finds that he has no idea how to play X. -Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 19 02:07:55 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <000a01c7c992$51bbf870$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com><004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john><469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox><469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com><007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> <000a01c7c992$51bbf870$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <469EAB5B.40304@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott responded} +=+ The Code of Practice sought to give guidance on the matter. Perhaps some blml researcher will find the relevant passage. [Brian] I assume this is what you mean... A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding. No penalty or score adjustment may be awarded against such lawful action. A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: 1. similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or 2. in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or 3. psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or 4. the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic call. Which, IMHO, is *far* too woolly a definition to be of any use to players. To comply with section 1), I must know exactly which psychic calls have "faded from my partner's mind" and which haven't. Mind-reading time, anyone? Section 2) is equally useless - I can guess who does the considering, but using what criteria? Aren't players entitled to know? Section 3) - just as woolly. Basically it says that the rules can be made up as desired, or damn close to it. What the hell is "such frequency, and sufficiently recently" supposed to mean if not that? To make these rules/CoP/whatever in any way fair to the players, you need something along the lines of 1) Psyching more than X times in any N boards is considered to create an implicit understanding. 2) Psyching the same call on more than X% of occasions is considered to create an implicit understanding. And so on - I'm sure you get the idea. IMO, if you're going to consider that players create implicit agreements by psyching, then players have the right to a much clearer idea of where the boundaries are than currently appears to be the case. No, it's not easy to do that. I've no idea what the values of X and N above should be, for example. Just pick a couple of numbers out of the air, if need be, because that will be far better than all the (location dependent, no doubt) suches and sufficientlies that we appear to have at the moment. [Raija] I think Brian brings very valid points. But how would the numbers be collected for the X's and N's of _whatever the formulas might be_ . And by whom? Percentages particularly would require recording of all deals a potential psycher has played, but then, all players are potential psychers.... Poor as the present system may be, recordkeeping and/or enforcement of both specific rates of frequency and/or of percentages of psyches in all played hands, will be impossible and therefore even a poorer method. I believe that if a regulation exists, it should be possible to enforce it. Something that cannot be enforced, should not be regulated because it would diminish the value and cause disrespect of all regulation if it consists items that will not or cannot be enforced. IMHO. [nige1] I advocate slightly different and much more controversial rules... [A] If, like Alain and Sven, you *never* allow for partner's psych, then it is so hard to prove a concealed partnership understanding, that I would declassify the psych into an ordinary call, ignoring any damage inflicted on opponents. That is, I would consider only *fielded* psychs. [B] As in the case of most Bridge rules, I think a director must rule whether of not a psych was fielded on the *balance of probability*. Evidence from a single board may suffice. (Cries of "rule of coincidence" and shrieks of protest from the ACBL). [C] In unclear casees, I feel that EBU-style psych classification and recording would be ideal -- provided that the WBFLC enforce it worldwide (local privacy, libel, and data-protection legislation permitting). It would be a player's duty to report and record his psych (signed by the other players at the table). The director could consult the global database to check psych-history. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 19 03:03:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:03:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469CBEBB.3000009@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >The appeals committee did change the law. Richard Hills: I would rather make the somewhat weaker statement, "There are insufficient internal cross-references in the Lawbook." In this case there is not a cross-reference from Law 12C3 to the footnote to Law 93B1: "Zonal organisations may establish differing conditions of appeals for special contests." And, of course, it is the lack of cross- references which gives partial justification to the De Wael School view that Herman's favourite Law 73B1 prevails over others' favourite Law 75C. For what it is worth, my favourite Law is Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 03:12:16 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:12:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707181812i34b8d802xb08c5d8b0b1cfe99@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills: > > For what it is worth, my favourite Law is > Law 74A2: > > "A player should carefully avoid any remark > or action that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to another player or might > interfere with the enjoyment of the game." > I admire that one too, but why can't there be a law like that which applies to directors? -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 19 03:59:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:59:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469DCF96.5050007@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >We've been there before. There is no partnership "understanding". The >call remains a psyche. The fact that a particular psyche can be made Richard Hills: Not "can be made" but "is always made", since a third-seat Pass by Herman De Wael _guarantees_ some high-card values. Herman De Wael: >is knowledge which can exist and which must be disclosed. But the >mere fact that such knowledge exists cannot be enough to make the >call no longer psychic. If that were so, then all psyches would be >effectively banned, and the WBF have often stated that this is not >their wish. Richard Hills: The conclusion does not follow the premise. Calls which are fully disclosable understandings are not psyches. Calls which surprise all three opponents are psyches. Herman De Wael: >The fact that I am more freely admitting to perpetrating one >particular type of psyche should not mean that I am forbidden to >psyche. Richard Hills: Nomenclature problem. Herman perpetrates a particular type of pseudo- psychic partnership understanding. Apparently this pseudo-psychic partnership understanding he employs has been banned by the Belgian NBO via Law 40D regulation, since Herman is unable to disclose it as a partnership understanding on his Belgian Law 40E convention card. Herman De Wael (18 May 2005): >>It is practicable to put something on the CC. But the problem with >>that one is that many directors will not allow it. Erroneously, but >>there. Herman De Wael (current posting): >That would merely lead to psychers no longer admitting to the >frequency of their psyches. Let's stop this argument, Richard, it >does not hold water. Richard Hills: Arguing that players should be permitted Illegal Revealed Partnership Understandings, in order to prevent cheats using Illegal Concealed Partnership Understandings? How does that argument hold water? Charles Dickens (1812-1870): "He'd be sharper than a serpent's tooth, if he wasn't as dull as ditch water." :-) 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 19 06:08:22 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:08:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707181628u4ac0dba7q9a9114e3e6956c27@mail.gmail.com> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> <007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707181628u4ac0dba7q9a9114e3e6956c27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <85BF3ED3-284B-4DD1-8FE1-CAC0F4016A91@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed > by the partnership." > > Though this may sound logical, I believe it is naive and incorrect in > some cases. If Mr. Scientist convinces Mr. Beginner to play > really-difficult-convention X, even if they explicitly agree to this, > it seems to me misinformation for Mr. Scientist to alert that Mr. > Beginner's call is part of convention X if the director, on > questioning Mr. Beginner, finds that he has no idea how to play X I disagree. If Mr. Beginner has no idea how to play X, then it is, it seems to me, incumbent on him not to agree to play it. If he does agree, the agreement exists, whatever he knows or does not know. When it becomes clear, through partnership experience, that he does *not* know it, then it is incumbent on the partnership to either abandon the agreement, or work together until Mr. B *does* know it. If the latter, then until he knows it, his lack of expertise is to be disclosed. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 18 16:59:03 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:59:03 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Ignorantia_juris_non_ex?= =?iso-8859-1?q?cusat_=28was_Equity=29=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <469E2AB6.00000F.29445@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Grattan Endicott Date : 18/07/2007 15:33:39 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." AG : I think that the CoP misses something here. There are two notions, that it seems to mix up : a) a bid that we know partner sometimes makes : should indeed be disclosed and is true of many psyches, and is the subject of the second part of the above comment. b) a bid that we take into account partner sometimes makes : often makes a psyche illegal, and is the subject of the first part. a) includes b). The 'psyches' section of the CC exists precisely for a) purposes. What else ? Whether an 'agreement' is the name for a) or b) is moot. But IMOCO the limit between a) and b) does exist and makes things different. Think about it : equalling a) to b) would per se disallow making twice the same, or similar, psyche. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070718/96798230/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/20070718/96798230/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/20070718/96798230/attachment-0001.gif From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Jul 19 10:03:40 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:03:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D148@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > Sent: 19 July 2007 02:12 >>Richard Hills: >> >> For what it is worth, my favourite Law is >> Law 74A2: >> >> "A player should carefully avoid any remark >> or action that might cause annoyance or >> embarrassment to another player or might >> interfere with the enjoyment of the game." >> > > I admire that one too, but why can't there be > a law like that which applies to directors? Applies which way to directors? "A director should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to a player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." ? Hopefully, this is part of the director's role as a service provider. "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to a director" ? This is mostly covered by Law 74 B 5. "summoning or addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants" Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Thu Jul 19 10:47:08 2007 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:47:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D148@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D148@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <002401c7c9e1$6440ee70$6a00a8c0@rmarcos> The Laws were basically built to rule the game, not to condition the behaviour of directors. Tournament directors are the "maestros" of the orchestra. Like with all good maestros, if they are good we just feel the music, if they are bad we notice immediately. There is no need for a law for the TDs like that. For me, and for any good TD, it is a sine qua non condition. If the TD cannot "avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to a player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game" he is not a good TD, no matter how good technically he might me. Like Robin says, we provide a service to the players and to the organizers, and not the other way around. We could say that it "comes with the job". Jokingly, I would say that there should be a competence profile for TDs (not a Law...) saying: A director MUST INSTINCTIVELY avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to ANY player or OFFICIAL or STAFF or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game If he can not, he is in the wrong job. Rui Marques (Snipped for convenience) >>Richard Hills: >> >> For what it is worth, my favourite Law is >> Law 74A2: >> >> "A player should carefully avoid any remark >> or action that might cause annoyance or >> embarrassment to another player or might >> interfere with the enjoyment of the game." >> > > I admire that one too, but why can't there be > a law like that which applies to directors? Applies which way to directors? "A director should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to a player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." ? Hopefully, this is part of the director's role as a service provider. "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to a director" ? This is mostly covered by Law 74 B 5. "summoning or addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 19 11:19:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:19:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> Message-ID: <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> I think Brian again falls into the trap of the words "illegal", "CPU" and "understanding". Many of you fall into the same trap, so let me try and explain what I mean by "the trap". People who psyche more often than "never" will at some time arrive at a point where partner must be aware that the frequency of psyches is more than 0. From that moment on, there exists partnership experience, which must be disclosed. More often than not, such a disclosure is absent, and that absence contitutes MI. Now the way the laws are formulated, there is no literal difference between "MI" and "CPU". But whereas the first contains no such indication, the second is considered tantamount to cheating. Moreover, people interpret the laws in such a way that it becomes illegal to make the call itself. As I've often pointed out in different threads, this is _not_ the case. So YES: frequent psyching creates partnership understanding, which must be disclosed. If there is no disclosure, the TD can search for damage and adjust on the basis of fuller explanations (but not on the basis of the call not being made!). But NO: frequent psyching does not create situations where it becomes illegal to perform the psyches. And YES: certain additional parts of the system (such as perhaps Drury) can be considered in finding that the psyche becomes part of the system, in which case it can become illegal to perform that psyche (through the system regulations). But there has to be more than frequency (and even realization of the possibility) for that. Brian wrote: [snip] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 19 11:26:31 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:26:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <469F2E47.5020401@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> We've been there before. There is no partnership "understanding". The >> call remains a psyche. The fact that a particular psyche can be made > > Richard Hills: > > Not "can be made" but "is always made", since a third-seat Pass by > Herman De Wael _guarantees_ some high-card values. > No Richard, you're looking at it from the wrong side. Yes, I "always" bid 1He on certain hands, but 1He does not show those hands. 1He "can be made" on those hands, but when I open 1He, third-in-hand, please expect 13 points 999 times out of 1000. > Herman De Wael: > >> is knowledge which can exist and which must be disclosed. But the >> mere fact that such knowledge exists cannot be enough to make the >> call no longer psychic. If that were so, then all psyches would be >> effectively banned, and the WBF have often stated that this is not >> their wish. > > Richard Hills: > > The conclusion does not follow the premise. Calls which are fully > disclosable understandings are not psyches. Calls which surprise all > three opponents are psyches. > No, that is not true. Psyches are defined as gross misstatements, the definition does not include anything about surprise. > Herman De Wael: > >> The fact that I am more freely admitting to perpetrating one >> particular type of psyche should not mean that I am forbidden to >> psyche. > > Richard Hills: > > Nomenclature problem. Herman perpetrates a particular type of pseudo- > psychic partnership understanding. Apparently this pseudo-psychic > partnership understanding he employs has been banned by the Belgian > NBO via Law 40D regulation, since Herman is unable to disclose it as a > partnership understanding on his Belgian Law 40E convention card. > You call it a pseudo-psychic PU - I call it a psyche. > Herman De Wael (18 May 2005): > >>> It is practicable to put something on the CC. But the problem with >>> that one is that many directors will not allow it. Erroneously, but >>> there. > > Herman De Wael (current posting): > >> That would merely lead to psychers no longer admitting to the >> frequency of their psyches. Let's stop this argument, Richard, it >> does not hold water. > > Richard Hills: > > Arguing that players should be permitted Illegal Revealed Partnership > Understandings, in order to prevent cheats using Illegal Concealed > Partnership Understandings? How does that argument hold water? > Because it is only you who call it illegal. If everyone starts calling it illegal, then the perpetrators will simply stop telling you about it, but continue to do it. I would be too honest, and too well known to continue, but John (who admits to no "standard" psyches but must have some) will happily continue psyching. > Charles Dickens (1812-1870): > > "He'd be sharper than a serpent's tooth, if he wasn't as dull as ditch > water." > > :-) > One of your lesser applicably quotes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Jul 19 12:38:56 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:38:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think you're missing a point too, Herman. My main dislike of the psyching situation is that players basically don't know at what point this "implicit understanding" will cut in. And of course, if you do accept that one or two psyches create an implicit understanding which must be disclosed, then it's likely (maybe not if you live in Australia!) that your NCBO will then have you for playing an illegal system the moment you disclose that implicit understanding. I stick with my view, the Laws give you the right to psych, but then more or less take it away again, unless you're a new partnership. Brian. On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:19:53 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGnz9AX39R2QaHMdMRAr0aAKCe4CFhgLLpd1fb6W0kGMlW5QvzDwCfRFaO yj5oAlvGI65tOltp3/VnH3g= =9ls8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 19 13:11:15 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:11:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat(was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <469F2E47.5020401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c7c9f5$862f0f30$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat(was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael: >> > > Because it is only you who call it illegal. If everyone starts calling > it illegal, then the perpetrators will simply stop telling you about > it, but continue to do it. I would be too honest, and too well known > to continue, but John (who admits to no "standard" psyches but must > have some) will happily continue psyching. > I have looked closely at my psyches and continue to do so, and work hard to ensure there is little pattern to them. However, both my regular partners do alert my 1NT overcall and explain it as "ostensibly natural, occasionally a joke with 6 hearts.", so I did it with diamonds last week and both opponents (usual suspects) remarked I'd psyched my psyche. :) So, I guess my most regular psyche is the H based 1NT overcall. I don't always do it though. As for the herman heart; when Herman opens 1H in 3rd seat, what does he hold? HEARTS and an opener, of course. You'd be out of your friggin mind to assume anything else. Are you entitled to know 1H occasionally is bid on a 3 count with 3 hearts? Yeah, but so friggin what? John From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 19 13:24:40 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:24:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: <2b1e598b0707181812i34b8d802xb08c5d8b0b1cfe99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004801c7c9f7$65e85ae0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:12 AM Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 > Richard Hills: >> >> For what it is worth, my favourite Law is >> Law 74A2: >> >> "A player should carefully avoid any remark >> or action that might cause annoyance or >> embarrassment to another player or might >> interfere with the enjoyment of the game." >> > > I admire that one too, but why can't there be a law like that which > applies to directors? "... for the orderly progress of the tournament..." ? :) John > > -Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Jul 19 13:36:31 2007 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:36:31 -0300 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <002401c7c9e1$6440ee70$6a00a8c0@rmarcos> Message-ID: Very well said Rui. I believe that you have accurately described how TD's should conduct themselves. Jack On 7/19/07 5:47 AM, "Rui Marques" wrote: > The Laws were basically built to rule the game, not to condition the > behaviour of directors. Tournament directors are the "maestros" of the > orchestra. Like with all good maestros, if they are good we just feel the > music, if they are bad we notice immediately. > There is no need for a law for the TDs like that. For me, and for any good > TD, it is a sine qua non condition. If the TD cannot "avoid any remark or > action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to a player or might > interfere with the enjoyment of the game" he is not a good TD, no matter how > good technically he might me. Like Robin says, we provide a service to the > players and to the organizers, and not the other way around. We could say > that it "comes with the job". > > Jokingly, I would say that there should be a competence profile for TDs (not > a Law...) saying: > > A director MUST INSTINCTIVELY avoid any remark > or action that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to ANY player or OFFICIAL or STAFF or might > interfere with the enjoyment of the game > > If he can not, he is in the wrong job. > > Rui Marques > > (Snipped for convenience) >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> For what it is worth, my favourite Law is >>> Law 74A2: >>> >>> "A player should carefully avoid any remark >>> or action that might cause annoyance or >>> embarrassment to another player or might >>> interfere with the enjoyment of the game." >>> >> >> I admire that one too, but why can't there be >> a law like that which applies to directors? > > Applies which way to directors? > > "A director should carefully avoid any remark > or action that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to a player or might > interfere with the enjoyment of the game." ? > > Hopefully, this is part of the director's role > as a service provider. > > "A player should carefully avoid any remark > or action that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to a director" ? > > This is mostly covered by Law 74 B 5. > "summoning or addressing the Director in a manner > discourteous to him or to other contestants" > > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 19 14:02:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [A] Herman de Wael and I argue about the simplest basic case (An > implicit agreement, not disclosed to opponents, that Herman opens > 1H, 3rd in hand, on 0-3HCP and any shape), It's not an implicit agreement - it's a habit of Herman's of which most of his partners are unaware (so there's nothing to disclose). BLML readers *are* aware of the habit and were I playing with Herman in a WBF competition it would say so on the CC. However, were I playing with him in a EBU competition the CC would say nothing (as mandated by the EBU) but the knowledge would be disclosable in answer to questions. I would be permitted, but not required, to alert Herman's 3rd in 1H openers. It's not complicated. Knowledge is *always* disclosable - SO regulations dictate how and when. Agreements are subject to regulation and, if conventional (or initial actions not within a king of average strength), prohibition/constraint. "Knowledge" does *not* constitute "Agreement". When partnering Herman my actions will be subject to particular scrutiny in order to determine if my (disclosed) knowledge appears to have been used in such a way as to indicate the existence of an agreement. This won't happen if I bid normally over a Herm1H opener because there will be no grounds to say that his openings are *based* on an agreement. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 19 14:02:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I think Alain should disabuse himself of the > misconception that an implicit understanding > exists only if a player will take his partner's habit > into account. Laws 40B, 75A and 75C provide.to > the contrary. For the avoidance of doubt the WBF > Code of Practice says this: "A partnership may not > defend itself against an allegation that its psychic > action is based upon an understanding by claiming > that, although the partner had an awareness of the > possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the > partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have > been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled > to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, > explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice > of action and for this reason the understanding must > be disclosed." > If through partnership experience the partner > is aware of his partner's habit he must disclose that > awareness. If he fails to do so and the information > turns out to be crucial for the opponent's choice of > action redress is due for any damage and in his > discretion the Director may apply a procedural > penalty. Or more briefly. "Disclose what you know, that doesn't make the bid an agreement". That's why the WBF CC explicitly requires disclosure of psychic habits which, if they were agreements, would be illegal conventions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 19 14:02:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <002401c7c9e1$6440ee70$6a00a8c0@rmarcos> Message-ID: Rui wrote: > If the TD cannot "avoid any remark or action that might cause > annoyance or embarrassment to a player or might > interfere with the enjoyment of the game" he is not a good TD, no > matter how good technically he might me. Ah well :(. I find that remarks like "I'm ruling the contract back to..." frequently cause annoyance amongst chea^X^X^X customers who hoped I would rule in their favour. Just out of interest why is that the ones who strive least to avoid taking advantage are exactly the ones who most vehemently say "how dare you accuse me of cheating.." when ruled against? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 19 14:02:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > I think you're missing a point too, Herman. My main dislike of the > psyching situation is that players basically don't know at what > point this "implicit understanding" will cut in. There's nothing to think about. The awareness is disclosable as soon as one has it. For the how/when of such disclosure see local regulations. > And of course, if you do accept that one or two psyches create an > implicit understanding which must be disclosed, then it's likely > (maybe not if you live in Australia!) that your NCBO will then have > you for playing an illegal system the moment you disclose that > implicit understanding. They might try, but they have no justification in law for so doing. Whether one chooses to sue through the civil courts or pursue the matter via the ISC in Geneva may depend on where one lives. The EBU is among the NCBOs which accept the principle that disclosable psychic habits do not always constitute regulable systemic agreements. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 19 14:26:12 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:26:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> Message-ID: <469F5864.1010207@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I think you're missing a point too, Herman. My main dislike of the > psyching situation is that players basically don't know at what point > this "implicit understanding" will cut in. And of course, if you do > accept that one or two psyches create an implicit understanding which > must be disclosed, then it's likely (maybe not if you live in > Australia!) that your NCBO will then have you for playing an illegal > system the moment you disclose that implicit understanding. > But that is just what's wrong with the argument - psyching does not become "illegal" if you disclose the frequency with which you are apt to do it. Let's put it this way: suppose every player were to disclose, individually, the number of psyches they did in the past 5 years. My number would be 10, many players would have 0, John would have 1000. This is "information" but it does not turn your next psyche into an illegal bid. > I stick with my view, the Laws give you the right to psych, but then > more or less take it away again, unless you're a new partnership. > And that view is completely wrong, and it has been called thus by the WBF. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Jul 19 15:00:53 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:00:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469F5864.1010207@skynet.be> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> <469F5864.1010207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20070719090053.161b8639@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:26:12 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > Brian wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > I think you're missing a point too, Herman. My main dislike of the > > psyching situation is that players basically don't know at what > > point this "implicit understanding" will cut in. And of course, if > > you do accept that one or two psyches create an implicit > > understanding which must be disclosed, then it's likely (maybe not > > if you live in Australia!) that your NCBO will then have you for > > playing an illegal system the moment you disclose that implicit > > understanding. > > > > But that is just what's wrong with the argument - psyching does not > become "illegal" if you disclose the frequency with which you are apt > to do it. The frequency alone, no. But to take your infamous 1H opener (yet again!) as an example, are you saying that you can have an implicit agreement (due to frequency) that your 1H can be normal or the psychic kind, and yet that implicit agreement isn't open to regulation by your NCBO? > Let's put it this way: suppose every player were to disclose, > individually, the number of psyches they did in the past 5 years. My > number would be 10, many players would have 0, John would have 1000. > This is "information" but it does not turn your next psyche into an > illegal bid. > > > I stick with my view, the Laws give you the right to psych, but then > > more or less take it away again, unless you're a new partnership. > > > > And that view is completely wrong, and it has been called thus by the > WBF. > I think we're comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about establishing implicit agreements, not just giving opponents a pure measure of frequency. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGn2CFX39R2QaHMdMRAtrcAJ0d09+EKaalMPPEKlmnv6Ib+VAFyQCfS7gE fDZewpPVdu32HgTrqgeuPAY= =mmVb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Jul 19 15:17:18 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:17:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> Message-ID: <20070719091718.23671c96@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02 +0100 (BST) "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > Brian wrote: > > > I think you're missing a point too, Herman. My main dislike of the > > psyching situation is that players basically don't know at what > > point this "implicit understanding" will cut in. > > There's nothing to think about. The awareness is disclosable as soon > as one has it. For the how/when of such disclosure see local > regulations. > OK, Tim, please enlighten me - and this is a genuine request, I don't know the answers. My partner and I wish to play a session where English regulations are in force. She knows that I'm prone to throwing in a psychic 1 Spade (as opposed to a shaded opener) 3rd hand on something like 1 in every 150-200 occasions. Let's say, to keep the numbers round, that 40% of the time I psych I have a near-opener but have bid a short suit, 40% of the time I have the suit but nothing resembling an opener, and 20% of the time I have neither HCP nor suit. Am I to tell her to alert every one of my 3rd hand 1S openers, and explain as above each time? Do we in fact have an implicit agreement that 1S can be our normal 11-15 5+S or occasionally any of those 3 hand types? What *is* the threshold before we have established such an agreement? Do we have an implicit agreement to do it only for as long as she remembers the last occasion, and when she's forgotten about it, the agreement vanishes into thin air? If so, then what about if she and I have different memory capabilities - it is possible for me to have that implicit agreement, because I remember the last time I did it, but for her not to have it, because she doesn't remember it? If that counts as forgetting ones agreements, do we have to record a catalogue of our psyches, so that we can remind each other of them before play? I really think there's such a thing as useless information, and warning opps of a propensity to psyche a bid at *below* a certain threshold of probability is counter-productive. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGn2ReX39R2QaHMdMRAmrGAJ98aguAZfCSHNP7dKEhAvsONuohbACgyv+s 74CFZ8buq2k1KYehv/ZODr4= =n6fU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 15:39:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:39:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> Message-ID: <7B1671FD-6F20-41D1-9066-1AF7C918AD56@starpower.net> On Jul 18, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Brian wrote: > So what you're actually saying (and so does Sven, in his reply to > Nigel's post) is that psyching is basically illegal in anything other > than a new partnership - that you're more or less on the ACBL's "One > psyche per position per partner per lifetime". > > Let me give you an example. My regular online partner and I > have played something close to 100,000 hands over the past 10 years, > initially on OKBridge, now on BridgeBase. Over that period, she may > have seen me psyche (guesstimate) 400-500 times. It's obviously a > logical nonsense to say that she's not aware of the fact that I psyche > occasionally. > > Moving on, you say that the fact that her actions have been entirely > normal is no defence. What kind of defence *IS* there, then? What > exactly is it that you want her to do, if bidding normally is no > defence? Or is it just the case that if a regular partnership is > accused of a CPU when one of them psyches, they should just accept it? > If so, then what prevents unscrupulous opponents making allegations > of a > CPU *EVERY* time a player psyches, knowing that the psycher has no > defence unless it turns out to be a new partnership? > > It seems to me that the Laws are contradictory. Psyches are part of > the > game, but the Laws you quote below mean that you're going to get > nailed > for it each and every time your opponents complain. Given your WBF > Code > of Practice, it looks like the WBF would actually like to ban > psyching, at least by anything other than new partnerships, but hasn't > got the collective balls to say so. > > Now, please prove me wrong. Take an *experienced* partnership. > Construct a hand where one of them psyches - and then please explain, > in English rather than Grattanese, just exactly how that > partnership is > supposed to extablish that the psyche was a legitimate one, given that > partner's actions were entirely normal isn't sufficient. > > As above, my partner and I play online, where self-alerts are the > standard. What would you have me do in order to give opponents the > "equal and timely awareness" that you require - explain (for example) > my 1H opener as 5+H, 11-15 HCP, but on 0.05% of hands, I opened it > with > only four hearts and/or 8-10 HCP, on 0.02% of hands I had 0-2 hearts > and 8-10 HCP, on another 0.02% of hands, I had 5 hearts but only 0-3 > HCP, while on 0.01% of hands, I had 0-2 hearts AND only 0-3 HCP - etc. > etc. > > Apart from the length of time taken to key in all this information, > what exactly is oppo supposed to do with it? Play me for one of the > psyches as opposed to the 99%+ of times that I'll have a genuine 1H > opener? Must we all keep databases of the hand records in order to be > able to specify our (our partner's) psyching tendencies? > > You're making me think Nigel has a point with his repeated demands for > clear and unambiguous Laws - it seems to me to be fundamental to any > game that the players are entitled (if they put the work in) to > understand the rules under which they're playing. Telling them that > they can do something in one law while telling them they're going to > get nailed for doing it in a different law (CoP) seems to make that > understanding impossible to acheive, unless you boil it down to "Don't > psyche, even though it's supposed to be permitted". I think the problem is that we try to come up with a simple and sensible one-size-fits-all policy to deal with (implicit) "agreements about psychs". ISTM that what is needed is two very different policies. Knowing that partner never psychs, or that partner is likely to psych two or three times a session, is very different from knowing that partner is likely to perpetrate a particular psych in a particular situation, such as a fake cue-bid or a "Herman 1H". The former should certainly be disclosable [the ACBL makes this effectively impossible, but that's for another thread], but must be allowed per L40 -- an unexpected psych cannot be said to be "based on a partnership understanding" when that understanding is merely "we do psych", as opposed to bearing on the particular psych in question. The latter may be regulated like any other agreement about the meaning of a particular call in a particular situation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 19 15:58:42 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:58:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> [Nigel wrote]: [A] Herman de Wael and I argue about the simplest basic case (An implicit agreement, not disclosed to opponents, that Herman opens 1H, 3rd in hand, on 0-3HCP and any shape), [Tim West-Meads] It's not an implicit agreement - it's a habit of Herman's of which most of his partners are unaware (so there's nothing to disclose). [nige2] Another flat contradiction from Tim without basis in fact. Herman has told us that his regular partners joke about the fact that he opens 1H when he has 0-3HCP in 3rd seat. IMO they do have an *undisclosed implicit agreement*. Worse. IMO Herman's "habit" is a *convention*. It may also be an *illegal convention*. When I suggested that the law on psychs be clarified, John Probst protested "What is the friggin problem?" From the variety of responses, it seems that John is partially right :) BLMLers (with few exceptions like me) are sure what the law means. It is just that directors all understand it to mean different things. Presumably resulting in the kind of rulings that accord with the WBFLC redefinition of "Equity" From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 19 16:12:04 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:12:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > why is that the ones who strive least to avoid taking advantage are > exactly the ones who most > vehemently say "how dare you accuse me of cheating.." when ruled > against? Because deep down they know that's what they were doing. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 16:35:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:35:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469E38AE.8060907@skynet.be> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <469E38AE.8060907@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> If through partnership experience the partner >> is aware of his partner's habit he must disclose that >> awareness. If he fails to do so and the information >> turns out to be crucial for the opponent's choice of >> action redress is due for any damage and in his >> discretion the Director may apply a procedural >> penalty. > > But I am not with Grattan here. Opponents are entitled to the > knowledge of the psyching tendencies, and if they are not made aware > of it, they are possibly entitled to redress, but no particular > obligation should rest on the partnership to alert or pre-explain. I trust that when Grattan writes "must disclose" he is implicitly assuming the qualifier "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization". That the particular "partnership experience" in question may fall into the "psychic" category cannot, as Herman argues, create some new obligation of proactive disclosure beyond what the SO requires -- or, even, permits. The ACBL, which has yet to recover from Don Oakie's anti-psyching campaign in the 1970s, still regards any prior disclosure regarding a partnership's psyching tendencies as prima facie evidence of an illegal partnership understanding. So unfortunately (and, to my mind, inexplicably), the "regulations of the sponsoring organization" regarding disclosure are, effectively, "don't". And we are forced to follow them. Grattan in particular, as BLML's leading spokesman for the "local authorities should be allowed to do whatever they please" school of regulation, should not have a problem with this. If it were up to me, the now-gone-and-forgotten line of checkboxes on the ACBL CC "Psychs: _Never _Rare _Occasional _Frequent" would be restored tomorrow, and that would be one problem solved. > The ways in which information are usually given to opponents preclude > sensible giving of information is these cases. It is not good for > bridge if my partner starts alerting all my third-in-hand 1He openings > just because 1/1000 of them are psychic. John would need an alert cars > stuck to his forehead. I'm no fan of the "Herman 1H", but Herman definitely is right that alerting every third-hand 1H opening is a "cure worse than the disease". A long time ago, before alerts or Don Oakie, my (then-) wife and I played a system that incorporated Roth-Stone style "controlled psychs". At one club we attended weekly, achieving mixed results, after this had come up a couple of times and occasioned the odd complaint from the punters, the director decided one week that we should pre-alert at each table the fact that when we opened the bidding at the one-level we might have 5 HCP or less. So we did. And we opened at the one-level ten or a dozen times, holding the controlled psych hand once. Yet somehow, opponent after opponent went over a metaphorical cliff, taking odd actions "to allow for the possibility that they [us] had the psych hand" that they would never have normally considered, and we wound up with the highest percentage game in the club's history. Needless to say, the following week we abandoned the pre-alert experiment (our CC, as it always had, continued to explain all) and the club was back to normal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 16:57:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:57:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> References: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Nigel wrote: > As I surmised, Herman de Wael is in excellent company. Now, Alain > Gottcheiner and Sven Pran both rationalise what appears to me to be > law-breaking. > > Even if Alain and Sven are right and I'm wrong, Bridge rules are so > ambiguous, fragmented, subjective, and sophisticated, that I am sure > that most BLMLers rationalise rule-breaking. > > I hope that, at last, BLMLers accept that a claim that many players > habitually break the law is *not* an accusation of cheating. Nigel keeps making this claim pro forma, but keeps making it obvious that he doesn't really mean it. In his message the other day in the "Equity" thread, he talks about rationalization, interpretation, confusion over the law, etc., and, as here, insists that he is not accusing players who do this of cheating. But he then goes on to analyze how long such players, depending on the specific circumstances under which their behavior has been noted, found to be illegal and ruled against with an appropriate adjustment, will need to wait until they can get away with committing the same infraction again. Methinks the gentleman contradicts himself. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 17:08:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:08:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Brian wrote: > Nigel wrote: > >> [I] I have always advocated psychs. They add interest and variety to >> the game. Meredith and Collins developed them into an Art form. I >> still maintain that you must desist from those that become implicit >> understandings. > > In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly when something > becomes an implicit understanding. Lots of luck in writing it, because > there is something which is *definitely* going to depend on the > class of > players involved. If it were possible to write such a defintion (an open question) and were to actually be done, it might well be the most important advance in bridge jurisprudence in decades. Not only would it solve the problems raised in this thread, but also a myriad of other issues that have been raised in BLML that have nothing to do with psyching. The "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" approach to implicit agreements has been problematic ever since the concept was introduced into the Law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 17:23:08 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:23:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <19D506F5-89B8-48B1-A96B-D5472F80EA54@starpower.net> On Jul 18, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Nigel wrote: > [Brian Meadows] > In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly when something > becomes an implicit understanding. Lots of luck in writing it, because > there is something which is *definitely* going to depend on the class > of players involved. > > [nigel] > I agree with Brian that the WBFLC need to define observable criteria > that indicate a psychic tendency has become an implicit understanding. The WBFLC need to define observable criteria that indicate a tendency has become an implicit understanding. "Psychic" is a red herring that can only distract from the real issue. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 17:32:17 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:32:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> <007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> Message-ID: <92907D0C-706A-491D-9311-3C1E3059BCB2@starpower.net> On Jul 18, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Brian wrote: > To make these rules/CoP/whatever in any way fair to the players, you > need something along the lines of > > 1) Psyching more than X times in any N boards is considered to create > an implicit understanding. > > 2) Psyching the same call on more than X% of occasions is > considered to > create an implicit understanding. > > And so on - I'm sure you get the idea. IMO, if you're going to > consider > that players create implicit agreements by psyching, then players have > the right to a much clearer idea of where the boundaries are than > currently appears to be the case. > > No, it's not easy to do that. I've no idea what the values of X and N > above should be, for example. Just pick a couple of numbers out of the > air, if need be, because that will be far better than all the > (location dependent, no doubt) suches and sufficientlies that we > appear > to have at the moment. The ACBL has not only followed Brian's prescription, but has, in doing so, discovered a simplifying case: Once you decide to set X=0, the value of N no longer matters. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 19 17:33:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:33:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070719091718.23671c96@linuxbox> References: <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> <20070719091718.23671c96@linuxbox> Message-ID: <469F8454.40909@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02 +0100 (BST) > "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > >> Brian wrote: >> > > OK, Tim, please enlighten me - and this is a genuine request, I don't > know the answers. My partner and I wish to play a session where > English regulations are in force. She knows that I'm prone to throwing > in a psychic 1 Spade (as opposed to a shaded opener) 3rd hand on > something like 1 in every 150-200 occasions. Let's say, to keep the > numbers round, that 40% of the time I psych I have a near-opener but > have bid a short suit, 40% of the time I have the suit but nothing > resembling an opener, and 20% of the time I have neither HCP nor suit. > > Am I to tell her to alert every one of my 3rd hand 1S openers, and > explain as above each time? Do we in fact have an implicit agreement > that 1S can be our normal 11-15 5+S or occasionally any of those 3 hand > types? What *is* the threshold before we have established such an > agreement? Do we have an implicit agreement to do it only for as long > as she remembers the last occasion, and when she's forgotten about it, > the agreement vanishes into thin air? If so, then what about if she and > I have different memory capabilities - it is possible for me to have > that implicit agreement, because I remember the last time I did it, but > for her not to have it, because she doesn't remember it? If that counts > as forgetting ones agreements, do we have to record a catalogue of our > psyches, so that we can remind each other of them before play? > Yes indeed, that is what the opponents are entitled to know. > > I really think there's such a thing as useless information, and warning > opps of a propensity to psyche a bid at *below* a certain threshold of > probability is counter-productive. > Exactly. More often than not, information like that will not be available to opponents. But they cannot be damaged because of that. Now of course, at some time your psyche will be discovered. At that time, the opponents may well ask your partner (or even you) what type of psyches you perform. You will answer that, and they will have their information. Or you won't, they'll be misinformed, and maybe even damaged, and the TD will rule against you. But at no time shall your "understanding" mean that you are playing an illegal system. Nor shall your "concealment" (which may well exist - but rarely cause damage) mean you are playing an "illegal CPU". > > Brian. > > - -- > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFGn2ReX39R2QaHMdMRAmrGAJ98aguAZfCSHNP7dKEhAvsONuohbACgyv+s > 74CFZ8buq2k1KYehv/ZODr4= > =n6fU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 19 17:38:53 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:38:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <7B1671FD-6F20-41D1-9066-1AF7C918AD56@starpower.net> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <7B1671FD-6F20-41D1-9066-1AF7C918AD56@starpower.net> Message-ID: <469F858D.1050803@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I think the problem is that we try to come up with a simple and > sensible one-size-fits-all policy to deal with (implicit) "agreements > about psychs". ISTM that what is needed is two very different > policies. Knowing that partner never psychs, or that partner is > likely to psych two or three times a session, is very different from > knowing that partner is likely to perpetrate a particular psych in a > particular situation, such as a fake cue-bid or a "Herman 1H". The > former should certainly be disclosable [the ACBL makes this > effectively impossible, but that's for another thread], but must be > allowed per L40 -- an unexpected psych cannot be said to be "based on > a partnership understanding" when that understanding is merely "we do > psych", as opposed to bearing on the particular psych in question. > The latter may be regulated like any other agreement about the > meaning of a particular call in a particular situation. > Logical inconsistency here, Eric. I only do one type of psyche, so if you ask me if my 1NT in first seat is a psyche, I will answer "never". But my third-hand major opening may be psychic. Another player may well have two types of psyche, and say "never" to a third kind. John has all kinds, and will answer "possible" on all of them. So if John opens 1He in third seat, he will give the exact same response as I do. Why should that be allowed for John, who does more than one kind of psyche, but not for me, who never psyches a 1NT in first position? The fact that my psyches are limited to one type do not make them illegal, surely? I'm certain that John will open the same hands 1He than I do - they are very suited to psyching. Maybe he does so many of them that he has not realized that he does this particular one 90% of the time, same as I. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 18:13:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:13:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <469EAB5B.40304@NTLworld.com> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com><004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john><469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox><469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com><007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> <000a01c7c992$51bbf870$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <469EAB5B.40304@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Nigel wrote: > I advocate slightly different and much more controversial rules... > > [A] If, like Alain and Sven, you *never* allow for partner's psych, > then it is so hard to prove a concealed partnership understanding, > that I would declassify the psych into an ordinary call, ignoring any > damage inflicted on opponents. > > That is, I would consider only *fielded* psychs. > > [B] As in the case of most Bridge rules, I think a director must rule > whether of not a psych was fielded on the *balance of probability*. > > Evidence from a single board may suffice. (Cries of "rule of > coincidence" and shrieks of protest from the ACBL). That might just be a workable approach to the problem, although "slightly different" seems like a gross underbid. It could mean that we could recognize the unqualified right to psych that is granted under the most straightforward (if far from the extant) interpretation of L40A, while leaving ourselves with necessary tools to control potential abuses, which sounds like an ideal balance. And we would not need any new principles of bridge jurisprudence. Knowledge of partner's psyching tendencies would never in itself constitute an infraction, but it would be illegal to choose a call suggested over its LAs by that knowledge, subject to redress, with the NOS getting the "benefit of the doubt". Sound familiar? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 18:49:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:49:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0A057C27-2075-485D-9FEF-A2311B5CB8F2@starpower.net> On Jul 19, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Now the way the laws are formulated, there is no literal difference > between "MI" and "CPU". But whereas the first contains no such > indication, the second is considered tantamount to cheating. "No literal difference" between explaining an agreement incorrectly and failing to acknowledge that any such agreement exists? Say what? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 19:09:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:09:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469F2E47.5020401@skynet.be> References: <469F2E47.5020401@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2007, at 5:26 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> We've been there before. There is no partnership "understanding". >>> The >>> call remains a psyche. The fact that a particular psyche can be made >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Not "can be made" but "is always made", since a third-seat Pass by >> Herman De Wael _guarantees_ some high-card values. > > No Richard, you're looking at it from the wrong side. Yes, I "always" > bid 1He on certain hands, but 1He does not show those hands. 1He "can > be made" on those hands, but when I open 1He, third-in-hand, please > expect 13 points 999 times out of 1000. What would Herman make of one's disclosure obligation playing an opening bid of 2D that showed one of (a) a weak two-bid in either major, (b) a sound preempt, stronger than an opening 3-bid but less than a 1-level opening, in either minor, or (c) a balanced hand with 27+ HCP? Does he really believe that one should properly say nothing at all about possibility (c), as it will arise far less often than one time in 1000? He must: "Yes, I 'always' bid 2D on certain hands, but 2D does not show those hands. 2D 'can be made' on those hands, but when I open 2D, please expect less than an opening bid 9,999 times out of 10,000." OK, but how does this matter? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 19:26:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:26:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> Message-ID: <79621FB7-0562-412A-AE8A-30A343FA1353@starpower.net> On Jul 19, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Brian wrote: > I stick with my view, the Laws give you the right to psych, but then > more or less take it away again, unless you're a new partnership. The proverbial "man from Mars" who picked up our lawbook and read it without any prior knowledge of its subject matter would surely conclude that the right to psych is absolute and unassailable. It is the WBF, with its convoluted policies embodied in leopard-protected WBFLC minutes, and, far more egregiously, with its absolute laissez- faire attitude towards the far more egregious policies perpetrated by some of its affiliated ZOs/NCBOs, who have "more or less" taken it away again (and where I play, there's a lot more more than less there). Blaming poor, innocent TFLB for the actions of those who would interpret it to death seems somehow unfair. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 19:33:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:33:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469F5864.1010207@skynet.be> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> <20070719063856.64969783@linuxbox> <469F5864.1010207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <57516932-C022-4082-ACFA-71E47BB3C851@starpower.net> On Jul 19, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > But that is just what's wrong with the argument - psyching does not > become "illegal" if you disclose the frequency with which you are apt > to do it. ...except in the ACBL. My apology if these reminders are getting a bit repetitious. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 20:23:44 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:23:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469F858D.1050803@skynet.be> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <7B1671FD-6F20-41D1-9066-1AF7C918AD56@starpower.net> <469F858D.1050803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20357886-851B-48A2-B1E2-3D4E984E3316@starpower.net> On Jul 19, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> I think the problem is that we try to come up with a simple and >> sensible one-size-fits-all policy to deal with (implicit) "agreements >> about psychs". ISTM that what is needed is two very different >> policies. Knowing that partner never psychs, or that partner is >> likely to psych two or three times a session, is very different from >> knowing that partner is likely to perpetrate a particular psych in a >> particular situation, such as a fake cue-bid or a "Herman 1H". The >> former should certainly be disclosable [the ACBL makes this >> effectively impossible, but that's for another thread], but must be >> allowed per L40 -- an unexpected psych cannot be said to be "based on >> a partnership understanding" when that understanding is merely "we do >> psych", as opposed to bearing on the particular psych in question. >> The latter may be regulated like any other agreement about the >> meaning of a particular call in a particular situation. > > Logical inconsistency here, Eric. > > I only do one type of psyche, so if you ask me if my 1NT in first seat > is a psyche, I will answer "never". But my third-hand major opening > may be psychic. > > Another player may well have two types of psyche, and say "never" to a > third kind. > > John has all kinds, and will answer "possible" on all of them. > > So if John opens 1He in third seat, he will give the exact same > response as I do. Why should that be allowed for John, who does more > than one kind of psyche, but not for me, who never psyches a 1NT in > first position? > > The fact that my psyches are limited to one type do not make them > illegal, surely? I'm certain that John will open the same hands 1He > than I do - they are very suited to psyching. Maybe he does so many of > them that he has not realized that he does this particular one 90% of > the time, same as I. Herman has missed my point completely. I argue that knowledge of partner's (e.g. John's) general propensity to psych and knowledge of partner's (e.g. Herman's) prediliction for a particular psych in a particular situation are two very different things which should give rise to very different sorts of disclosure obligations. Herman quite correctly elucidates the "logical inconsistency" that comes of trying to apply to the latter the sort of disclosure appropriate to the former. His quarrel with his detractors isn't over whether his disclosure obligations are or are not the same as John's, but over whether they are substantively different or do not exist at all. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 19 22:12:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:12:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <20357886-851B-48A2-B1E2-3D4E984E3316@starpower.net> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <7B1671FD-6F20-41D1-9066-1AF7C918AD56@starpower.net> <469F858D.1050803@skynet.be> <20357886-851B-48A2-B1E2-3D4E984E3316@starpower.net> Message-ID: <469FC5BB.1030009@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 19, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> I think the problem is that we try to come up with a simple and >>> sensible one-size-fits-all policy to deal with (implicit) "agreements >>> about psychs". ISTM that what is needed is two very different >>> policies. Knowing that partner never psychs, or that partner is >>> likely to psych two or three times a session, is very different from >>> knowing that partner is likely to perpetrate a particular psych in a >>> particular situation, such as a fake cue-bid or a "Herman 1H". The >>> former should certainly be disclosable [the ACBL makes this >>> effectively impossible, but that's for another thread], but must be >>> allowed per L40 -- an unexpected psych cannot be said to be "based on >>> a partnership understanding" when that understanding is merely "we do >>> psych", as opposed to bearing on the particular psych in question. >>> The latter may be regulated like any other agreement about the >>> meaning of a particular call in a particular situation. >> Logical inconsistency here, Eric. >> >> I only do one type of psyche, so if you ask me if my 1NT in first seat >> is a psyche, I will answer "never". But my third-hand major opening >> may be psychic. >> >> Another player may well have two types of psyche, and say "never" to a >> third kind. >> >> John has all kinds, and will answer "possible" on all of them. >> >> So if John opens 1He in third seat, he will give the exact same >> response as I do. Why should that be allowed for John, who does more >> than one kind of psyche, but not for me, who never psyches a 1NT in >> first position? >> >> The fact that my psyches are limited to one type do not make them >> illegal, surely? I'm certain that John will open the same hands 1He >> than I do - they are very suited to psyching. Maybe he does so many of >> them that he has not realized that he does this particular one 90% of >> the time, same as I. > > Herman has missed my point completely. I argue that knowledge of > partner's (e.g. John's) general propensity to psych and knowledge of > partner's (e.g. Herman's) prediliction for a particular psych in a > particular situation are two very different things which should give > rise to very different sorts of disclosure obligations. Herman quite > correctly elucidates the "logical inconsistency" that comes of trying > to apply to the latter the sort of disclosure appropriate to the > former. His quarrel with his detractors isn't over whether his > disclosure obligations are or are not the same as John's, but over > whether they are substantively different or do not exist at all. > Eric has missed my point completely. When I open 1He in third hand, my partner might know that this may be a psyche. When John opens 1He in third hand, his partner might know that this may be a psyche. No difference. When I open 1NT in first hand, my partner is fairly certain this is _not_ a psyche. When John opens 1NT in first hand, his partner might know that this may be a psyche. So I am the less frequent psycher, but because I have told of the one psyche that I do perform, my psyche becomes illegal, whil John's doesn't? And don't think that John's psyche might be based on other things than mine - I have done this with all sorts of hands, and so has John. Also don't try to think that I only psyche in one situation. If the same situation offers itself to John, so will he. John has a bigger number of situations he will psyche in, but he will do exactly the same thing when my situation arises. (Please John, if you don't, imagine someone who will). My point is that others will do the same psyche as I so, and they will have the same explanation as I do (third in hand, so few points, of course I open!). it is not because I don't do any other psyches that there is any difference between my psyche and theirs, in the same situation. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 19 22:16:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:16:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: References: <469F2E47.5020401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <469FC694.5030301@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 19, 2007, at 5:26 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> We've been there before. There is no partnership "understanding". >>>> The >>>> call remains a psyche. The fact that a particular psyche can be made >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Not "can be made" but "is always made", since a third-seat Pass by >>> Herman De Wael _guarantees_ some high-card values. >> No Richard, you're looking at it from the wrong side. Yes, I "always" >> bid 1He on certain hands, but 1He does not show those hands. 1He "can >> be made" on those hands, but when I open 1He, third-in-hand, please >> expect 13 points 999 times out of 1000. > > What would Herman make of one's disclosure obligation playing an > opening bid of 2D that showed one of (a) a weak two-bid in either > major, (b) a sound preempt, stronger than an opening 3-bid but less > than a 1-level opening, in either minor, or (c) a balanced hand with > 27+ HCP? > > Does he really believe that one should properly say nothing at all > about possibility (c), as it will arise far less often than one time > in 1000? He must: > > "Yes, I 'always' bid 2D on certain hands, but 2D does not show those > hands. 2D 'can be made' on those hands, but when I open 2D, please > expect less than an opening bid 9,999 times out of 10,000." OK, but > how does this matter? > The big difference is that the 27+ hand will be described in the next round. And the bid is forcing, giving opener the chance to show the hand. What would you think of someone opening a classic weak two (non forcing) on a 27+ count? Crazy, that's what he is, and theefore a psyche. I have always advocated that we need to look at a lot of other circumstances before we can judge if a psyche is systemic or not. For one thing, I refuse to play Drury, because I believe that the combination of third hand psyching + Drury creates a system which allows the psyche to be risk-free. But frequency alone cannot distinguish between psyches and system. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 22:42:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:42:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469FC5BB.1030009@skynet.be> References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <7B1671FD-6F20-41D1-9066-1AF7C918AD56@starpower.net> <469F858D.1050803@skynet.be> <20357886-851B-48A2-B1E2-3D4E984E3316@starpower.net> <469FC5BB.1030009@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > When I open 1He in third hand, my partner might know that this may be > a psyche. > When John opens 1He in third hand, his partner might know that this > may be a psyche. > No difference. When Herman opens 1H in 3rd seat, his partner knows that he is overwhelmingly likely to hold 12+ HCP and 5+ hearts, but there is some small chance that he might hold 0-3 HCP with only three hearts. When John opens 1H in 3rd seat, his partner knows that he is overwhelmingly likely to hold 12+ HCP and 5+ hearts, but there is some small chance that he might hold something (anything) else. When Herman passes in third seat, his partner knows that he holds neither an opening bid nor 0-3 HCP with only three hearts. When John passes in third seat, his partner knows that he probably doesn't hold an opening bid, but there is some small chance that he might. Someone who can find "no difference" between Herman's and John's 1H opening bids must lack the ability to find any difference between anybody's 1H opening bids and anybody else's. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 19 23:01:23 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:01:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <469FC694.5030301@skynet.be> References: <469F2E47.5020401@skynet.be> <469FC694.5030301@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> What would Herman make of one's disclosure obligation playing an >> opening bid of 2D that showed one of (a) a weak two-bid in either >> major, (b) a sound preempt, stronger than an opening 3-bid but less >> than a 1-level opening, in either minor, or (c) a balanced hand with >> 27+ HCP? >> >> Does he really believe that one should properly say nothing at all >> about possibility (c), as it will arise far less often than one time >> in 1000? He must: >> >> "Yes, I 'always' bid 2D on certain hands, but 2D does not show those >> hands. 2D 'can be made' on those hands, but when I open 2D, please >> expect less than an opening bid 9,999 times out of 10,000." OK, but >> how does this matter? > > The big difference is that the 27+ hand will be described in the next > round. And the "Herman psych" won't? That would only be true if regardless of how the auction subsequently transpires, Herman will always take the same action at his next turn with either a minimum legtimate 1H opening or his "psych" hand. > And the bid is forcing, giving opener the chance to show the hand. And when Herman opens 1H with 0-3 HCP, he really needs to worry about the possibility that it might go all pass? But those are mere quibbles. What matters is... If those really do qualify as a "big difference", wouldn't that difference make it a lot *less* potentially damaging to one's opponents to fail to disclose my possible balanced 27+ than to fail to disclose Herman's possible 0-3? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Jul 20 02:49:38 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:49:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox><7B1671FD-6F20-41D1-9066-1AF7C918AD56@starpower.net> <469F858D.1050803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002e01c7ca67$da28d5e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > Eric Landau wrote: > > Another player may well have two types of psyche, and say "never" to a > third kind. > > John has all kinds, and will answer "possible" on all of them. > > So if John opens 1He in third seat, he will give the exact same > response as I do. Why should that be allowed for John, who does more > than one kind of psyche, but not for me, who never psyches a 1NT in > first position? I think I'd open the Herman 1H with 2NT if I bothered :) It's a psyche I've been experimenting with. It has enormous variance John From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 20 03:24:59 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:24:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) In-Reply-To: <200707181424.l6IEOmdX016553@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707181424.l6IEOmdX016553@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46A00EEB.8080307@cfa.harvard.edu> For some reason, the topic of psychic bidding provokes strong emotional reactions. Anybody know why the legally-equivalent topic of defensive false cards doesn't do the same? Let's see if we can sort through the mess by going back to basic principles. It seems to me (and I think most agree) that there are only two types of infractions related to psychic bidding: 1. The so-called psych may instead be a matter of partnership agreement, in which case it may be an illegal agreement under the regulations in force. 2. Agreements and/or relevant partnership experience may not have been properly disclosed. A lot of sources -- notably the CoP -- seem to me to confuse these two types of infraction. The questions on which there is little agreement are: 1. On what basis does one judge whether these infractions have occurred? The answers need not be the same for the two cases. 2. What rectification is proper in case of illegal agreement? (Grattan once wrote -- and I agree with him -- that SO's who regulate agreements should also set forth the principles for rectification, but in fact few do so. The EBU is the only one I know of that does.) 3. What disclosure is required? Let's look at a few items in light of these thoughts. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I think Alain should disabuse himself of the > misconception that an implicit understanding > exists only if a player will take his partner's habit > into account. Here we have the ambiguous word "understanding." To the extent it refers to disclosure of experience, no one will disagree. If, however, it is meant to refer to partnership agreements that may be regulated, quite a few will disagree. (I believe the EBU doesn't agree, for example.) The full quote from the CoP remains ambiguous, though I think in practice most take it as referring to agreements as well as disclosure. From: Herman De Wael [discussing agreements not properly disclosed] > Moreover, people interpret the laws in such a way that it becomes > illegal to make the call itself. As I've often pointed out in > different threads, this is _not_ the case. That is very much in doubt. I've never seen an authoritative answer, but I believe I have seen a statement from EK saying the opposite of what Herman says. The EBU approach seems very close to making the call itself illegal. Regardless of that, we will make considerable progress if we can agree what is legal, even if we can't agree on the exact rectification for infractions (which in any case is probably a matter for SO regulation as the Laws currently stand). From: Eric Landau [discussing a possible new approach] > Knowledge of partner's psyching tendencies would never in itself > constitute an infraction, but it would be illegal to choose a call > suggested over its LAs by that knowledge, subject to redress, with > the NOS getting the "benefit of the doubt". Sound familiar? This may be workable, though (as will surprise no one), I have a different idea in mind. But let's see if we can agree on some principles first. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jul 20 03:31:02 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:31:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <200707181418.l6IEILp6015033@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707181418.l6IEILp6015033@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46A01056.70408@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John Probst" > There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. read law 40 until you > understand it. > > When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it. > > Where is the friggin problem? The problem is that many who read these Laws come to different conclusions. Partly that's a result of lack of clarity -- probably the result of political compromises in Law writing, so each jurisdiction can enforce its own views -- and partly it's a result of deliberate obfuscation (referring to Zone 2, as Eric has often pointed out). No doubt the usual problems of sloppiness and fuzzy thinking play their roles, too. Let's see whether we can get any agreement on the principles I wrote down earlier. (I'm sure you, Tim, and Herman all agree on them, but let me know if I'm wrong.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 20 03:40:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:40:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <19D506F5-89B8-48B1-A96B-D5472F80EA54@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >The WBFLC need to define observable criteria that indicate a >tendency has become an implicit understanding. "Psychic" is a >red herring that can only distract from the real issue. Richard Hills: President Bill Clinton once said, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." My interpretation of the criteria laid down in the WBF Code of Practice is that, "Psyches should be unsafe, legal and rare." A particular rare psyche should not be made safe for partner by a player _always_ perpetrating that rare psyche. That is, in my opinion, a player's general permission to deviate from his side's announced understandings is limited to those cases when their partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have their opponents. In my opinion there is no general permission to _repeatedly_ deviate from announced partnership understandings, since such repetition leads to implicit partnership understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed (if legal) or refrained from (if illegal - such as, for example, a banned HUM method of automatically opening 1H with 0-4 hcp in third seat). 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.willey at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 04:03:47 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:03:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) In-Reply-To: <46A00EEB.8080307@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707181424.l6IEOmdX016553@cfa.harvard.edu> <46A00EEB.8080307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707191903g18a7b918i2850eeb675d5f73d@mail.gmail.com> On 7/19/07, Steve Willner wrote: > For some reason, the topic of psychic bidding provokes strong emotional > reactions. Anybody know why the legally-equivalent topic of defensive > false cards doesn't do the same? I think its a matter of the complexity of the problem space. >From an analytic perspective, declarer play and defense are fairly simple. Its possible to conclusively prove that "false carding" is an optimal strategy. I suspect that people would have a great deal of trouble accepting that a strategy that is demonstrably optimal should be treated as illegal. In contrast, bidding is a terribly complex problem. Bidding systems are complex in their own right. When one starts to consider the inter-relations between the bidding game and the declarer play / defense game things get even more hairy. Throw in questions related to population dynamics and life gets truly ugly. I'm not aware of anything remotely resembling an interesting analytic result related to bidding system designs. Accordingly, its impossible to make a claim that psyches are part of an optimal bidding strategy. This makes it a lot easier to try to suppress them... -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 04:33:02 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:33:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <19D506F5-89B8-48B1-A96B-D5472F80EA54@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707191933h472d7dbclf079fd73853ccf05@mail.gmail.com> On 20/07/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > >The WBFLC need to define observable criteria that indicate a > >tendency has become an implicit understanding. "Psychic" is a > >red herring that can only distract from the real issue. > > Richard Hills: > > President Bill Clinton once said, "Abortion should be safe, > legal and rare." My interpretation of the criteria laid down > in the WBF Code of Practice is that, "Psyches should be unsafe, > legal and rare." A particular rare psyche should not be made > safe for partner by a player _always_ perpetrating that rare > psyche. > > That is, in my opinion, a player's general permission to > deviate from his side's announced understandings is limited to > those cases when their partner has no more reason to be aware > of the deviation than have their opponents. > On what do you base that opinion. There are legal reasons while I might be more aware that my partner psyches than my opponents are. > In my opinion there is no general permission to _repeatedly_ > deviate from announced partnership understandings, since such > repetition leads to implicit partnership understandings which > then form part of the partnership's methods and must be > disclosed (if legal) or refrained from (if illegal - such as, > for example, a banned HUM method of automatically opening 1H > with 0-4 hcp in third seat). > The general position is in Law 40A "A player may make any call ...". Yes there is a caveat but that caveat is not that repetition makes the psyche illegal. Repetition or as the law says 'habitual violations' only 'may' lead to implicit agreements. There is no necessity. I have at least one partnership in which I cannot imagine there ever being an agreement - implicit or otherwise - that we psyche. Nevertheless I still uphold my right to psyche in that partnership. Therefore your conclusion is only partially valid. Only when an agreement has been reached are the requirements of disclosure and system regulations as you state. Even without agreement there is a requirement to disclose partnership experience. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 20 05:09:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:09:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c7c9f5$862f0f30$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Probst: >I have looked closely at my psyches and continue to do so, and work hard >to ensure there is little pattern to them. However, both my regular >partners do alert my 1NT overcall and explain it as "ostensibly natural, >occasionally a joke with 6 hearts.", so I did it with diamonds last week >and both opponents (usual suspects) remarked I'd psyched my psyche. :) Richard Hills: Yes, it is _because_ John Probst chooses to "work hard to ensure there is little pattern" that most of John's alleged psyches are in fact psyches - John's pard had no more reason than John's opponents to be aware that John's 1NT overcall could be a joke with long diamonds. And it is _because_ Herman De Wael always chooses a stereotyped 1H opening in third seat with 0-4 hcp that his alleged psyche has long since transmogrified into an implicit partnership understanding - Herman's pard has much more reason than Herman's opponents to be aware that Herman's third-hand Pass guarantees at least 5 hcp (something that an opposing declarer might want to know when planning the play). 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 Fri Jul 20 09:02:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:02:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A05E0D.1050506@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> The WBFLC need to define observable criteria that indicate a >> tendency has become an implicit understanding. "Psychic" is a >> red herring that can only distract from the real issue. > > Richard Hills: > > President Bill Clinton once said, "Abortion should be safe, > legal and rare." My interpretation of the criteria laid down > in the WBF Code of Practice is that, "Psyches should be unsafe, > legal and rare." A particular rare psyche should not be made > safe for partner by a player _always_ perpetrating that rare > psyche. > So far, so good. > That is, in my opinion, a player's general permission to > deviate from his side's announced understandings is limited to > those cases when their partner has no more reason to be aware > of the deviation than have their opponents. > And this. But then: > In my opinion there is no general permission to _repeatedly_ > deviate from announced partnership understandings, since such > repetition leads to implicit partnership understandings which > then form part of the partnership's methods and must be > disclosed (if legal) or refrained from (if illegal - such as, > for example, a banned HUM method of automatically opening 1H > with 0-4 hcp in third seat). > What's with this word "repeatedly"? Yes, I've said that I always do it, but what does that matter? Over and above 1000 third-in-hand 1He openings, there are maybe 4 that qualify for the H1H. I know I've said I always open them, but sometimes you just don't feel the urge, and I pass anyway. So I open 3 out of 4. That means that in 1003 times I open 1H, 3 times it's psychic. Now of course it is possible that my current partner remembered that last time, and that is why I believe this must be revealed, but you cannot treat me any different from another player, who opened 2 out of 4, or even one who opened 4 out of 4. Because our psyching frequency (3 out of 1003 or 2 out of 1002) is exactly the same (and I doubt if we open all 1000 same hands !) So even if there is "automatic" psyching, to the rest of the table it is just a freak occurence. And I repeat, if you are going to call my psyches illegal for none other reason than because I said I "always" did them, then I'll no longer say I always do them. I'll just let you figure it out for yourself, and admit to 3 psyches without revealing whether I had 3 or 30 suitable hands in that period. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 20 09:09:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:09:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: References: <469F2E47.5020401@skynet.be> <469FC694.5030301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46A05FBB.1090208@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 19, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> What would Herman make of one's disclosure obligation playing an >>> opening bid of 2D that showed one of (a) a weak two-bid in either >>> major, (b) a sound preempt, stronger than an opening 3-bid but less >>> than a 1-level opening, in either minor, or (c) a balanced hand with >>> 27+ HCP? >>> >>> Does he really believe that one should properly say nothing at all >>> about possibility (c), as it will arise far less often than one time >>> in 1000? He must: >>> >>> "Yes, I 'always' bid 2D on certain hands, but 2D does not show those >>> hands. 2D 'can be made' on those hands, but when I open 2D, please >>> expect less than an opening bid 9,999 times out of 10,000." OK, but >>> how does this matter? >> The big difference is that the 27+ hand will be described in the next >> round. > > And the "Herman psych" won't? That would only be true if regardless > of how the auction subsequently transpires, Herman will always take > the same action at his next turn with either a minimum legtimate 1H > opening or his "psych" hand. > By which time I might be declaring 4He! The risk is a lot greater than if I psych a 27+ in a forcing auction which is described as only weak. >> And the bid is forcing, giving opener the chance to show the hand. > > And when Herman opens 1H with 0-3 HCP, he really needs to worry about > the possibility that it might go all pass? > > But those are mere quibbles. What matters is... > > If those really do qualify as a "big difference", wouldn't that > difference make it a lot *less* potentially damaging to one's > opponents to fail to disclose my possible balanced 27+ than to fail > to disclose Herman's possible 0-3? > But that is exactly what I have been saying all along - of course it needs to be disclosed! But a need for disclosure does not make it illegal! You seem to believe that if something is disclosable, it must also be systemic (and hence forbidden if outside system regulations). But that is not the case. Everything systemic is disclosable, but there are other things that are disclosable without being systemic. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 20 09:20:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:20:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A06252.7060601@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > John Probst: > >> I have looked closely at my psyches and continue to do so, and work hard >> to ensure there is little pattern to them. However, both my regular >> partners do alert my 1NT overcall and explain it as "ostensibly natural, >> occasionally a joke with 6 hearts.", so I did it with diamonds last week >> and both opponents (usual suspects) remarked I'd psyched my psyche. :) > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, it is _because_ John Probst chooses to "work hard to ensure there is > little pattern" that most of John's alleged psyches are in fact psyches - > John's pard had no more reason than John's opponents to be aware that > John's 1NT overcall could be a joke with long diamonds. > ehm ... I have never heard my partners alert "possible psyche". > And it is _because_ Herman De Wael always chooses a stereotyped 1H > opening in third seat with 0-4 hcp that his alleged psyche has long since > transmogrified into an implicit partnership understanding - Herman's pard > has much more reason than Herman's opponents to be aware that Herman's > third-hand Pass guarantees at least 5 hcp (something that an opposing > declarer might want to know when planning the play). > Now there you might have a point. If it were literally true that I "always" open the H1H, then my pass does guarantee 5 HCP. It's not that high, actually, since I have not done a 4-pointer in the last 5 years, and I will think twice on 3 points. And some partners like it so little that I won't do it in the beginning of a tournament, and so on. Lots of other conditions. Which don't matter, since all together, they do form another set of negative inferences that are present in my pass, and that the opponents are entitled to know. My point is that you use the word "transmogrified" far too soon. None of my partners has ever drawn those conclusions. It would be different if I were to tell them about it and ask them to take it into account while defending ("I'll keep my few points hidden, you know I have them since I did not psyche"). That would be cheating, of course. My partners are not reading blml, I don't confide in them as I do in you guys. And I do it in order to show you how difficult the psyching cases are. You guys are on my back, only because I have been honest. If I were to say nothing, you would have no clue. Not even if you were called to my table to rule on my psyche. Not even if you asked me if I had done that before and I honestly answered, "yes, a few times in the past 10 years, always with a different partner". You would not imagine of asking me what I did the last 3 times I held a similar hand, and (apart from me) most players would not be able to remember this. We should make it possible for a player to honestly inform his opponents of the real set of experiences without ruling his psyches illegal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 20 09:32:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:32:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A01056.70408@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >The problem is that many who read these Laws come to different >conclusions. [snip] >No doubt the usual problems of sloppiness and fuzzy thinking play >their roles, too. > >Let's see whether we can get any agreement on the principles I >wrote down earlier [snip] >but let me know if I'm wrong.) Steve Willner (earlier): >>It seems to me (and I think most agree) that there are only two >>types of infractions related to psychic bidding: >> >>1. The so-called psych may instead be a matter of partnership >>agreement, in which case it may be an illegal agreement under >>the regulations in force. >> >>2. Agreements and/or relevant partnership experience may not >>have been properly disclosed. >> >>A lot of sources -- notably the CoP -- seem to me to confuse >>these two types of infraction. Richard Hills: I think Steve's "two" infractions are one oxymoronic infraction. Grattan Endicott (2nd July 2007): >>>+=+ I think an 'agreement' not to psyche is an oxymoron. How >>>can anyone 'agree' not to do something that excludes agreement? >>>(A partnership can say "it is our practice not to psyche".) >>> ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills (earlier): "Psyches should be unsafe, legal and rare." That is, in my opinion, a player's general permission to deviate from his side's announced understandings is limited to those cases when their partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have their opponents. Wayne Burrows asked: >On what do you base that opinion? WBF Code of Practice, page 8: "To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic." 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 Fri Jul 20 10:35:07 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:35:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: References: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46A073BB.7040205@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Nigel keeps making this claim pro forma, but keeps making it obvious that he doesn't really mean it. In his message the other day in the "Equity" thread, he talks about rationalization, interpretation, confusion over the law, etc., and, as here, insists that he is not accusing players who do this of cheating. But he then goes on to analyze how long such players, depending on the specific circumstances under which their behavior has been noted, found to be illegal and ruled against with an appropriate adjustment, will need to wait until they can get away with committing the same infraction again. Methinks the gentleman contradicts himself. [nige1] When Eric states beliefs, I don't accuse him of lying. I feel that Eric attack is displaced from the correct target. Neither in BLML nor at the table, have I accused players of cheating. For example, I rate Herman de Wael, Sven Pran, and Alain GOttcheiner as upright players who honestly delude themselves about the law on psychs. They are convinced that they are right so they believe that an uppity director would be wrong if, after investigation and consultation, he ruled that they had a CPU. As a practical matter, however, after such a ruling, it would seem to be stupid and masochistic to immediately repeat the (disputed) infraction, knowing that it would attract further adverse rulings, with escalating penalties. Where is the contradiction, Eric? Of course, I would respect them even more, if when ruled against, they kept appealing to higher and higher authorities. Again, I find it amazing that my observations attract so much flak. It is the law that is at fault. The Emperor is being drowned in an enormous pile of filthy, ragged, ill-suited and mismatched clothes. I am just a poor suffering player who draws attention to the fact and suggests obvious remedies. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 10:39:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070719091718.23671c96@linuxbox> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > OK, Tim, please enlighten me - and this is a genuine request, I > don't > know the answers. My partner and I wish to play a session where > English regulations are in force. She knows that I'm prone to > throwing > in a psychic 1 Spade (as opposed to a shaded opener) 3rd hand on > something like 1 in every 150-200 occasions. Let's say, to keep the > numbers round, that 40% of the time I psych I have a near-opener but > have bid a short suit, 40% of the time I have the suit but nothing > resembling an opener, and 20% of the time I have neither HCP nor > suit. > Am I to tell her to alert every one of my 3rd hand 1S openers, and > explain as above each time? OK, in EBU land prior disclosure is forbidden and alerts are strictly voluntary. I wouldn't advise an alert in this instance (unless she wishes to explain that you will have a full value bid more often than most decent players). The only requirement is that if *asked* about the 1S bid she must disclose what she knows. > Do we in fact have an implicit agreement > that 1S can be our normal 11-15 5+S or occasionally any of those 3 > hand types? Possibly - her subsequent actions will be subject to scrutiny. > What *is* the threshold before we have established such an > agreement? The threshold for disclosure is not limited by memory - if she forgot your habit but when it happened said "oh yes he did that once before" then she should have disclosed when asked. > I really think there's such a thing as useless information, and > warning opps of a propensity to psyche a bid at *below* a certain > threshold of probability is counter-productive. I agree. I alert only in sequences where I know partner is significantly more likely to have psyched than the Distinguished Stranger* but I explain in any sequence about which opps enquire (with appropriate caveats as to infrequency). *Menagerie Series (I forget which one). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 10:39:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <0A057C27-2075-485D-9FEF-A2311B5CB8F2@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > > Now the way the laws are formulated, there is no literal > > difference > > between "MI" and "CPU". But whereas the first contains no such > > indication, the second is considered tantamount to cheating. > > "No literal difference" between explaining an agreement incorrectly > and failing to acknowledge that any such agreement exists? Say > what? Actually I agree with Herman on this one. Sometimes one may conceal an agreement more effectively by describing it otherwise than by failing to acknowledge it. The laws don't express well but to me the difference between MI and CPU is the intent (not competence) of the explainer. Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 20 11:11:58 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:11:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A05E0D.1050506@skynet.be> References: <46A05E0D.1050506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46A07C5E.6000608@NTLworld.com> [Herman de Wael] What's with this word "repeatedly"? Yes, I've said that I always do it, but what does that matter? Over and above 1000 third-in-hand 1He openings, there are maybe 4 that qualify for the H1H. I know I've said I always open them, but sometimes you just don't feel the urge, and I pass anyway. So I open 3 out of 4. That means that in 1003 times I open 1H, 3 times it's psychic. Now of course it is possible that my current partner remembered that last time, and that is why I believe this must be revealed, but you cannot treat me any different from another player, who opened 2 out of 4, or even one who opened 4 out of 4. Because our psyching frequency (3 out of 1003 or 2 out of 1002) is exactly the same (and I doubt if we open all 1000 same hands !) So even if there is "automatic" psyching, to the rest of the table it is just a freak occurence. And I repeat, if you are going to call my psyches illegal for none other reason than because I said I "always" did them, then I'll no longer say I always do them. I'll just let you figure it out for yourself, and admit to 3 psyches without revealing whether I had 3 or 30 suitable hands in that period. [nige1] IMO, it would not matter whether Herman has an undisclosed implicit agreement to open 1H third in hand with... (A) 0-3 HCP and any shape or (B) 0-1 HCP and 0-3 hearts. (B) 0-11 HCP and any shape or even (C) 50% (say) of such hands. IMO there are *two* reasons why this agreement is likely to be illegal under current law. I. It is a concealed partnership understanding. Surely even Herman will concede that it is daft to rule that an agreement that comes up once a month is legal but if it comes up twice a month it is not? II. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to open by agreement with substantially below opening values. It would be legal according to criterion I, IMO, if you adopt a slight change in the rules: that if partner made no attempt to *field* the pseudo-psych, then it would be OK. Such a rule change would make lots of concealed agreements legal (in particular, the so-called "tactical bids" used by many experts). Some may regard this is a can of worms that they would rather keep sealed. I believe, however, that this is just one of many changes that are necessary because so many clever directors repeatedly demonstrate that they do not understand the rules of Bridge, as currently formulated. If so few directors correctly interpret the rules, how are ordinary players like me expected to cope? From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 11:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > *From:* richard.hills at immi.gov.au > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Date:* Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:09:58 +1000 > > John Probst: > > >I have looked closely at my psyches and continue to do so, and > > work hard to ensure there is little pattern to them. However, both > > my regular partners do alert my 1NT overcall and explain it as > > "ostensibly natural, occasionally a joke with 6 hearts.", so I did > > it with diamonds last week and both opponents (usual suspects) > > remarked I'd psyched my psyche. :) John misremembers. While I had never seen him psych a 1N o/c as my partner I recall an auction of 1S-1N-X-XX-P-2H where I alerted the 2H bid and then described the 1N as possibly a weak hand with a 6 card H suit, and the 2H as natural but not denying the values for a 1N overcall. Had his second bid been 2D I'd not have ruled out the possibility that his long suit was H. Had I been asked about the 1N prior to the X I'd have included the possibility of long diamonds in the description even if John didn't know at the time that he might do it with a suit other than H. > Yes, it is _because_ John Probst chooses to "work hard to ensure > there is little pattern" that most of John's alleged psyches are in > fact psyches - John's pard had no more reason than John's opponents > to be aware that John's 1NT overcall could be a joke with long > diamonds. John's partner is aware that John tries to mix up his pyschs and play a high variance game. He is also aware that John will strive to psych only when there is more upside than downside to such actions. John's partner is an experienced rubber bridge player who himself has wide knowledge of psyching positions and their relative effectiveness. Against 99% of opponents John's partner is more likely to diagnose the nature/type of a likely psych. Of course the detailed diagnosis isn't based on partnership experience with John but on his own experience of psychs. > And it is _because_ Herman De Wael always chooses a stereotyped 1H > opening in third seat with 0-4 hcp that his alleged psyche has long > since transmogrified into an implicit partnership understanding - > Herman's pard has much more reason than Herman's opponents to be > aware that Herman's third-hand Pass guarantees at least 5 hcp > (something that an opposing declarer might want to know when > planning the play). Herman's 3rd hand pass doesn't guarantee 5+hcp since the HdW1H requires H shortage and is not a required bid even when holding shortage (Herman might still choose to pass sometimes). And I think it's 0-3 not 0-4. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 11:46:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) In-Reply-To: <46A00EEB.8080307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Perhaps one could simply read the psychic bidding guidelines on the WBF website. *** 2. Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. *** It is quite clear that one must disclose such understandings on the CC and that such understandings are permissible in all events - even those where if the call was deemed "systemic" it would be banned as a HUM/BS. Even if properly disclosed there is a possibility that the TD will find evidence that the bid is, in fact, systemic. Should that occur and the systemic meaning be a banned HUM the penalties and redress will be the same as those stipulated for using a HUM in a non-HUM event. Those penalties are not stipulated on the general WBF website but *should* be present in the specific CoC for a given WBF event (I have never actually checked this). Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 20 12:00:03 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:00:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A087A3.6030001@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I think an 'agreement' not to psyche is an oxymoron. How can anyone 'agree' not to do something that excludes agreement? (A partnership can say "it is our practice not to psyche".) [nige1] In answer to Grattan, I think that a psych can be subject to (a concealed partnership) agreement. Please may I explain why... As pointed out earlier, we should attempt to refine a *useful* vocabulary, with which to discuss the issue of psychs. Let us take the *EBU Orange Book* definitions as a good basis. I drew attention to the fact that right from the beginning they need clarification. "Psych, A deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length." Does this mean that a psych flouts.. (A) All your agreements (admitted and concealed). (B) Only your disclosed agreements It may seem that the obvious answer is (A). Then, unfortunately, the useful terms "Fielded psych", "Red psych" and so on would be oxymoronic. Hence Humpty Dumpty would plump for an unpopular (B). There's more. But you get the idea? From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Jul 20 13:24:36 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:24:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) In-Reply-To: References: <46A00EEB.8080307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <20070720072436.0edbc2ef@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:46 +0100 (BST) "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > > Even if properly disclosed there is a possibility that the TD will > find evidence that the bid is, in fact, systemic. Should that occur > and the systemic meaning be a banned HUM the penalties and redress > will be the same as those stipulated for using a HUM in a non-HUM > event. Which, given the likely draconian penalties for using a HUM in a non-HUM event, brings us back to my contention that players are *entitled* to some form of *quantitative* means to assess whether or not their psyche is going to be deemed systemic. To leave this to an individual TD, or even a group of TDs, is farcical. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGoJt1X39R2QaHMdMRAoQJAJ9QLolCGLz1Xb8g5iBG5IwH+4w92wCeLGHk fzDMnpJxMRkiX/dqZhq5SdA= =I/pD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Jul 20 13:36:53 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:36:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <000a01c7c992$51bbf870$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <469CF901.3050006@NTLworld.com> <004d01c7c8f1$43486540$0701a8c0@john> <469E23C7.1010305@NTLworld.com> <20070718133614.6afdf296@linuxbox> <469E5389.2030802@NTLworld.com> <007201c7c988$be2d17f0$15c9403e@Mildred> <20070718185827.19fc8068@linuxbox> <000a01c7c992$51bbf870$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <20070720073653.6510612c@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Apologies to Raija, this went personally as opposed to going to the list, which is what I intended. Brian. On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:21:05 -0700 "raija" wrote: > I think Brian brings very valid points. But how would the numbers be > collected for the X's and N's of _whatever the formulas might > be_ . And by whom? Percentages particularly would require > recording of all deals a potential psycher has played, Nonsense. It would require recording the *psyches*, plus a total (approximate) number of boards. And the total number of boards could be easily enough calculated (at least at club level, which is still the overwhelming majority of bridge) from the results of events *IF THE NEED AROSE*. > but then, all > players are potential psychers.... > True. But potential psyches are not psyches. I could *potentially* bid 7NT on every hand I play. Does this matter in the slightest when I don't? > Poor as the present system may be, recordkeeping and/or enforcement > of both specific rates of frequency and/or of percentages of psyches > in all played hands, will be impossible and therefore even a poorer > method. I believe that if a regulation exists, it should be possible > to enforce it. Something that cannot be enforced, should not be > regulated because it would diminish the value and cause disrespect > of all regulation if it consists items that will not or cannot be > enforced. IMHO. Well, as you'll see from another post, I still think some form of quantitative indication is needed - which is why I thought I'd better write a delayed reply to this post. I understand your view, but you're a long way from convincing me that what I suggest is impossible, or even merely impractical. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGoJ5VX39R2QaHMdMRAmkvAJ48u8MGA3mjgDiK7K+oy6MoI5GaGQCgrDZ7 ztV+uIfiasQwQrpCydmPSlE= =FB9O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 13:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > [Tim West-Meads] > It's not an implicit agreement - it's a habit of Herman's of which > most of his partners are unaware (so there's nothing to disclose). > > [nige2] > Another flat contradiction from Tim without basis in fact. Herman > has told us that his regular partners joke about the fact that he > opens 1H when he has 0-3HCP in 3rd seat. Herman has also told us that he plays with many different people. Most of those probably haven't seen or heard of his habit. One or two of his most regular partners may well be aware of (and joke about) his habit - particularly if they read BLML. I'm sure Herman will confirm. > IMO they do have an *undisclosed implicit agreement*. Those of his partners who *are* aware of it will disclose their understanding according to Belgian regulations (IIRC that means solely in answer to questions rather than on the CC or by alerting). Again I'm sure Herman will confirm. Disclosure does not, of itself, transform an understanding based on experience into a regulable implicit agreement. > Worse. IMO Herman's "habit" is a *convention*. And that's just garbage. It's a habit of breaking his systemic agreements on certain rare hand patterns. You have not one shred of evidence to suggest that the habit is in any way systemic with any of Herman's partners. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 13:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A073BB.7040205@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > They are convinced that they are right so they believe that an > uppity director would be wrong if, after investigation and > consultation, he ruled that they had a CPU. A TD would indeed be "uppity" were he to rule a CPU when a player had disclosed fully according to the regulations of the SO. Ann opponent might be unaware of a PU if he has failed look at a CC/notice an alert/ask a question - that does not make the PU "Concealed". > As a practical matter, however, after such a ruling, it would > seem to be stupid and masochistic to immediately repeat the > (disputed) infraction, knowing that it would attract further > adverse rulings, with escalating penalties. Practical perhaps - but a player who placed ethics above mere pragmatism would (taking things as far as necessary) appeal, appeal to the NA, refer the matter for review by the WBF, and finally bring the issue to the ISC. If we allow uppity TDs to make illegal rulings we have only ourselves to blame when misapplications of law are perpetuated. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 14:01:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) In-Reply-To: <20070720072436.0edbc2ef@linuxbox> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > > Even if properly disclosed there is a possibility that the TD will > > find evidence that the bid is, in fact, systemic. Should that > > occur > > and the systemic meaning be a banned HUM the penalties and redress > > will be the same as those stipulated for using a HUM in a non-HUM > > event. > > Which, given the likely draconian penalties for using a HUM in a > non-HUM event, brings us back to my contention that players are > *entitled* to some form of *quantitative* means to assess whether or > not their psyche is going to be deemed systemic. The measures are the existence of "psychic controls" - agreements on bids subsequent to a possible psych which serve to substantially limit the risk of such a psych. and Subsequent calls by the partner of psycher which appear to be based on the knowledge of partner's psychic habits rather than the actual auction taken at face value. > To leave this to an individual TD, or even a group of TDs, is > farcical. To whom else can it be left? The TD called to the table will consult and give a ruling. That ruling will be open to an appeal (heard by a jury of the player's peers). I will take the opportunity to say that the feedback I have had from my acquaintances who play regularly in top international competitions is that the current standard of WBF TDing is higher than it has ever been and that the decisions being made are pretty damn good overall. Tim From john at asimere.com Fri Jul 20 14:14:42 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:14:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... References: <200707181418.l6IEILp6015033@cfa.harvard.edu> <46A01056.70408@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002801c7cac7$8da238f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Clarification... >> From: "John Probst" >> There is nothing thorny or difficult about psyches. read law 40 until you >> understand it. >> >> When you understand it then read law 75 till you understand it. >> >> Where is the friggin problem? > > The problem is that many who read these Laws come to different > conclusions. Partly that's a result of lack of clarity -- probably the > result of political compromises in Law writing, so each jurisdiction can > enforce its own views -- and partly it's a result of deliberate > obfuscation (referring to Zone 2, as Eric has often pointed out). No > doubt the usual problems of sloppiness and fuzzy thinking play their > roles, too. > > Let's see whether we can get any agreement on the principles I wrote > down earlier. (I'm sure you, Tim, and Herman all agree on them, but let > me know if I'm wrong.) As you can imagine, I get accused of being somewhat gung-ho as a TD. I don't really mind since it is well understood by my peers that I'm half-way competent. Even Grattan has admitted this (peace Grattan) In particular psyches which are recorded in EBU events are looked at by the EBU L&E, and I'm delighted to say my reports sometimes cause apoplectic rage in that corner. I rather enjoyed the one where I had to record: P (P) 1H (1N) 2C and the 2C bidder held an 11-count with 5 clubs. Now the L&E insists that you have to double with this hand, but in practice most players are so clueless that they don't know that it's probably good bridge to do so, so on the occasions that the 1H bid is psychic the L&E is liable to recategorise the psyche as "fielded, red" when the players themselves have no idea what they've done "wrong". It tends to demonstrate that the L&E is not in touch with what players in general actually do. So to pass the time of day I gave the 2C bidder a hard time for a while asking why they hadn't doubled and it was obvious they had no clue how to play bridge. So I gave them a warning about how dim a view the L&E takes of this action and filled in the psyche form with all the contortions the player had gone through, to wriggle out of the possibility they'd fielded the psyche. Be assured this player was not trying to field a ferdinand 1H. Of course it was the 1NT which was psychic, and I marked it as "routine, green, not fielded" and left it at that. The L&E has no sense of humour and I got the usual snotty letter, but I think I'd successfully made my point when.I informed them that I would not be categorising the 2C bid as "fielded, red" in future, and that I would cross-refer this report in all such instances - and there the matter finally rested. It amazes me when the EBU reclassifies psyches as red, when all at the table, and the TD in particular recognises that the player wouldn't recognise a psyche even if partner held up a large placard saying "PSYCHE!". Don't they tust their TDs to get into the mind of the player and find out what was actually going on? cheers john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 14:20:54 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:20:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707200515x2cfe4ad7tadb4c1f3693fa008@mail.gmail.com> References: <46A05E0D.1050506@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0707200515x2cfe4ad7tadb4c1f3693fa008@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707200520u30858027u66fc7897589f4386@mail.gmail.com> > What's with this word "repeatedly"? Yes, I've said that I always do > it, but what does that matter? Over and above 1000 third-in-hand 1He > openings, there are maybe 4 that qualify for the H1H. I know I've said > I always open them, but sometimes you just don't feel the urge, and I > pass anyway. So I open 3 out of 4. That means that in 1003 times I > open 1H, 3 times it's psychic. Now of course it is possible that my > current partner remembered that last time, and that is why I believe > this must be revealed, but you cannot treat me any different from > another player, who opened 2 out of 4, or even one who opened 4 out of > 4. Because our psyching frequency (3 out of 1003 or 2 out of 1002) is > exactly the same (and I doubt if we open all 1000 same hands !) > > So even if there is "automatic" psyching, to the rest of the table it > is just a freak occurence. > > And I repeat, if you are going to call my psyches illegal for none > other reason than because I said I "always" did them, then I'll no > longer say I always do them. I'll just let you figure it out for > yourself, and admit to 3 psyches without revealing whether I had 3 or > 30 suitable hands in that period. This is certainly one option. Perhaps I can suggest a better one: Why not try to work with the local regulatory authorities and draft a better set of Convention regulations? The core issue that we're dealing with has nothing to do with psyches. Rather, it has to do with the definition of a HUM and your ability to use a HUM in competitions. As I noted earlier in this thread, I would very much prefer to see a regulatory structure that actually reflected the strategic considerations made by players rather than encouraging them to cheat. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 14:21:49 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:21:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707200502t5ac52cb8pf3c2740ae7691425@mail.gmail.com> References: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0707200502t5ac52cb8pf3c2740ae7691425@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > Nigel wrote: > > Worse. IMO Herman's "habit" is a *convention*. > > And that's just garbage. It's a habit of breaking his systemic > agreements on certain rare hand patterns. You have not one shred of > evidence to suggest that the habit is in any way systemic with any of > Herman's partners. > > Tim Actually, Tim, we have Herman's own words. Herman has specifically stated that he ALWAYS opens 1H holding a hand type appropriate for a "Herman 1H opening". >From my perspective, the Bridge becomes unplayable if the regulatory structure relies on the specific verbiage that players use to describe their methods. For example, lets assume that Herman and I are both playing identical methods. I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a systemic bid that promises either a "normal" 1H opening or (0-3) HCP. Herman chooses to describe his 1H opening as a "normal" 1H opening however, he also makes a 1H "psyche" on each and every hand where I would have systemically opened 1H with the weak hand type. I don't think that we want a regulatory structure in which my system is banned as a HUM while Herman is allowed to play the identical set of methods because he is hiding behind the pretense that he is psyching. The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of magic words to justify their behavior. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 14:22:39 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:22:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707200520u30858027u66fc7897589f4386@mail.gmail.com> References: <46A05E0D.1050506@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0707200515x2cfe4ad7tadb4c1f3693fa008@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0707200520u30858027u66fc7897589f4386@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707200522v6b0457dbpcba4c30eb9aff32d@mail.gmail.com> > What's with this word "repeatedly"? Yes, I've said that I always do > it, but what does that matter? Over and above 1000 third-in-hand 1He > openings, there are maybe 4 that qualify for the H1H. I know I've said > I always open them, but sometimes you just don't feel the urge, and I > pass anyway. So I open 3 out of 4. That means that in 1003 times I > open 1H, 3 times it's psychic. Now of course it is possible that my > current partner remembered that last time, and that is why I believe > this must be revealed, but you cannot treat me any different from > another player, who opened 2 out of 4, or even one who opened 4 out of > 4. Because our psyching frequency (3 out of 1003 or 2 out of 1002) is > exactly the same (and I doubt if we open all 1000 same hands !) > > So even if there is "automatic" psyching, to the rest of the table it > is just a freak occurence. > > And I repeat, if you are going to call my psyches illegal for none > other reason than because I said I "always" did them, then I'll no > longer say I always do them. I'll just let you figure it out for > yourself, and admit to 3 psyches without revealing whether I had 3 or > 30 suitable hands in that period. This is certainly one option. Perhaps I can suggest a better one: Why not try to work with the local regulatory authorities and draft a better set of Convention regulations? The core issue that we're dealing with has nothing to do with psyches. Rather, it has to do with the definition of a HUM and your ability to use a HUM in competitions. As I noted earlier in this thread, I would very much prefer to see a regulatory structure that actually reflected the strategic considerations made by players rather than encouraging them to cheat. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 20 16:20:48 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:20:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> References: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0707200502t5ac52cb8pf3c2740ae7691425@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A0C4C0.1060003@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: >> Nigel wrote: > >>> Worse. IMO Herman's "habit" is a *convention*. >> And that's just garbage. It's a habit of breaking his systemic >> agreements on certain rare hand patterns. You have not one shred of >> evidence to suggest that the habit is in any way systemic with any of >> Herman's partners. >> >> Tim > > Actually, Tim, we have Herman's own words. Herman has specifically > stated that he ALWAYS opens 1H holding a hand type appropriate for a > "Herman 1H opening". > But how does that assertion equate to my having any systemic habit with any partner? >>From my perspective, the Bridge becomes unplayable if the regulatory > structure relies on the specific verbiage that players use to describe > their methods. For example, lets assume that Herman and I are both > playing identical methods. > > I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a systemic bid that > promises either a "normal" 1H opening or (0-3) HCP. > OK, you might do that. > Herman chooses to describe his 1H opening as a "normal" 1H opening > however, he also makes a 1H "psyche" on each and every hand where I > would have systemically opened 1H with the weak hand type. > That is indeed what I do. > I don't think that we want a regulatory structure in which my system > is banned as a HUM while Herman is allowed to play the identical set > of methods because he is hiding behind the pretense that he is > psyching. > Of course we would not have a structure like that. But then you are also allowed to call your system "psyches", just like I do. Oh, but there may well be a completely different system we are playing, you and I. You may well tell your partner that you are going to do that. You may well have told him always to use Drury, even with a massive heart fit. If you have done that, then we are no longer playing the exact same system and there is reason enough to regulate against your system but not against mine. > The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a > given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of magic > words to justify their behavior. > Indeed, but the "system" does not only include the actions that you take, but also the meaning of those actions to your partner, and the reaction he will have on them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 20 16:21:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > *From:* "richard willey" > *To:* blml at amsterdamned.org > *Date:* Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:21:49 -0400 > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:40 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads > wrote: > > Nigel wrote: > > > > Worse. IMO Herman's "habit" is a *convention*. > > > > And that's just garbage. It's a habit of breaking his systemic > > agreements on certain rare hand patterns. You have not one shred > > of evidence to suggest that the habit is in any way systemic with > > any of Herman's partners. > > > > Tim > > Actually, Tim, we have Herman's own words. Herman has specifically > stated that he ALWAYS opens 1H holding a hand type appropriate for a > "Herman 1H opening". That he always has does not mean that he always will, these hands are very rare. However, I now see that Herman has repeated a previous clarification about doing it. > >From my perspective, the Bridge becomes unplayable if the > regulatory > structure relies on the specific verbiage that players use to > describe > their methods. For example, lets assume that Herman and I are both > playing identical methods. > > I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a systemic bid that > promises either a "normal" 1H opening or (0-3) HCP. And therefore have in place a number of systemic calls allowing the two types to be distinguished and a partner who will allow for the 0-3 variant in as appropriate. > Herman chooses to describe his 1H opening as a "normal" 1H opening > however, he also makes a 1H "psyche" on each and every hand where I > would have systemically opened 1H with the weak hand type. And in the complete absence of systemic protection with a partner who is expressly forbidden from allowing for the 0-3 hand type. > I don't think that we want a regulatory structure in which my system > is banned as a HUM while Herman is allowed to play the identical set > of methods because he is hiding behind the pretense that he is > psyching. The methods are far from identical. You are playing a system, Herman is deviating from his system. > The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to > a given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of > magic words to justify their behavior. That makes no sense to be. There is a set of hands which, if ever I am dealt them, I will not bid according to my agreed system. Nobody knows what those hands are but somebody might know that the last time I was dealt a particular hand I psyched the opening. A player saying he would always bid X when holding Y is not a systemic agreement for him to do so. Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Jul 20 16:35:34 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:35:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) In-Reply-To: References: <20070720072436.0edbc2ef@linuxbox> Message-ID: <20070720103534.3c418ede@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:01 +0100 (BST) "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > > The measures are the existence of "psychic controls" - agreements on > bids subsequent to a possible psych which serve to substantially > limit the risk of such a psych. and > > Subsequent calls by the partner of psycher which appear to be based on > the knowledge of partner's psychic habits rather than the actual > auction taken at face value. > But we have the CoP which tells us that the fact that partner bid entirely normally after the psyche isn't a defence to the charge of a concealed understanding. > > To leave this to an individual TD, or even a group of TDs, is > > farcical. > > To whom else can it be left? The TD called to the table will consult > and give a ruling. That ruling will be open to an appeal (heard by a > jury of the player's peers). > OK, let me make what I meant somewhat clearer (I hope). Of course the TDs are the people who have to make the decisions. I'm still arguing for some kind of quantitative guidelines. > I will take the opportunity to say that the feedback I have had from > my acquaintances who play regularly in top international competitions > is that the current standard of WBF TDing is higher than it has ever > been and that the decisions being made are pretty damn good overall. > And I will take the opportunity to say that I think "top international competition" should be almost totally irelevant when discussing Laws and their workings, with the exception of anything concerning screens and the like. Same goes for the WBF TDs too. What we need are laws that can be clearly and consistently applied *and* understood by the players at the level(s) at which the vast majority of bridge is played. The international players can look after themselves. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGoMg3X39R2QaHMdMRArMyAJ0b3xG0fcD1ZZ5e+XAwVM6vfSWO2wCgsHlm KtisF1+6ggIXzRt/F1vge90= =t2BR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 20 17:04:21 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:04:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2007, at 9:40 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > President Bill Clinton once said, "Abortion should be safe, > legal and rare." My interpretation of the criteria laid down > in the WBF Code of Practice is that, "Psyches should be unsafe, > legal and rare." A particular rare psyche should not be made > safe for partner by a player _always_ perpetrating that rare > psyche. > > That is, in my opinion, a player's general permission to > deviate from his side's announced understandings is limited to > those cases when their partner has no more reason to be aware > of the deviation than have their opponents. > > In my opinion there is no general permission to _repeatedly_ > deviate from announced partnership understandings, since such > repetition leads to implicit partnership understandings which > then form part of the partnership's methods and must be > disclosed (if legal) or refrained from (if illegal - such as, > for example, a banned HUM method of automatically opening 1H > with 0-4 hcp in third seat). The danger here is in trying to address two rather different kinds of understanding without distinguishing them. I apologize to the forum for allowing my previous attempts to explicate this point to get lost in the interminable debate over the "Herman 1H". Partner makes a call. You might or might not "know" (i.e. "have more reason to be aware of... than [your] opponents") the probability that he is psyching. And you might or might not "know", if he is psyching, what he is likely to hold. These are two different pieces of knowledge; you may have neither, either or both. Whatever knowledge you do have must, of course, be disclosed, in accordance etc. But it is only in the context of the latter that it makes sense to talk about awareness of partner's tendencies transmuting into a systemic agreement about which we can judge, for example, legality or conventionality. Where I disagree with Richard is that I do not believe that my partner's bidding can legally be restricted or constrained *just because* I am aware that he will go home unhappy if he hasn't had the opportunity to perpetrate two or three psychs over the course of the evening. If a particular call in a particular situation meets Richard's criterion that "partner has no more reason to be aware of the the deviation than [do the] opponents", its legality or illegality should not depend on how often I psych in general. I may be wrong about that. But I am convinced that we will not be able to deal with this issue satisfactorily if we try to apply a single set of principles and protocols to this conflation of two different kinds of knowledge. Pretending they are essentially the same thing just won't work. Brian has shown us the path to getting this right, but it will not be an easy one. We need to push the discussion of psychs onto the stack until we come to a far firmer understanding of what an "implicit agreement" is and what it implies. As long as that concept and its logical adjuncts remain vague and ill-defined we will lack the conceptual platform from which to deal with the psych issue. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 20 19:08:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:08:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A073BB.7040205@NTLworld.com> References: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> <46A073BB.7040205@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <44A88D03-D6E7-4714-973B-444A8F2826DB@starpower.net> On Jul 20, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Nigel wrote: > Neither in BLML nor at the table, have I accused players of cheating. > For example, I rate Herman de Wael, Sven Pran, and Alain GOttcheiner > as upright players who honestly delude themselves about the law on > psychs. > > They are convinced that they are right so they believe that an uppity > director would be wrong if, after investigation and consultation, he > ruled that they had a CPU. > > As a practical matter, however, after such a ruling, it would seem > to be stupid and masochistic to immediately repeat the (disputed) > infraction, knowing that it would attract further adverse rulings, > with escalating penalties. > > Where is the contradiction, Eric? > > Of course, I would respect them even more, if when ruled against, they > kept appealing to higher and higher authorities. It doesn't matter how convinced you are that you are acting within the law; if you are charged with an offense, given a hearing, and found to have committed an infraction, then you have only two ethical actions: accept the decision or appeal it. If you accept the decision, as you must absent a successful appeal, you do not repeat the infraction. Stupid or not, masochistic or not, abjuring it only temporarily until the charge, hearing and finding have been forgotten and you can once again get away with it does not occur out of honest ignorance or delusion (short of psychosis), but requires intention. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 20 20:06:52 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:06:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A0F9BC.5090108@NTLworld.com> [nige1] >> They are convinced that they are right so they believe that an >> uppity director would be wrong if, after investigation and >> consultation, he ruled that they had a CPU. > [Tim West-Meads] > A TD would indeed be "uppity" were he to rule a CPU when a player had > disclosed fully according to the regulations of the SO. > Ann opponent might be unaware of a PU if he has failed look at a > CC/notice an alert/ask a question - that does not make the PU > "Concealed". > [nige1] >> As a practical matter, however, after such a ruling, it would >> seem to be stupid and masochistic to immediately repeat the >> (disputed) infraction, knowing that it would attract further >> adverse rulings, with escalating penalties. > [Tim West-Meads] > Practical perhaps - but a player who placed ethics above mere pragmatism > would (taking things as far as necessary) appeal, appeal to the NA, refer > the matter for review by the WBF, and finally bring the issue to the ISC. > If we allow uppity TDs to make illegal rulings we have only ourselves to > blame when misapplications of law are perpetuated. [nigel] In the next paragraph (that Tim conveniently snipped), I made a similar point; although I don't accept that there is a moral obligation to appeal. I believe it's a harder for Herman because he has to report his "psychs" to *himself* From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 20 20:15:37 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:15:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7AEF0920-B7DE-471B-87CE-6D75EB45044A@starpower.net> On Jul 20, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Perhaps one could simply read the psychic bidding guidelines on the > WBF > website. > > *** > 2. Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross > violations > of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of > violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention > cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have > developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not > available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the > conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary > sheets must give full detail of situations in which these > violations may > occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. > Subject > to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any > category of event. > *** IMO, the key clause here is "where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated". I reject the notion that a psych may be inherently illegitimate (as opposed to improperly disclosed) merely because it may come as "less of a surprise to partner than to the opponents" absent such anticipation. Repetition of a particular "psych" in a particular situation can create a systemic agreement by that mysterious metamorphic process we call "implicit agreement", but mere knowledge that a player "psychs a lot" cannot. It is fuzzy thinking to assume that "partnership understanding" and "partnership agreement" are indistinguishable concepts just because treating them as such doesn't create logical difficulties most of the time. The requirement that these understandings "must... be disclosed on the convention cards" cannot, of course, supercede the L40B obligation to disclose them "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization". From the perspective of mere players, these obligations may be (and, in North America at least, are) contradictory. If the WBF wants that info "disclosed on the CCs", they must mandate that to SOs, not to players. I trust that's how they intended that particular clause to be read. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 20 20:23:56 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:23:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clarification... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A0FDBC.4010700@NTLworld.com> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Nigel wrote: >> [Tim West-Meads] >> It's not an implicit agreement - it's a habit of Herman's of which >> most of his partners are unaware (so there's nothing to disclose). >> >> [nige2] >> Another flat contradiction from Tim without basis in fact. Herman >> has told us that his regular partners joke about the fact that he >> opens 1H when he has 0-3HCP in 3rd seat. > > Herman has also told us that he plays with many different people. Most > of those probably haven't seen or heard of his habit. > One or two of his most regular partners may well be aware of (and joke > about) his habit - particularly if they read BLML. > I'm sure Herman will confirm. > >> IMO they do have an *undisclosed implicit agreement*. > > Those of his partners who *are* aware of it will disclose their > understanding according to Belgian regulations (IIRC that means solely in > answer to questions rather than on the CC or by alerting). Again I'm sure > Herman will confirm. Disclosure does not, of itself, transform an > understanding based on experience into a regulable implicit agreement. > >> Worse. IMO Herman's "habit" is a *convention*. > > And that's just garbage. It's a habit of breaking his systemic > agreements on certain rare hand patterns. You have not one shred of > evidence to suggest that the habit is in any way systemic with any of > Herman's partners. [nige3] There is ample evidence - from the laws and Herman's own statements - to convince BLMLers. Tim and John are so belligerently offensive on this issue that I am happy to disagree with them. As previously suggested, it would be a good idea to *simplify* the law to legalize a concealed partnership understanding on which partner *never* acts; because such a CPU would go undetected by normal "fielding" criteria. If, as in this case, in order to establish an infraction of psych law, you must persuade the putative offender to admit it, that gives even more of an advantage to "truth economists", a group already favoured by too many other laws. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 20 20:28:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:28:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) References: Message-ID: <646C9E2F-F008-49E9-A9B0-8E6015D1B779@starpower.net> On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:03 PM, richard willey wrote: > On 7/19/07, Steve Willner wrote: > >> For some reason, the topic of psychic bidding provokes strong >> emotional >> reactions. Anybody know why the legally-equivalent topic of >> defensive >> false cards doesn't do the same? > > I think its a matter of the complexity of the problem space. > >> From an analytic perspective, declarer play and defense are fairly > simple. Its possible to conclusively prove that "false carding" is an > optimal strategy. I suspect that people would have a great deal of > trouble accepting that a strategy that is demonstrably optimal should > be treated as illegal. > > In contrast, bidding is a terribly complex problem. Bidding systems > are complex in their own right. When one starts to consider the > inter-relations between the bidding game and the declarer play / > defense game things get even more hairy. Throw in questions related > to population dynamics and life gets truly ugly. > > I'm not aware of anything remotely resembling an interesting analytic > result related to bidding system designs. Accordingly, its impossible > to make a claim that psyches are part of an optimal bidding strategy. > > This makes it a lot easier to try to suppress them... Other sports provide examples that justify making a strategy that is "too" optimal illegal, when permitting it would put the opponents at an insurmountable disadvantage, e.g. baseball's infield fly rule[*]. What people *should* have a great deal of trouble accepting is that a strategy that its proponents believe to be optimal but that has yet to be proven in actual competition should be treated as illegal before it can be. [*] The infield fly rule, if anyone cares, requires the umpire, in certain specific situations, when the batter hits a fly ball that can be caught by an infielder, to call the batter out without waiting for the ball to be caught. This is for the batting side's protection. Without the rule the infielder could achieve a sure double play via a last-second decision whether to catch the ball or let it fall to the ground. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 20 20:34:39 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:34:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> References: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0707200502t5ac52cb8pf3c2740ae7691425@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A1003F.3020305@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] Actually, Tim, we have Herman's own words. Herman has specifically stated that he ALWAYS opens 1H holding a hand type appropriate for a "Herman 1H opening". From my perspective, the Bridge becomes unplayable if the regulatory structure relies on the specific verbiage that players use to describe their methods. For example, lets assume that Herman and I are both playing identical methods. I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a systemic bid that promises either a "normal" 1H opening or (0-3) HCP. Herman chooses to describe his 1H opening as a "normal" 1H opening however, he also makes a 1H "psyche" on each and every hand where I would have systemically opened 1H with the weak hand type. I don't think that we want a regulatory structure in which my system is banned as a HUM while Herman is allowed to play the identical set of methods because he is hiding behind the pretense that he is psyching. The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of magic words to justify their behavior. [nigel] Spot on Richard! Except that Herman and Co are not guilty of pretence. They are certain that we are wrong and they are right. From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 20:53:03 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:53:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <44A88D03-D6E7-4714-973B-444A8F2826DB@starpower.net> References: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> <46A073BB.7040205@NTLworld.com> <44A88D03-D6E7-4714-973B-444A8F2826DB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707201153t5759eaa7hae38bfedad34c3f8@mail.gmail.com> On 21/07/07, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 20, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Nigel wrote: > > > Neither in BLML nor at the table, have I accused players of cheating. > > For example, I rate Herman de Wael, Sven Pran, and Alain GOttcheiner > > as upright players who honestly delude themselves about the law on > > psychs. > > > > They are convinced that they are right so they believe that an uppity > > director would be wrong if, after investigation and consultation, he > > ruled that they had a CPU. > > > > As a practical matter, however, after such a ruling, it would seem > > to be stupid and masochistic to immediately repeat the (disputed) > > infraction, knowing that it would attract further adverse rulings, > > with escalating penalties. > > > > Where is the contradiction, Eric? > > > > Of course, I would respect them even more, if when ruled against, they > > kept appealing to higher and higher authorities. > > It doesn't matter how convinced you are that you are acting within > the law; if you are charged with an offense, given a hearing, and > found to have committed an infraction, then you have only two ethical > actions: accept the decision or appeal it. If you accept the > decision, as you must absent a successful appeal, you do not repeat > the infraction. Stupid or not, masochistic or not, abjuring it only > temporarily until the charge, hearing and finding have been forgotten > and you can once again get away with it does not occur out of honest > ignorance or delusion (short of psychosis), but requires intention. > I disagree with your limited ethical options. In an ideal world you may be right. However if an appeal requires a cost (monetary, time or otherwise) then you may be unable or unwilling to appeal and it is not an ethical matter. We have a proliferation of regulations that discourage appeals. Some of which particularly discourage appeals from the poor - e.g. it costs $100 to lodge an appeal. The laws of bridge give us a right to appeal and a further right to appeal to the national association. These rights should be equally and freely available to all. Wayne From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jul 20 21:28:37 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:28:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman 1H Message-ID: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> I haven't followed this thread from the beginning and am confused. Herman says that he said that he "always" opened these hands with 1H. Now he says that he doesn't always open them with 1H. (Later he seems to say that he will no longer say that he does one or the other.) What is his practice? Does he always or doesn't he always? If the latter why did he maintain the former earlier in the thread? I have a sneaking suspicion that, had he not done so we could have saved ourselves about 10 million lines of discussion. JE From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 20 21:42:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:42:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <44A88D03-D6E7-4714-973B-444A8F2826DB@starpower.net> References: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> <46A073BB.7040205@NTLworld.com> <44A88D03-D6E7-4714-973B-444A8F2826DB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46A11025.9000903@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] It doesn't matter how convinced you are that you are acting within the law; if you are charged with an offense, given a hearing, and found to have committed an infraction, then you have only two ethical actions: accept the decision or appeal it. If you accept the decision, as you must absent a successful appeal, you do not repeat the infraction. Stupid or not, masochistic or not, abjuring it only temporarily until the charge, hearing and finding have been forgotten and you can once again get away with it does not occur out of honest ignorance or delusion (short of psychosis), but requires intention. [nige1] I admire Eric's courage. I'm afraid were I involved in a such a dispute, I would be wary of appealing without prospect of success. For example, suppose that Eric and I are playing against Herman and his regular partner but neither of us has ever heard of the "Herman Heart". Herman "psych"s 1H against us and his partner makes no attempt act on it or field it in any way. As a direct result, however, we go off in no-trump rather than bidding our cold heart slam. At the end of play, we ask about the the auction. Herman's partner jocularly explains the "Herman Heart". We call the director, Tim West-Meads. After investigation and consultation with colleagues, Tim rules that the result stands. Anyway, suppose that we are sure (for whatever reason) that we are right and that the ruling is wrong. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that we also know that higher committees will be composed of people who advertise equally strong opposing views (like Allain Gottcheiner, perhaps). IMO only a daft masochist would keep appealing. It would be cheaper, more sensible, and probably equally ineffective to write to BLML and the WBFLC to ask that the law to be clarified. It could have been worse, I suppose. If the director had come up with some loony 12C3 ruling, awarding us what we regard as derisory redress, then, we would still be deprived of justice, but our chances of successful appeal would be even lower. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 20 22:37:42 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:37:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707201153t5759eaa7hae38bfedad34c3f8@mail.gmail.com> References: <000001c7c93f$c930a700$6400a8c0@WINXP> <469E4F82.5080203@NTLworld.com> <46A073BB.7040205@NTLworld.com> <44A88D03-D6E7-4714-973B-444A8F2826DB@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560707201153t5759eaa7hae38bfedad34c3f8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <58C108E2-5451-4EBE-8FF6-20F0EC0E6204@starpower.net> On Jul 20, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 21/07/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> It doesn't matter how convinced you are that you are acting within >> the law; if you are charged with an offense, given a hearing, and >> found to have committed an infraction, then you have only two ethical >> actions: accept the decision or appeal it. If you accept the >> decision, as you must absent a successful appeal, you do not repeat >> the infraction. Stupid or not, masochistic or not, abjuring it only >> temporarily until the charge, hearing and finding have been forgotten >> and you can once again get away with it does not occur out of honest >> ignorance or delusion (short of psychosis), but requires intention. > > I disagree with your limited ethical options. In an ideal world you > may be right. However if an appeal requires a cost (monetary, time or > otherwise) then you may be unable or unwilling to appeal and it is not > an ethical matter. > > We have a proliferation of regulations that discourage appeals. Some > of which particularly discourage appeals from the poor - e.g. it costs > $100 to lodge an appeal. The laws of bridge give us a right to appeal > and a further right to appeal to the national association. These > rights should be equally and freely available to all. I certainly sympathize and agree with Wayne's objection to anything that imposes unnecessary obstacles on a player's right to appeal, but that may be the way it is, and, as "good bridge citizens", we can only live with it until we can convince TPTB to change it. But I still don't see any "ethical options" for dealing with an adverse ruling other than accepting the decision or appealing it. If you are caught and convicted for doing something you thought was legal, does being convinced that your conviction would be reversed on appeal if only you could afford to appeal it justify going out and repeating the offense again? If you believe it does, then if you are caught and convicted a second time are you ethically justified in committing a third offense? At what point do ethical considerations require you to stop repeatedly offending? Isn't ethics about accepting the judgment of society at large as to what consitutes proper action even when you disagree? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 20 23:00:37 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:00:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Herman 1H In-Reply-To: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> References: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> Message-ID: <54625605-471E-46D7-9856-B1C84A530F20@starpower.net> On Jul 20, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I haven't followed this thread from the beginning and am confused. > Herman says that he said that he "always" opened these hands with 1H. > Now he says that he doesn't always open them with 1H. (Later he seems > to say that he will no longer say that he does one or the other.) > What > is his practice? Does he always or doesn't he always? If the > latter why > did he maintain the former earlier in the thread? I have a sneaking > suspicion that, had he not done so we could have saved ourselves about > 10 million lines of discussion. JE Jeff clearly does not understand BLML. We live for 10 million lines of discussion; that's what we do here. Herman's contradictory statements as to whether he "always" psychs certain hands have the fortuitous potential to make the discussion far more, um, interesting (is "more endless" something like "very unique" or "a little bit pregnant"?). If we had a clear answer, we might merely wind up debating the legal implications of Herman's actual practice -- whichever it is. As it is, we have no choice but to tackle the issue from both directions, addressing the question of whether or how the answer to "does he or doesn't he?" affects his legal position and obligations. He does us a service by keeping the answer to himself. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 20 23:13:47 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:13:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A11025.9000903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c7cb12$dcc29ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel ............. > For example, suppose that Eric and I are playing against Herman and > his regular partner but neither of us has ever heard of the "Herman > Heart". Herman "psych"s 1H against us and his partner makes no attempt > act on it or field it in any way. As a direct result, however, we go > off in no-trump rather than bidding our cold heart slam. At the end > of play, we ask about the the auction. Herman's partner jocularly > explains the "Herman Heart". We call the director, Tim West-Meads. > After investigation and consultation with colleagues, Tim rules that > the result stands. I believe you have hit a bull's eye here. Being summoned to your table on this complaint and knowing Herman's habitual 1H opening bids I would immediately rule violation of Law 40A on the ground that his partner is likely to have a partnership understanding on this bid. Now say that on the same board I have the same case at the next table except that I have no real reason to suspect any kind of partnership understanding at that table. There I would let the table result stand! What's the difference? In Herman's case I had every reason to assume that his partner was familiar with the psyche, in the other case I had not. What I do at the second table is giving them a warning: "OK, I accept this one as a psyche, but don't attempt another more or less similar stunt with me as director for a long, long time or I shall rule a violation of Law 40A in that you have a partnership understanding, at least from experience if not more specific". Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jul 21 00:56:33 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:56:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000101c7cb12$dcc29ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c7cb12$dcc29ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46A13DA1.1090705@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] > Being summoned to your table on this complaint and knowing Herman's habitual > 1H opening bids I would immediately rule violation of Law 40A on the ground > that his partner is likely to have a partnership understanding on this bid. > > Now say that on the same board I have the same case at the next table except > that I have no real reason to suspect any kind of partnership understanding > at that table. There I would let the table result stand! > > What's the difference? In Herman's case I had every reason to assume that > his partner was familiar with the psyche, in the other case I had not. > > What I do at the second table is giving them a warning: "OK, I accept this > one as a psyche, but don't attempt another more or less similar stunt with > me as director for a long, long time or I shall rule a violation of Law 40A > in that you have a partnership understanding, at least from experience if > not more specific". [nigel] Thank you Sven :) but your endorsement is puzzling :? I understood you and Alain Gottcheiner to agree that an undisclosed implicit agreement is OK, provided partner's actions aren't affected. I admit that the latter view seems out of character; so if I've misrepresented your position, I humbly apologise. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 21 00:59:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:59:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Equity References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com><469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c7cb21$ae204c20$80d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Equity ... > You don't believe that a person has a right to break > a law which he thinks he is not breaking? Simply > because a "majority" has a particular interpretation > of that law? What you are saying is that this person > is not allowed to hold a minority interpretation then? > And of course the majority interpretation is yours. > No need to consult anyone else, you decide what > the majority interpretation is? > +=+ It is possible to take issue with any suggestion that the determination of what is the law is in any way the province of opinion, majority or minority, of the population at large. In each of our several spheres of being the correct interpretation of the law is determined by a constitutionally appointed body. This body may be called by some such title as the 'United States Supreme Court', or the 'Judicial Committee of the Privy Council', the 'European Court of Justice', 'Le Cours europeenne des droits de l'Homme', or for these present concerns the 'Laws Committee' of the World Bridge Federation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 21 01:44:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:44:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A13DA1.1090705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000201c7cb27$f49643c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel > [Sven Pran] > > Being summoned to your table on this complaint and knowing Herman's > habitual > > 1H opening bids I would immediately rule violation of Law 40A on the > ground > > that his partner is likely to have a partnership understanding on this > bid. > > > > Now say that on the same board I have the same case at the next table > except > > that I have no real reason to suspect any kind of partnership > understanding > > at that table. There I would let the table result stand! > > > > What's the difference? In Herman's case I had every reason to assume > that > > his partner was familiar with the psyche, in the other case I had not. > > > > What I do at the second table is giving them a warning: "OK, I accept > this > > one as a psyche, but don't attempt another more or less similar stunt > with > > me as director for a long, long time or I shall rule a violation of Law > 40A > > in that you have a partnership understanding, at least from experience > if > > not more specific". > > [nigel] > Thank you Sven :) but your endorsement is puzzling :? > > I understood you and Alain Gottcheiner to agree that an undisclosed > implicit agreement is OK, provided partner's actions aren't affected. > > I admit that the latter view seems out of character; so if I've > misrepresented your position, I humbly apologise. In all such cases I try very hard to "dig below the surface". If I find no reason to suspect anything but a genuine psyche (or a plain misbid) I let it pass with just a warning to not letting it become a habit. But if I "smell a rat"; that is if I get the impression of a partnership that is used to this kind of misbids/psyches, maybe more than they will admit, then I pull out my heavy guns and tell them in so many ways the difference between a genuine psyche or misbid and what can easily give the impression of a concealed partnership understanding from experience if not more severe. My prime concern is always that both sides at the table shall be on equal and fair terms when it comes to interpreting and understanding the auction. This attitude has saved me from ever needing to begin penalizing; all my "customers" (we don't have many of them in Norway!) take the point immediately. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jul 21 03:39:59 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:39:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hot potato In-Reply-To: <002301c7cb21$ae204c20$80d0403e@Mildred> References: <469B9684.5040001@NTLworld.com> <2b1e598b0707161133ucd938afk11c8708e8986dfaa@mail.gmail.com><469C1A7F.4000400@NTLworld.com> <469C7B2D.6090300@skynet.be> <002301c7cb21$ae204c20$80d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <46A163EF.6010602@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ It is possible to take issue with any suggestion that > the determination of what is the law is in any way the > province of opinion, majority or minority, of the population > at large. In each of our several spheres of being the correct > interpretation of the law is determined by a constitutionally > appointed body. This body may be called by some such > title as the 'United States Supreme Court', or the 'Judicial > Committee of the Privy Council', the 'European Court of > Justice', 'Le Cours europeenne des droits de l'Homme', > or for these present concerns the 'Laws Committee' of the > World Bridge Federation. [nige1] I agree with Grattan, that when you are privileged to live in a democracy with freedom of speech you should obey the law as specified by the appropriate legal authority. If you disagree with a law or its the official interpretation, you should argue and work for change, but still abide by the law. Problems may still arise when relevant law is unavailable or ambiguous and an official interpretation is unavailable or ambiguous. For example the WBFLC "delegates regulatory duties" -- a euphemistic way of saying that TFLB has large gaps. There seem to remain potatoes that are too hot to touch: grey areas that lack any official interpretation in most parts of the world. For example, the following is Grattan's opinion on an issue that interests me; but is it the official position? and if it is an official law then should it be changed? [Grattan] +=+ The action [playing to the next trick before the old one is quitted by all players] is lawful. Furthermore the player who does it is not in breach of any ethical standard. If there are places where it is not the done thing, this is a matter of local culture. [nigel] Should allow you to keep an advantage gained when declarer makes a mistake because he is flustered by your lead to the next trick while dummy still has a card faced to the current trick. For example, while trying to turn over the faced card, if he picks up another card is the latter card a played card? In spite of Grattan's view, some of the current laws hint at my preferred interpretation (NO to both questions). [L73A2,TFLB 1997] Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). [L74C3, TFLB 1997] Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. [L74A1, TFLB, 1997] A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times. [L74B1 As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game. [74B3, TFLB, 1997] As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from detaching a card before it is his turn to play. [L75C The following are considered violations of procedure: varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. [nigel] Laws 73-75 seem to say that it is discourteous to lead prematurely. [L44B, TFLB, 1997] After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. (For the method of playing cards and arranging tricks see Law 65.) [L65A, TFLB, 1997] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. [nigel] 64C3 L44B and 65A specify correct procedure for playing and completing a trick [L45E1, TFLB, 1997] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies. [L67A1, TFLB, 1997] To rectify the play of too many cards to a trick, Law 45E (Fifth Card Played to a Trick) or Law 58B (Simultaneous Cards from One Hand) shall be applied. [nigel] L45 and L67 appear to reiterate that it is illegal to play a 5th card to a trick. [L60A1, TFLB, 1997] A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before a penalty has been assessed, forfeits the right to penalise that offence. [nigel] l60A is annoying because just when it seems all is won, prospects of penalty seem to disappear. But does that also mean that you may keep your ill-gotten gains? Whether or not it is currently OK, I think there should be a clear law mandating that you wait until the current trick is quitted, before leading to the next trick (unless you are making a claim). Anyway, mixing metaphors, I feel that new edition of the laws should grasp this nettle. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 00:01:06 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:01:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... In-Reply-To: <46A1003F.3020305@NTLworld.com> References: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0707200502t5ac52cb8pf3c2740ae7691425@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> <46A1003F.3020305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 20/07/07, Nigel wrote: > > [Richard Willey] > Actually, Tim, we have Herman's own words. Herman has specifically > stated that he ALWAYS opens 1H holding a hand type appropriate for a > "Herman 1H opening". > > From my perspective, the Bridge becomes unplayable if the regulatory > structure relies on the specific verbiage that players use to describe > their methods. For example, lets assume that Herman and I are both > playing identical methods. > > I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a systemic bid that > promises either a "normal" 1H opening or (0-3) HCP. > > Herman chooses to describe his 1H opening as a "normal" 1H opening > however, he also makes a 1H "psyche" on each and every hand where I > would have systemically opened 1H with the weak hand type. > > I don't think that we want a regulatory structure in which my system > is banned as a HUM while Herman is allowed to play the identical set > of methods because he is hiding behind the pretense that he is > psyching. > > The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a > given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of magic > words to justify their behavior. > > [nigel] > Spot on Richard! Except that Herman and Co are not guilty of pretence. > They are certain that we are wrong and they are right. This is just nonsense. It's a big difference between having an agreement about opening all 0-3 hcp hands in 3rd seat as proposed by Richard, and doing it directly opposed to systemic agreements as done by Herman. In Richard's case you will have systemic continuations to distingusih between the hands. In Herman's case you won't. And the occurences would be so seldom that it would be more or less impossible for Herman's partner to know about this habit of doing it 100% of the times it is possible(especially playing with lots of partners). So Herman's 1H is clearly a psyche, whereas Richard's isn't. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070721/80403bb3/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 21 10:58:51 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:58:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000101c7cb12$dcc29ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c7cb12$dcc29ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46A1CACB.40007@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Nigel > ............. >> For example, suppose that Eric and I are playing against Herman and >> his regular partner but neither of us has ever heard of the "Herman >> Heart". Herman "psych"s 1H against us and his partner makes no attempt >> act on it or field it in any way. As a direct result, however, we go >> off in no-trump rather than bidding our cold heart slam. At the end >> of play, we ask about the the auction. Herman's partner jocularly >> explains the "Herman Heart". We call the director, Tim West-Meads. >> After investigation and consultation with colleagues, Tim rules that >> the result stands. > > I believe you have hit a bull's eye here. > > Being summoned to your table on this complaint and knowing Herman's habitual > 1H opening bids I would immediately rule violation of Law 40A on the ground > that his partner is likely to have a partnership understanding on this bid. > > Now say that on the same board I have the same case at the next table except > that I have no real reason to suspect any kind of partnership understanding > at that table. There I would let the table result stand! > > What's the difference? In Herman's case I had every reason to assume that > his partner was familiar with the psyche, in the other case I had not. > > What I do at the second table is giving them a warning: "OK, I accept this > one as a psyche, but don't attempt another more or less similar stunt with > me as director for a long, long time or I shall rule a violation of Law 40A > in that you have a partnership understanding, at least from experience if > not more specific". > And that is precisely what is wrong with your interpretation of the laws. I believe that the ruling on psyching should be independent of what you know, provided you can trust the players to give honest answers to the questions you ask. I am certain that, even if you were not on blml, by listening to my answers, you would give the exact same ruling as now. And I am equally certain that if the psycher at the next table gives honest answers to the same questions (no reason to believe that he won't) and those answers are the same as mine (Herman1H, doing it "always"), then your ruling at that table would be the same as mine. What you seem to be doing therefore, is rule that I am not allowed to perform this one psyche for the sole reason that I have perpetrated this one psyche 10 times before. And that ruling would be wrong, Sven. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 21 11:07:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:07:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman 1H In-Reply-To: <54625605-471E-46D7-9856-B1C84A530F20@starpower.net> References: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> <54625605-471E-46D7-9856-B1C84A530F20@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46A1CCB4.1070300@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 20, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> I haven't followed this thread from the beginning and am confused. >> Herman says that he said that he "always" opened these hands with 1H. >> Now he says that he doesn't always open them with 1H. (Later he seems >> to say that he will no longer say that he does one or the other.) >> What >> is his practice? Does he always or doesn't he always? If the >> latter why >> did he maintain the former earlier in the thread? I have a sneaking >> suspicion that, had he not done so we could have saved ourselves about >> 10 million lines of discussion. JE > > Jeff clearly does not understand BLML. We live for 10 million lines > of discussion; that's what we do here. > > Herman's contradictory statements as to whether he "always" psychs > certain hands have the fortuitous potential to make the discussion > far more, um, interesting (is "more endless" something like "very > unique" or "a little bit pregnant"?). If we had a clear answer, we > might merely wind up debating the legal implications of Herman's > actual practice -- whichever it is. As it is, we have no choice but > to tackle the issue from both directions, addressing the question of > whether or how the answer to "does he or doesn't he?" affects his > legal position and obligations. He does us a service by keeping the > answer to himself. > Thank you. I won't say then. My main point is that it should not matter. By saying that I "always" do it, I want to show you that even if this is true, the psych should be allowed (given certain other circumstances that are true, such as not playing Drury). By saying that I "don't always" do it, I counter the arguments of those that believe that my pass promises values. Anyway, no one will ever be able to find out if I always do it, and even if I don't, the circumstances in which I "always" do it might also be known to my partner and therefore disclosable (*). Say perhaps, that I never do it in serious team play, or with a certain partner, or at the start of a tournament. Even then, there will be other times that I "always" do it. So the question is not as important as you make it sound. And indeed, my main reason for bringing this up is to get 10 million lines on blml. Isn't that what it's for? I also hope to find an answer to the problem, and to get more people on a same wavelength. False hope, of course. But at least I made people think. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 21 12:06:14 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:06:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A1CACB.40007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c7cb7e$c5b80dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > And that is precisely what is wrong with your interpretation of the > laws. I believe that the ruling on psyching should be independent of > what you know, provided you can trust the players to give honest > answers to the questions you ask. Sure I expect the players to give honest answers to my questions but I never discard the possibility that their answers could be biased. In my opinion a "psyche" that is predictable from knowledge of the cards _and_ player involved is no psyche; it is part of his established agreements. So if beforehand I notice a typical deal for your 1H opening "psyche", silently monitor what happens and see that you indeed open 1H on 0-3 HCP I should never accept that bid as a psyche whatever you say if I subsequently got summoned to your table because of your 1H bid. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jul 21 12:50:58 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:50:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... In-Reply-To: References: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0707200502t5ac52cb8pf3c2740ae7691425@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> <46A1003F.3020305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46A1E512.5040301@NTLworld.com> > [Richard Willey] > Actually, Tim, we have Herman's own words. Herman has specifically > stated that he ALWAYS opens 1H holding a hand type appropriate for a > "Herman 1H opening". > > From my perspective, the Bridge becomes unplayable if the regulatory > structure relies on the specific verbiage that players use to describe > their methods. For example, lets assume that Herman and I are both > playing identical methods. > > I choose to describe my 3rd seat 1H opening as a systemic bid that > promises either a "normal" 1H opening or (0-3) HCP. > > Herman chooses to describe his 1H opening as a "normal" 1H opening > however, he also makes a 1H "psyche" on each and every hand where I > would have systemically opened 1H with the weak hand type. > > I don't think that we want a regulatory structure in which my system > is banned as a HUM while Herman is allowed to play the identical set > of methods because he is hiding behind the pretense that he is > psyching. > > The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a > given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of magic > words to justify their behavior. > > [nigel] > Spot on Richard! Except that Herman and Co are not guilty of pretence. > They are certain that we are wrong and they are right. > [Harald Skj?ran] > This is just nonsense. > It's a big difference between having an agreement about opening all 0-3 > hcp hands in 3rd seat as proposed by Richard, and doing it directly > opposed to systemic agreements as done by Herman. > In Richard's case you will have systemic continuations to distingusih > between the hands. > In Herman's case you won't. And the occurences would be so seldom that > it would be more or less impossible for Herman's partner to know about > this habit of doing it 100% of the times it is possible(especially > playing with lots of partners). So Herman's 1H is clearly a psyche, > whereas Richard's isn't. [nige1] "Just nonsense?" :) :) :) Suppose [A] Herman or [B] Richard, playing with a *regular partner*, against a pair of *strangers*, opens 1H in 3rd seat. As Richard points out the main practical difference is a paradox: Harald allows the *Herman Heart* but bans the *Richard Heart* The Richard Heart is a HUM: an asymmetric, disruptive agreement to open at the one-level, several kings below normal strength. Now for something completely different. The Herman Heart is... err... um... The main practical difference is *disclosure*. The Richard Heart is declared on his convention card and his partner alerts it. Herman's partner knows all about the Herman Heart but opponents don't, so are likely to suffer damage. Another practical difference will be *partner's actions*, when opponents show strength. With a good hand, Herman's ethical partner may keep bidding and doubling; whereas when Richard's partner eventually smells a rat, he can shut up shop, with a clear conscience, to limit the damage from "friendly fire". Richard and Herman both have some natural protection, because partner is a *passed hand*. Otherwise, whether the agreement is systemic or implicit makes little difference The frequency of the weak variant is the same in either case. Richard will not complicate his constructive auctions with a *systemic continuation* that caters for the rare variant. Like Herman, he will usually pass and hope. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 21 13:16:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:16:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000701c7cb7e$c5b80dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c7cb7e$c5b80dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46A1EB0C.4000104@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> And that is precisely what is wrong with your interpretation of the >> laws. I believe that the ruling on psyching should be independent of >> what you know, provided you can trust the players to give honest >> answers to the questions you ask. > > Sure I expect the players to give honest answers to my questions but I never > discard the possibility that their answers could be biased. > > In my opinion a "psyche" that is predictable from knowledge of the cards > _and_ player involved is no psyche; it is part of his established > agreements. > > So if beforehand I notice a typical deal for your 1H opening "psyche", > silently monitor what happens and see that you indeed open 1H on 0-3 HCP I > should never accept that bid as a psyche whatever you say if I subsequently > got summoned to your table because of your 1H bid. > > Sven In that case, Sven, you will notice that you have outlawed all psyches. I am certain that for every one of the psyches that John perpetrates, there is some set of circumstances under which he "always" does the same thing. Hell, he can never have the exact same hand, so you'll find that he'll always open 1NT on "A765 K32 987 654". The only way you can find such a habit is by the player admitting to it. So if I say "I have opened a few times on less than 6, more often not" you won't rule against me; but if I admit "I always open on less than 4" you do? And if you decide to go looking for "always", then you'll always find it. This cannot be the correct way of ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 21 13:22:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:22:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Clarification... In-Reply-To: <46A1E512.5040301@NTLworld.com> References: <469F6E12.4060000@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0707200502t5ac52cb8pf3c2740ae7691425@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0707200521y61db3aabq4768e3eee924571c@mail.gmail.com> <46A1003F.3020305@NTLworld.com> <46A1E512.5040301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46A1EC6B.9010807@skynet.be> Nigel wrote: > > [nige1] > "Just nonsense?" :) :) :) > > Suppose [A] Herman or [B] Richard, playing with a *regular partner*, > against a pair of *strangers*, opens 1H in 3rd seat. > > As Richard points out the main practical difference is a paradox: > Harald allows the *Herman Heart* but bans the *Richard Heart* > > The Richard Heart is a HUM: an asymmetric, disruptive agreement to > open at the one-level, several kings below normal strength. Now for > something completely different. The Herman Heart is... err... um... > a psyche - legal under all interpretations. > The main practical difference is *disclosure*. The Richard Heart is > declared on his convention card and his partner alerts it. Herman's > partner knows all about the Herman Heart but opponents don't, so are > likely to suffer damage. > Silly argument. I've always stated that any damage gets corrected for. > Another practical difference will be *partner's actions*, when > opponents show strength. With a good hand, Herman's ethical partner > may keep bidding and doubling; whereas when Richard's partner > eventually smells a rat, he can shut up shop, with a clear conscience, > to limit the damage from "friendly fire". Richard and Herman both have > some natural protection, because partner is a *passed hand*. > Indeed - but it's not just his actions that may be different, it's his systemic handling of it. My partner may bid 4He, Richard's will not. Unless Richard is actually playing a variety of the Herman Heart, in which partner is obliged to bid 4He with the correct hand, and then Richard is actually being silly! > Otherwise, whether the agreement is systemic or implicit makes little > difference > We've just described the difference. > The frequency of the weak variant is the same in either case. > > Richard will not complicate his constructive auctions with a *systemic > continuation* that caters for the rare variant. Like Herman, he will > usually pass and hope. > Well, then maybe Richard is playing the Herman Heart, which is legal and allowed! You are inventing a silly system than no-one would play, and then call that system illegal. No argument really. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 21 14:44:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:44:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A1EB0C.4000104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7cb94$e92c2050$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............ > >> And that is precisely what is wrong with your interpretation of the > >> laws. I believe that the ruling on psyching should be independent of > >> what you know, provided you can trust the players to give honest > >> answers to the questions you ask. > > > > Sure I expect the players to give honest answers to my questions but I > never > > discard the possibility that their answers could be biased. > > > > In my opinion a "psyche" that is predictable from knowledge of the cards > > _and_ player involved is no psyche; it is part of his established > > agreements. > > > > So if beforehand I notice a typical deal for your 1H opening "psyche", > > silently monitor what happens and see that you indeed open 1H on 0-3 HCP > I > > should never accept that bid as a psyche whatever you say if I > subsequently > > got summoned to your table because of your 1H bid. > > > > Sven > > In that case, Sven, you will notice that you have outlawed all > psyches. I am certain that for every one of the psyches that John > perpetrates, there is some set of circumstances under which he > "always" does the same thing. Hell, he can never have the exact same > hand, so you'll find that he'll always open 1NT on "A765 K32 987 654". > > The only way you can find such a habit is by the player admitting to > it. So if I say "I have opened a few times on less than 6, more often > not" you won't rule against me; but if I admit "I always open on less > than 4" you do? And if you decide to go looking for "always", then > you'll always find it. > > This cannot be the correct way of ruling. I have certainly not outlawed all psyches, nor have I said anything to that effect. On the contrary I have accepted several psyches during the years. I have no problem with the way I handle such cases. None of my "customers" have indicated any problem with the way I handle such cases. The Norwegian bridge authorities have to my knowledge no disagreement with the way I handle such cases. So I think I leave it there. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 21 17:52:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:52:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000001c7cb94$e92c2050$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7cb94$e92c2050$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46A22BA3.1010205@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I have certainly not outlawed all psyches, nor have I said anything to that > effect. On the contrary I have accepted several psyches during the years. > > I have no problem with the way I handle such cases. > > None of my "customers" have indicated any problem with the way I handle such > cases. > > The Norwegian bridge authorities have to my knowledge no disagreement with > the way I handle such cases. > > So I think I leave it there. > Well, I would have a problem with you ruling against me. I think I will leave it there. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 21 20:58:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:58:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A22BA3.1010205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c7cbc9$26764a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 21. juli 2007 17:52 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > I have certainly not outlawed all psyches, nor have I said anything to > that > > effect. On the contrary I have accepted several psyches during the > years. > > > > I have no problem with the way I handle such cases. > > > > None of my "customers" have indicated any problem with the way I handle > such > > cases. > > > > The Norwegian bridge authorities have to my knowledge no disagreement > with > > the way I handle such cases. > > > > So I think I leave it there. > > > > Well, I would have a problem with you ruling against me. I don't think so. Trusting that you would answer my questions honestly I shall first ask if it is correct what I understand that you regularly open at the one level after two passes when you have such particularly weak hands in third hand opening position. If you confirm that this is correct I shall ask to see your declaration of this opening bid, and if you can show me a proper declaration then that will be the end of it as far as I am concerned provided HUM is allowed in the actual event. If the event does not allow HUM I shall require you to immediately cease using HUM in this event and adjust any score where I consider that opponents have been damaged by your use of HUM. If you are unable to show me a proper declaration I shall rule that you in fact are using a concealed partnership understanding (with all the consequences of such a ruling). It all boils down to your statement that you regularly use this "psyche". > I think I will leave it there. So do I. Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 22:32:49 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:32:49 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000201c7cbc9$26764a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <46A22BA3.1010205@skynet.be> <000201c7cbc9$26764a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> On 22/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: 21. juli 2007 17:52 > > To: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > I have certainly not outlawed all psyches, nor have I said anything to > > that > > > effect. On the contrary I have accepted several psyches during the > > years. > > > > > > I have no problem with the way I handle such cases. > > > > > > None of my "customers" have indicated any problem with the way I handle > > such > > > cases. > > > > > > The Norwegian bridge authorities have to my knowledge no disagreement > > with > > > the way I handle such cases. > > > > > > So I think I leave it there. > > > > > > > Well, I would have a problem with you ruling against me. > > I don't think so. Trusting that you would answer my questions honestly I > shall first ask if it is correct what I understand that you regularly open > at the one level after two passes when you have such particularly weak hands > in third hand opening position. > > If you confirm that this is correct I shall ask to see your declaration of > this opening bid, and if you can show me a proper declaration then that will > be the end of it as far as I am concerned provided HUM is allowed in the > actual event. > > If the event does not allow HUM I shall require you to immediately cease > using HUM in this event and adjust any score where I consider that opponents > have been damaged by your use of HUM. > > If you are unable to show me a proper declaration I shall rule that you in > fact are using a concealed partnership understanding (with all the > consequences of such a ruling). > > It all boils down to your statement that you regularly use this "psyche". > > > I think I will leave it there. > > So do I. > One player regularly doing something does not a partnership agreement make. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 21 23:06:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:06:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ................. > One player regularly doing something does not a partnership agreement > make. > > You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement. >From Law 75B: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 23:32:07 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:32:07 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707211432l5dd302aeq84c107346403b2db@mail.gmail.com> On 22/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ................. > > One player regularly doing something does not a partnership agreement > > make. > > > > You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement. > > >From Law 75B: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > agreements, which must be disclosed" > Exactly. "habitual violations" do not necessarily "creat implicit agreements" they only "may" do so. Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 23:33:43 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:33:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> On 7/21/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ................. > > One player regularly doing something does not a partnership agreement > > make. > > > > You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement. > > >From Law 75B: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > agreements, which must be disclosed" > > Sven > Wayne's statement is strange. I thought that BLMLers understood that the tournament director investigates and decides what the partnership agreements are. He is not required to decide there is no agreement even if he is 100% convinced that the pair had no discussion ever on the topic in question. Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary definition of agreement. Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 23:37:52 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:37:52 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707211437je83190eodb159f2da93323e6@mail.gmail.com> On 22/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/21/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > ................. > > > One player regularly doing something does not a partnership agreement > > > make. > > > > > > You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement. > > > > >From Law 75B: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > > agreements, which must be disclosed" > > > > Sven > > > > Wayne's statement is strange. I thought that BLMLers understood that > the tournament director investigates and decides what the partnership > agreements are. He is not required to decide there is no agreement > even if he is 100% convinced that the pair had no discussion ever on > the topic in question. Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary > definition of agreement. > It is clear that an "implicit agreement" is a possibility arising from "habitual violations". It is equally clear that "habitual violations" do not necessarily create "implicit agreements". Wayne From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Jul 22 01:12:51 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:12:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:33:43 -0500 "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary > definition of agreement. > Does it supersede the dictionary definitions of "may" and "will"? Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGopLzX39R2QaHMdMRAuG3AJ4tJ3kKi7DwWvTBqqJSzCzIE/C1eQCeIelF W033jDEiUcvMhUEBATdOHe8= =OIHy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 03:43:20 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> On 7/21/07, Brian wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:33:43 -0500 > "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > > > Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary > > definition of agreement. > > > > Does it supersede the dictionary definitions of "may" and "will"? > > > Brian. > No. Perhaps you missed my point. Wayne said, "One player regularly doing something does not a partnership agreement make. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement." I read that as emphasizing the dictionary definition of agreement over the bridge laws meaning implied by Law 75B. I was also hoping to get some confirmation that it is the director who decides what the partnership agreements are for purposes of administering the bridge laws. Maybe an example helps. Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points, say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities. Suppose we have never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card. Any competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my opinion. But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement. -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 04:25:19 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:25:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> On 22/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/21/07, Brian wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:33:43 -0500 > > "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > > > > > Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary > > > definition of agreement. > > > > > > > Does it supersede the dictionary definitions of "may" and "will"? > > > > > > Brian. > > > > No. > > Perhaps you missed my point. Wayne said, "One player regularly doing > something does not a partnership agreement make. You seem to have a > misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement." I read that as > emphasizing the dictionary definition of agreement over the bridge > laws meaning implied by Law 75B. > > I was also hoping to get some confirmation that it is the director who > decides what the partnership agreements are for purposes of > administering the bridge laws. > > Maybe an example helps. Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every > balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points, > say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities. Suppose we have > never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card > leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card. Any > competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my > opinion. But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU > due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement. > That is not my position at all. I would require further evidence. Certainly what a partnership have explicitly agreed will be part of that evidence. As will, in contrast, matters that the partnership have explicitly disagreed on. If I don't agree that we should open every 3532 or 3523 within range 1NT then that cannot be part of my partnerships agreements - explicit or implicit. It might still need to be disclosed. Partnership experience is required to be disclosed in response to a question L75C. Therefore a proper response to a question might be "15-17 denies a five-card major but partner tends to ignore that and open 1NT whenever he is within range with 3532 or 3523". Part of this explanation is about our agreement and part is about our partnership experience. It is moot whether your convention card should explain only your agreements or whether it should also give details about your partnership experience that is outside your agreements. Disclosure of psyching tendancies is an example of disclosing your partnership experience that is outside your agreements. Law 75B recognizes that sometimes an implicit agreement can develop based on partnership experience ("habitual violations" of "an announced partnership agreement"). It does not say that such an agreement must develop from those "habitual violations". Therefore there needs to be some other standard by which we can determine if the violations have developed into an "agreement" or not. Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 05:25:55 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:25:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> It now seems unfortunate that the laws use the term "agreement." Perhaps "understanding" should have been used to avoid confusion. Wayne still is focusing on the dictionary definition of agreement. He wants the director to gather more evidence and find out what the *agreements* are. In my example, it is clear that there is an *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, and that understanding is concealed by the convention card. Whether one agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed. That's why I think "understanding" is a better word to use in this context than "agreement." Any emphasis on the common meaning of "agreement" is likely to lead to the wrong conclusion in this part of bridge law. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 05:37:32 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:37:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707212037r23e662f9m5ea1ae62d6f54dba@mail.gmail.com> On 7/21/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 22/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > > Maybe an example helps. Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every > > balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points, > > say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities. Suppose we have > > never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card > > leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card. Any > > competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my > > opinion. But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU > > due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement. > > > > That is not my position at all. > > I would require further evidence. Certainly what a partnership have > explicitly agreed will be part of that evidence. As will, in > contrast, matters that the partnership have explicitly disagreed on. > > If I don't agree that we should open every 3532 or 3523 within range > 1NT then that cannot be part of my partnerships agreements - explicit > or implicit. It might still need to be disclosed. Might? Need more evidence? What more evidence do you need? What evidence would sway you that there is no CPU? From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 05:47:30 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:47:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: References: <002401c7c9e1$6440ee70$6a00a8c0@rmarcos> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707212047k245bcb28s2d250c7c5a4505dc@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > Rui wrote: > > If the TD cannot "avoid any remark or action that might cause > > annoyance or embarrassment to a player or might > > interfere with the enjoyment of the game" he is not a good TD, no > > matter how good technically he might me. > > Ah well :(. I find that remarks like "I'm ruling the contract back to..." > frequently cause annoyance amongst chea^X^X^X customers who hoped I would > rule in their favour. I apologise if this is too obvious to mention, but the regulation should be read in a way that makes sense. A player may correctly call the director or make a brilliant call or play that an opponent finds annoying, and this kind of action is not prohibited. Nor would unpopular rulings be prohibited. Perhaps the regulation could be reworded to better align with what is intended. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 06:50:22 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:50:22 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707212150s568577fcs621a426e779005ba@mail.gmail.com> On 22/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > It now seems unfortunate that the laws use the term "agreement." > Perhaps "understanding" should have been used to avoid confusion. > > Wayne still is focusing on the dictionary definition of agreement. He > wants the director to gather more evidence and find out what the > *agreements* are. No I just want the TD to discover if there is a "partnership understanding" or "partnership agreement". > In my example, it is clear that there is an > *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, and > that understanding is concealed by the convention card. Not at all it isn't clear to me. It is clear to me only that there is experience that partner opens these 'offshape' hands not that there is any "partnership understanding" or "partnership agreement". > Whether one > agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed. > > That's why I think "understanding" is a better word to use in this > context than "agreement." Any emphasis on the common meaning of > "agreement" is likely to lead to the wrong conclusion in this part of > bridge law. > There is no use of the term "understanding" without the qualifier "partnership". This qualifier emphasises a shared "agreement" or "understanding". Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 06:59:19 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:59:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D148@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D148@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707212159n644ca7c2y99892d54dd111df3@mail.gmail.com> On 7/19/07, Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > > Sent: 19 July 2007 02:12 > >>Richard Hills: > >> > >> For what it is worth, my favourite Law is > >> Law 74A2: > >> > >> "A player should carefully avoid any remark > >> or action that might cause annoyance or > >> embarrassment to another player or might > >> interfere with the enjoyment of the game." > >> > > > > I admire that one too, but why can't there be > > a law like that which applies to directors? > > Applies which way to directors? > > "A director should carefully avoid any remark > or action that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to a player or might > interfere with the enjoyment of the game." ? > Yes, this is the one I meant. (The other possibility you suggested is clearly covered in the laws.) I will now give two examples of director behavior I take exception to from my last midwest ACBL regional---march of this year. By the way, one of the directors at the regional was among the politest and best I have ever enjoyed playing under. But two of those directors I wish would learn to follow the above quote of Robin's. My partner at the regional was Teresa, a young beginner with 1 masterpoint so far. (We both met Eric Landau and became instant friends at an APL conference if Florida, and I am sure that Eric will agree that she is a totally charming person.) In the first example, we sat EW, and there were four boards to play. After completing the first two boards, South noticed that the boards were incorrectly rotated 180 degrees. Too late to fix those, but what should we do about the other two, she asked. My partner, inexperienced though she is, called the director. (Directors were scarce, and she was, unfortunately for her, the first to spot one.) She knows that "When attention is called to an irregularity -- please call the Director" is the sole boldfaced slogan on the back of ACBL convention cards. (You would think the ACBL really means it.) This was her first director call. The director knew her, and knew her inexperience, but as is his frequent style, he snorted to her "So?" Someone asked, "well what do we do with the other two boards?" He snorted again, as if his dignity was offended to have to answer such a question, that we should, obviously, play the last two in the correct positions. (Not so obvious to me, by the way, because two of us became dealers twice.) This director made it clear that he thought the director call was idiotic and a waste of his time. We should have just figured out by ourselves what to do, he implied. As he was leaving, North and South assured my partner that they thought it was correct for her to call the director, and did not see why this director was gratuitously rude so frequently. I agreed: What purpose did that kind of nastiness serve? In the second example, my partner accurately alerted that my opening bid of 1S was unlimited (but otherwise normal), because we have no strong artificial opening such as a strong artificial 2C. This is totally clear on the typeset convention card, but the director ignored the card at first, preferring to grill my partner and roll his eyes and go on and on about how he could not fathom why we would agree to play such a thing. He said it was an inferior agreement, and we should not be playing it, and I quote, "you will win more often when you learn to play bridge." His hostility was impressive and memorable. Personally, I don't think directors should spend any time denigrating a pair's legal and properly disclosed agreements. If gratuitous, pointless director rudeness happens twenty times per regional, we just have to accept it or stop playing, I guess. There is apparently nothing in the laws to prevent it, but I wish there was. This was the reason for my original post on this subject. -Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 22 11:03:02 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:03:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A31D46.9010001@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > It now seems unfortunate that the laws use the term "agreement." > Perhaps "understanding" should have been used to avoid confusion. > Yes Jerry, but you and Wayne have been discussing something you agree upon. Wether the psyche is an agreement or an experience, it needs to be disclosed. Wayne and Sven were discussing whether the psyche becomes systemic (in the words of the laws "agreement") by mere frequency, or by my "doing it every time". Wayne was explaining to Sven the English meaning of the word "May" (not that I doubt for one moment that Sven does not know that meaning), thereby argueing that although L75 says habitual violations _may_ create agreements, they don't need to do so. In that sense, it is clear to me, and to everyone willing to listen to the argument, that Sven's ruling is incorrect. By my mere assertion that I frequently make this psyche, a TD does not have to rule partnership understanding. There has to be something more, and this thread has tried to find out what that _more_ is. > Wayne still is focusing on the dictionary definition of agreement. He > wants the director to gather more evidence and find out what the > *agreements* are. In my example, it is clear that there is an > *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, and > that understanding is concealed by the convention card. Whether one > agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed. > That one we all agree upon. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 22 11:05:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:05:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707212150s568577fcs621a426e779005ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c7cc3f$7441be20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ................. > No I just want the TD to discover if there is a "partnership > understanding" or "partnership agreement". Exactly. And I have told you how I rule that they have a partnership understanding, i.e. agreement from experience, when I understand that a player use a particular style or method to the extent that his partner must probably be aware of it and possibly cater for it. In some cases it takes only one single occurrence to establish that such understanding exists, in other cases it may take several corresponding occurrences. How many is a matter of judgement by the Director. (This judgement can of course, like most rulings, be appealed.) Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 22 11:29:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:29:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707212159n644ca7c2y99892d54dd111df3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000101c7cc42$c71e5470$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ............ > I will now give two examples of director behavior I take exception to > from my last midwest ACBL regional---march of this year. By the way, > one of the directors at the regional was among the politest and best I > have ever enjoyed playing under. But two of those directors I wish > would learn to follow the above quote of Robin's. > > My partner at the regional was Teresa, a young beginner with 1 > masterpoint so far. (We both met Eric Landau and became instant > friends at an APL conference if Florida, and I am sure that Eric will > agree that she is a totally charming person.) > > In the first example, we sat EW, and there were four boards to play. > After completing the first two boards, South noticed that the boards > were incorrectly rotated 180 degrees. Too late to fix those, but what > should we do about the other two, she asked. > > My partner, inexperienced though she is, called the director. > (Directors were scarce, and she was, unfortunately for her, the first > to spot one.) She knows that "When attention is called to an > irregularity -- please call the Director" is the sole boldfaced slogan > on the back of ACBL convention cards. (You would think the ACBL > really means it.) This was her first director call. The director > knew her, and knew her inexperience, but as is his frequent style, he > snorted to her "So?" Someone asked, "well what do we do with the > other two boards?" He snorted again, as if his dignity was offended > to have to answer such a question, that we should, obviously, play the > last two in the correct positions. (Not so obvious to me, by the way, > because two of us became dealers twice.) > > This director made it clear that he thought the director call was > idiotic and a waste of his time. We should have just figured out by > ourselves what to do, he implied. As he was leaving, North and South > assured my partner that they thought it was correct for her to call > the director, and did not see why this director was gratuitously rude > so frequently. I agreed: What purpose did that kind of nastiness > serve? > > In the second example, my partner accurately alerted that my opening > bid of 1S was unlimited (but otherwise normal), because we have no > strong artificial opening such as a strong artificial 2C. This is > totally clear on the typeset convention card, but the director ignored > the card at first, preferring to grill my partner and roll his eyes > and go on and on about how he could not fathom why we would agree to > play such a thing. He said it was an inferior agreement, and we > should not be playing it, and I quote, "you will win more often when > you learn to play bridge." His hostility was impressive and > memorable. Personally, I don't think directors should spend any time > denigrating a pair's legal and properly disclosed agreements. > > If gratuitous, pointless director rudeness happens twenty times per > regional, we just have to accept it or stop playing, I guess. There > is apparently nothing in the laws to prevent it, but I wish there was. > This was the reason for my original post on this subject. Your examples are horrific. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the tales but I am shocked if qualified directors behave in this manner. That the object of their rudeness happened to be inexperienced is as such not relevant but aggravates the seriousness of the behaviors by those directors. A Director has no business in commenting a partnership agreement for other purposes that its legality. If a Director feels that he has been called to a table for no real reason he may inform the players of that fact, but if he does he must in the same breath assure them that it is absolutely never incorrect to call a Director when they are in any kind of doubt. So what could (and maybe should) have been done? I hope in a similar case that I would have approached the directors, preferably immediately at the table or at least before leaving the room and demanded an unconditional apology for such unthinkable behavior. If there was a chief director in charge at the event I might have approached him. Allowing for the possibility that the directors involved might have had a bad day I would still not let such incidents pass by in silence; they are very efficient ways of scaring inexperienced players away from bridge. And there is no real need for any clarification in the laws that also Directors shall behave. Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Jul 22 11:50:02 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:50:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070722055002.24dcd3a8@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:20 -0500 "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > On 7/21/07, Brian wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:33:43 -0500 > > "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > > > > > Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary > > > definition of agreement. > > > > > > > Does it supersede the dictionary definitions of "may" and "will"? > > > > > > Brian. > > > > No. > > Perhaps you missed my point. Wayne said, "One player regularly doing > something does not a partnership agreement make. You seem to have a > misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement." I read that as > emphasizing the dictionary definition of agreement over the bridge > laws meaning implied by Law 75B. > > I was also hoping to get some confirmation that it is the director who > decides what the partnership agreements are for purposes of > administering the bridge laws. > And this was really my (very poorly made) point, Jerry. The same one as I've been banging on about in my last few postings. I think that it's DEEPLY unsatisfactory that the TD determines what the partnership agreements are according to his own criteria. I want the *players* to be given some hard and fast guidelines as to when one of these implicit agreements will magically appear out of thin air. Your example (which I've snipped for brevity) of 100 out of 100 1NT openers with 5M332 obviously crosses any reasonable guidelines, and by a very long way too. Here I'm on your side rather than Wayne's, if my partner is going to do this on a regular basis then it's indistinguishable from an agreement, and my choices are to stop my partner from doing it, adopt the method as part of our system, or find a new partner. If I do none of the foregoing, then I might even be inviting problems from the requirement (in the EBU, at least) that both partners play the same system. What I do find ridiculous, though, is that a very few occurrences can empower a TD to invent a partnership agreement where none exists. I really can't accept that my partner and I have an agreement to open 1S as 11-15 with 5+S or occasionally any random 0-10 in 3rd NV. And I also don't think it should be down to the individual TD, or even group of TDs, to decide what the *criteria* should be for an implicit agreement. Of course the TDs are the people who have to make the judgement as to whether the criteria have been met, but that's an entirely different matter. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGoyhKX39R2QaHMdMRAjzGAJ43ZPVs0lXga0bxtJHtjaIHQzsNiACdHz04 xIa0ghdU0BfCkqR+TrVe4oo= =LOcB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 11:54:19 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:54:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000001c7cc3f$7441be20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560707212150s568577fcs621a426e779005ba@mail.gmail.com> <000001c7cc3f$7441be20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707220254t258540bawfc018ae2f9162c1b@mail.gmail.com> On 22/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ................. > > No I just want the TD to discover if there is a "partnership > > understanding" or "partnership agreement". > > Exactly. And I have told you how I rule that they have a partnership > understanding, i.e. agreement from experience, when I understand that a > player use a particular style or method to the extent that his partner must > probably be aware of it and possibly cater for it. > > In some cases it takes only one single occurrence to establish that such > understanding exists, in other cases it may take several corresponding > occurrences. How many is a matter of judgement by the Director. (This > judgement can of course, like most rulings, be appealed.) > ... and sometimes repeated and potentially unlimited occurrences do not create a partnership agreement. Note L75B uses the language "partnership agreement". Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 22 12:56:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:56:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707220254t258540bawfc018ae2f9162c1b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c7cc4e$f061b8c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Sent: 22. juli 2007 11:54 > To: Sven Pran > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > > On 22/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > ................. > > > No I just want the TD to discover if there is a "partnership > > > understanding" or "partnership agreement". > > > > Exactly. And I have told you how I rule that they have a partnership > > understanding, i.e. agreement from experience, when I understand that a > > player use a particular style or method to the extent that his partner > must > > probably be aware of it and possibly cater for it. > > > > In some cases it takes only one single occurrence to establish that such > > understanding exists, in other cases it may take several corresponding > > occurrences. How many is a matter of judgement by the Director. (This > > judgement can of course, like most rulings, be appealed.) > > > > ... and sometimes repeated and potentially unlimited occurrences do > not create a partnership agreement. > > Note L75B uses the language "partnership agreement". And the Laws do not distinguish between Partnership Agreements, Partnership experience or partnership understandings. The latter two are considered "implied" partnership agreements. Let us stop splitting hairs, shall we? When I direct I shall never let a player get away with technicalities to hide information on partnership agreements from opponents, nor shall I let him get away with alleged psyches that are not genuine psyches (which is what this thread is really about). Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 13:46:04 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:46:04 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000201c7cc4e$f061b8c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560707220254t258540bawfc018ae2f9162c1b@mail.gmail.com> <000201c7cc4e$f061b8c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> On 22/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > Sent: 22. juli 2007 11:54 > > To: Sven Pran > > Cc: blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > > > > On 22/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > > ................. > > > > No I just want the TD to discover if there is a "partnership > > > > understanding" or "partnership agreement". > > > > > > Exactly. And I have told you how I rule that they have a partnership > > > understanding, i.e. agreement from experience, when I understand that a > > > player use a particular style or method to the extent that his partner > > must > > > probably be aware of it and possibly cater for it. > > > > > > In some cases it takes only one single occurrence to establish that such > > > understanding exists, in other cases it may take several corresponding > > > occurrences. How many is a matter of judgement by the Director. (This > > > judgement can of course, like most rulings, be appealed.) > > > > > > > ... and sometimes repeated and potentially unlimited occurrences do > > not create a partnership agreement. > > > > Note L75B uses the language "partnership agreement". > > And the Laws do not distinguish between Partnership Agreements, Partnership > experience or partnership understandings. The latter two are considered > "implied" partnership agreements. That is simply not true unless the writers of the laws had a particularly bad grasp of the english language. '...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience..." If it was as you say then the writer would not have used what you apparently consider a tautological expression. It makes a whole lot more sense to assume that the writer of the laws had in mind two different concepts when he drafted the above law. It is barely possible to believe that "partnership understanding" and "partnership agreement" refer to the same concept but I can't think of a good reason for the laws to use two different words for the same technical concept. I believe "partnership experience" "may" lead to a "partnership agreement. This seems to me to be consistent with the language in the laws. I cannot see how you can believe these things are one and the same. > > Let us stop splitting hairs, shall we? Let us stop assuming that the writers did not mean what they wrote. > > When I direct I shall never let a player get away with technicalities to > hide information on partnership agreements from opponents, nor shall I let > him get away with alleged psyches that are not genuine psyches (which is > what this thread is really about). > But you will let a director call "experience" an "agreement" etc. The director is bound by the laws and announced regulations. You have not right to distort the meaning of the words written in the laws. Wayne From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 22 15:20:33 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:20:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000201c7cc4e$f061b8c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c7cc4e$f061b8c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46A359A1.3080909@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > When I direct I shall never let a player get away with technicalities to > hide information on partnership agreements from opponents, nor shall I let > him get away with alleged psyches that are not genuine psyches (which is > what this thread is really about). > Exactly. But let's get one thing straight - we are not talking about hiding information. Even although I admit that my partners do not inform opponents (how could they? they don't know it) I will always ask them if they feel damaged _by the omission of knowledge, of course_. If it turns out that they could have done better with the knowledge that I sometimes psyche in a particular manner, I will also adjust for that. What we are indeed talking about is if the psyche is genuine or not, in the sense that it might be systemic, and hence HUM, and hence forbidden. Now it is the contention of Wayne and myself that frequency is _not_ enough to make a psyche systemic. There must be something else for that, and we need to find what that is. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 22 16:13:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:13:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............. > > And the Laws do not distinguish between Partnership Agreements, > Partnership > > experience or partnership understandings. The latter two are considered > > "implied" partnership agreements. > > That is simply not true unless the writers of the laws had a > particularly bad grasp of the english language. > > '...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him > through partnership agreement or partnership experience..." OK, I will give you this one: The experience that partner forgets his system and misbids does not lead to any agreement however frequent. (I have not been discussing that.) But the experience that partner is likely to deliberately misbid in certain situations does. Deliberate misbids are usually protected by Law 40A, but this protection does not extend to calls where partner from his partnership experience can predict when they will occur and/or on what kind of hands they will be made. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 22 16:18:13 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:18:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <71F23A9E-7657-4C72-9E79-BE61D1BE6DD1@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Maybe an example helps. Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every > balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points, > say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities. Suppose we have > never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card > leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card. Any > competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my > opinion. But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU > due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement. The difference, I think, is whether the partner of the "habitual violator" has recognized the habit. Some will recognize it fairly quickly, some won't ever get a clue. I suppose the TD has to draw a line somewhere, but I think that somewhere depends on the players involved, and can't be specified narrowly or in advance. (The usual guideline - "at least 3 times recently" - does not mean "exactly 3 times" nor does it mean "in this player's entire bridge playing history"). From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 22 17:22:09 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:22:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46A37621.9080206@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ............. >>> And the Laws do not distinguish between Partnership Agreements, >> Partnership >>> experience or partnership understandings. The latter two are considered >>> "implied" partnership agreements. >> That is simply not true unless the writers of the laws had a >> particularly bad grasp of the english language. >> >> '...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him >> through partnership agreement or partnership experience..." > > OK, I will give you this one: > > The experience that partner forgets his system and misbids does not lead to > any agreement however frequent. (I have not been discussing that.) > > But the experience that partner is likely to deliberately misbid in certain > situations does. > > Deliberate misbids are usually protected by Law 40A, but this protection > does not extend to calls where partner from his partnership experience can > predict when they will occur and/or on what kind of hands they will be made. > Yes Sven, but that creates partnership experience, which must be disclosed, not partnership understanding, which can be regulated as system! As Wayne has said, there is a difference between the two! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Sun Jul 22 18:05:26 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:05:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 References: <000101c7cc42$c71e5470$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003301c7cc7a$1e3d2ab0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 snip >> >> In the second example, my partner accurately alerted that my opening >> bid of 1S was unlimited (but otherwise normal), because we have no >> strong artificial opening such as a strong artificial 2C. This is >> totally clear on the typeset convention card, but the director ignored >> the card at first, preferring to grill my partner and roll his eyes >> and go on and on about how he could not fathom why we would agree to >> play such a thing. He said it was an inferior agreement, and we >> should not be playing it, and I quote, "you will win more often when >> you learn to play bridge." Oh dear; Eric, Tim and myself clearly need to learn to play bridge and we'll win more often :) cheers John His hostility was impressive and >> memorable. Personally, I don't think directors should spend any time >> denigrating a pair's legal and properly disclosed agreements. What an asshole! No wonder bridge is in terminal decline. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jul 22 19:53:09 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:53:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707212150s568577fcs621a426e779005ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707212150s568577fcs621a426e779005ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A39985.7040200@NTLworld.com> [Jerrt Fussekman] >> Whether one agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed. >> That's why I think "understanding" is a better word to use in this >> context than "agreement." Any emphasis on the common meaning of >> "agreement" is likely to lead to the wrong conclusion in this part of >> bridge law. > [Wayne Burrows] > There is no use of the term "understanding" without the qualifier > "partnership". This qualifier emphasises a shared "agreement" or > "understanding". [nige1] Jerry and Wayne have reached an instructive impasse. Years ago, in Edinburgh, I played in a group for many years. Nobody had a convention card and we never discussed or formally agreed anything but we got to know most of the special and artificial meanings that our partners assigned to bids. Another example. Recently, my partner arrived late to play in an on-line match. We've never before played together. We had no time to discuss or agree anything. During the evening, we used a large range of sophisticated methods. We were playing against a Polish team, so we had to alert and explain most auctions. We implicitly relied on the knowledge that we belong to the same local group, who have similar views on Acol and read the same books and magazines. I would be interested in Wayne's view on such cases. I presume that Wayne would say we had no agreements, just shared experience. Jerry says that even without discussion or formal agreement, a pair may still have an *implicit agreement. Wayne's view may fit better with a dictionary definition but the law seems to make no sense unless you adopt Jerry's interpretation. It is frightening that this is a simple concept on which all the disclosure laws are based. Whoever is right, two interested and intelligent players like Jerry and Wayne cannot reach agreement. Arguments anong clever BLMlers at this basic level demonstrate how stupid it is to expect ordinary directors and players like me to understand and implement ultra-sophisticated, over-subjective, complex and fragmented laws. In the end, the director must decide whether or not there is an implicit agreement; but the criteria used must be... (a) The same for *all* directors. (b) Known to and usable by players. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 21:37:03 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:37:03 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A39985.7040200@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707212150s568577fcs621a426e779005ba@mail.gmail.com> <46A39985.7040200@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707221237i54b72c5ek455d6c52bee1341a@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, Nigel wrote: > [Jerrt Fussekman] > >> Whether one agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed. > >> That's why I think "understanding" is a better word to use in this > >> context than "agreement." Any emphasis on the common meaning of > >> "agreement" is likely to lead to the wrong conclusion in this part of > >> bridge law. > > > [Wayne Burrows] > > There is no use of the term "understanding" without the qualifier > > "partnership". This qualifier emphasises a shared "agreement" or > > "understanding". > > [nige1] > Jerry and Wayne have reached an instructive impasse. > > Years ago, in Edinburgh, I played in a group for many years. Nobody > had a convention card and we never discussed or formally agreed > anything but we got to know most of the special and artificial > meanings that our partners assigned to bids. > > Another example. Recently, my partner arrived late to play in an > on-line match. We've never before played together. We had no time to > discuss or agree anything. During the evening, we used a large range > of sophisticated methods. We were playing against a Polish team, so we > had to alert and explain most auctions. We implicitly relied on the > knowledge that we belong to the same local group, who have similar > views on Acol and read the same books and magazines. > > I would be interested in Wayne's view on such cases. I presume that > Wayne would say we had no agreements, just shared experience. > No it appears to me you had some implicit agreements. Although there is a serious problem with this concept of implicit agreement - What happens when your "implicit agreement" turns into an "implicit disagreement"? In other words when you believe that an agreement exists even though you have never discussed the situation but it turns out that there is in fact no agreement. > Jerry says that even without discussion or formal agreement, a pair > may still have an *implicit agreement. I agree with that. I don't agree that one, two, three or many instances of a violation can create an agreement in and of themselves. For there to be an agreement there must be some meeting of the minds and at that meeting they must agree. > > Wayne's view may fit better with a dictionary definition but the law > seems to make no sense unless you adopt Jerry's interpretation. > I don't see this. Wayne From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jul 22 22:07:59 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:07:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat) Message-ID: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> "It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree." -- Charles Baudelaire Continuing to plow the lonely furrow of logic... As I wrote earlier, there are two different aspects of "understandings:" what needs to be _disclosed_ and what can be _regulated_. (Herman and several others have called attention to the difference, but some readers don't seem to grasp the distinction.) The FLB uses different words in different places, but we find the dichotomy explicit in L40E2 ("style and judgement" versus "method") and L75C ("partnership experience" versus "partnership agreement"). Confusing the two will lead us astray. Even on the simpler topic of disclosure, there are problems. I think everyone will agree: 1. In answer to questions, everything relevant must be disclosed. 2. If the SO establishes specific requirements, experience must be disclosed on the CC and/or alerted. (The WBF and EBU have such requirements for psyching tendencies, for example.) On the other hand, I think there is controversy about: 3. Some SO's (foolishly, in my opinion) _forbid_ any disclosure of psyching habits on the CC. What then? 4. Some players may be unaware of partner's psyching habits. What happens if those habits are not disclosed (in response to questions, for example)? From the opponents' (and Laws') perspective, what is the difference whether Herman psychs 1H opposite a BLML reader (who knows his habits) or opposite someone Herman has just met at the partnership desk (who does not)? Other comments: > Richard Hills: > I think Steve's "two" infractions are one oxymoronic infraction. I haven't a clue what this means. Giving MI is not at all the same as using an illegal convention (or other agreement subject to regulation). From: "Tim West-Meads" > to me the difference > between MI and CPU is the intent (not competence) of the explainer. Despite my several requests on BLML, no one has yet given a distinction between MI and CPU that I find convincing. Tim's might work if you consider CPU a conduct offense, but I don't think intent can be a valid basis for score adjustment. [snip] Robin Barker has comments on the difference between psychic bidding and false cards at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/flse_cds.htm , but I don't think he explains the emotion associated with psychic bidding. He emphasizes that disclosure is a serious problem. From: "richard willey" > The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a > given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of magic > words to justify their behavior. Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless. "Set of hands" is only one aspect of what constitutes an agreement. In a future message, I'll address the topic of when a regulable agreement exists. From: "Sven Pran" > Being summoned to your table on this complaint and knowing Herman's habitual > 1H opening bids I would immediately rule violation of Law 40A Here's an example of fuzzy thinking. It is not possible to violate L40A. While there may be an infraction, it has to involve a different law. > Now say that on the same board I have the same case at the next table except > that I have no real reason to suspect any kind of partnership understanding > at that table. There I would let the table result stand! So different rulings on identical at-the-table circumstances? Does anyone besides Sven think this makes for a fair game? (I'll leave aside the idea of basing rulings on internet rumors, but I expect my opinion will be easy to guess.) From: Brian > if my > partner is going to do this on a regular basis then it's > indistinguishable from an agreement, ... > then I might even be > inviting problems from the requirement (in the EBU, at least) that both > partners play the same system. Answering the first will have to wait for a future message, but the second concern is easy to deal with. As long as the difference involves only "style and judgement," it's disclosable but not regulable. From: Eric Landau > Isn't ethics about accepting the > judgment of society at large as to what consitutes proper action even > when you disagree? Philosophers have debated this question for millenia and not reached consensus. Fortunately, for discussing rules of a game, it doesn't matter. All that's needed is a set of clear, enforceable rules. Unfortunately, that is already a very tall order! From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 22:38:56 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:38:56 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ............. > > > And the Laws do not distinguish between Partnership Agreements, > > Partnership > > > experience or partnership understandings. The latter two are considered > > > "implied" partnership agreements. > > > > That is simply not true unless the writers of the laws had a > > particularly bad grasp of the english language. > > > > '...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him > > through partnership agreement or partnership experience..." > > OK, I will give you this one: > > The experience that partner forgets his system and misbids does not lead to > any agreement however frequent. (I have not been discussing that.) > > But the experience that partner is likely to deliberately misbid in certain > situations does. > Not using any understanding of the meaning of agreement that I know. I have one player with whom my frequent violations create an explicit disagreement. You would need to be out of your mind to believe that an implicit agreement occurred when you saw the fighting. > Deliberate misbids are usually protected by Law 40A, but this protection > does not extend to calls where partner from his partnership experience can > predict when they will occur and/or on what kind of hands they will be made. > That is not what law 40 says and I think you know it Sven. The caveat in Law 40A is "provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding". An 'understanding' is not 'experience'. I am willing to conceed that 'experience' through habitual violations 'may' lead to an 'agreement'. But not to an automatic you have done this before (once, twice or many times) so you are not allowed to do it any more. Its not entirely clear to me what the difference is between 'understanding' and 'agreement'. Agreement sounds more formal to me. Both terms seem to imply some mutual recognition of the situation. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 22 23:56:27 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:56:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c7ccab$27723ae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .............. > > Deliberate misbids are usually protected by Law 40A, but this protection > > does not extend to calls where partner from his partnership experience > can > > predict when they will occur and/or on what kind of hands they will be > made. > > > > That is not what law 40 says and I think you know it Sven. The caveat > in Law 40A is "provided that such call or play is not based on a > partnership understanding". An 'understanding' is not 'experience'. > I am willing to conceed that 'experience' through habitual violations > 'may' lead to an 'agreement'. But not to an automatic you have done > this before (once, twice or many times) so you are not allowed to do > it any more. > > Its not entirely clear to me what the difference is between > 'understanding' and 'agreement'. Agreement sounds more formal to me. > Both terms seem to imply some mutual recognition of the situation. In between other more important activities I have given this question some thoughts. (I haven't realized that there should be such an important difference between agreements, whether express or implied, experiences and understandings). The way I see it "Understanding" comprises the total knowledge of the methods used within the partnership whether this knowledge comes from agreements (explicit or implicit whatever 'implicit' shall mean here), partnership experience or any other sources. I feel support for this definition of the term "understanding" in Law 40 which uses "understanding" universally when describing what constitutes the basis for calls and plays and also when establishing what duty players have to inform their opponents. Law 40 specifically establishes that the use of concealed partnership understandings (i.e. "understandings" that have not been revealed to opponents) is illegal. With this in mind it becomes rather unimportant, at least for me, to have precise definitions for what constitutes agreements or experience. We must concentrate on what understanding (in the widest sense) is available and is used within a partnership. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 22 23:56:46 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:56:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat) In-Reply-To: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46A3D29E.4050707@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > "It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill > luck, people understood each other, they would never agree." > -- Charles Baudelaire > > Continuing to plow the lonely furrow of logic... > > As I wrote earlier, there are two different aspects of "understandings:" > what needs to be _disclosed_ and what can be _regulated_. (Herman and > several others have called attention to the difference, but some readers > don't seem to grasp the distinction.) The FLB uses different words in > different places, but we find the dichotomy explicit in L40E2 ("style > and judgement" versus "method") and L75C ("partnership experience" > versus "partnership agreement"). Confusing the two will lead us astray. > Indeed. > Even on the simpler topic of disclosure, there are problems. I think > everyone will agree: > > 1. In answer to questions, everything relevant must be disclosed. > > 2. If the SO establishes specific requirements, experience must be > disclosed on the CC and/or alerted. (The WBF and EBU have such > requirements for psyching tendencies, for example.) > > On the other hand, I think there is controversy about: > > 3. Some SO's (foolishly, in my opinion) _forbid_ any disclosure of > psyching habits on the CC. What then? > You follow the foolish regulations. > 4. Some players may be unaware of partner's psyching habits. What > happens if those habits are not disclosed (in response to questions, for > example)? From the opponents' (and Laws') perspective, what is the > difference whether Herman psychs 1H opposite a BLML reader (who knows > his habits) or opposite someone Herman has just met at the partnership > desk (who does not)? > I believe that anything a partner could know should be known by opponents, even if partner does not actually know it. The only way this can work is by accepting that the MI is there, and adjust afterwards. > Other comments: > >> Richard Hills: >> I think Steve's "two" infractions are one oxymoronic infraction. > > I haven't a clue what this means. Giving MI is not at all the same as > using an illegal convention (or other agreement subject to regulation). > Indeed those are two quite different infractions. > From: "Tim West-Meads" >> to me the difference >> between MI and CPU is the intent (not competence) of the explainer. > > Despite my several requests on BLML, no one has yet given a distinction > between MI and CPU that I find convincing. Tim's might work if you > consider CPU a conduct offense, but I don't think intent can be a valid > basis for score adjustment. > There is NO difference between MI and CPU. The words MI and CPU have different connotations. The one sounds harmless, the other sounds like cheating. But there is only one law that governs them both and it uses the words CPU. Barring extremely bad faith, there is no such thing as "concealing partnership understandings"; there is only misinforming opponents. > [snip] > Robin Barker has comments on the difference between psychic bidding and > false cards at > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/flse_cds.htm , > but I don't think he explains the emotion associated with psychic > bidding. He emphasizes that disclosure is a serious problem. > > From: "richard willey" >> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a >> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of magic >> words to justify their behavior. > > Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless. "Set of > hands" is only one aspect of what constitutes an agreement. In a future > message, I'll address the topic of when a regulable agreement exists. > Please do. Maybe you can get the message accross. > From: "Sven Pran" >> Being summoned to your table on this complaint and knowing Herman's habitual >> 1H opening bids I would immediately rule violation of Law 40A > > Here's an example of fuzzy thinking. It is not possible to violate > L40A. While there may be an infraction, it has to involve a different law. > >> Now say that on the same board I have the same case at the next table except >> that I have no real reason to suspect any kind of partnership understanding >> at that table. There I would let the table result stand! > > So different rulings on identical at-the-table circumstances? Does > anyone besides Sven think this makes for a fair game? (I'll leave aside > the idea of basing rulings on internet rumors, but I expect my opinion > will be easy to guess.) > I had made the same comment. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 01:27:38 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:27:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> On 7/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > I have one player with whom my frequent violations create an explicit > disagreement. You would need to be out of your mind to believe that > an implicit agreement occurred when you saw the fighting. > > > Its not entirely clear to me what the difference is between > 'understanding' and 'agreement'. Agreement sounds more formal to me. > Both terms seem to imply some mutual recognition of the situation. > Oh, these paragraphs are so clear! We might be getting somewhere now. I'll start with your second paragraph. I will try to clarify the difference between `understanding' and `agreement' that I had in mind. I am referring to the common meanings of the word. I may understand that my partner often opens 1NT with a five-card major even though I don't agree with that style. We have an understanding that partner's 1NT opening hand frequently contains a 5-card major. That we have never agreed to this style and have never discussed it is irrelevant. When the director comes to the table and asks us whether we have an *agreement* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, the director has made a big (but common) mistake. The mistake is to use the word "agreement," which obviously can be misunderstood by the average bridge player. What he should ask, instead, is whether there is an *understanding* by me, based on agreement or experience, that my partner frequently has a 5-card major when he opens 1NT. To say no to this question would be a lie (yes, I am assuming that I have been paying attention to my partner's past 1NT openings, Ed). In this sense, our agreements are irrelevant and my understanding of what kind of hands my partner is likely to have is what matters. His likely hands must be disclosed---in my explanation, I cannot substitute what I wish he was likely to have. Do you see a difference between the common meanings of `understanding' and `agreement' now? Now to your earlier paragraph: > > I have one player with whom my frequent violations create an explicit > disagreement. You would need to be out of your mind to believe that > an implicit agreement occurred when you saw the fighting. Once more, Wayne, you are emphasizing the common meaning of agreement. What I have been trying to say is that the common meaning of agreement is not what matters. It is totally irrelevant how much you despise your partner's opening 1NT with a 5-card major. You can yell and scream at him; you can vow to never agree to such a disgusting treatment; but you must disclose it. So, I think it safe to say, that if you have a long-standing, never-ending, and unlikely-to-ever-change "explicit disagreement"---your term---then that is exactly what you must disclose, no matter how much you hate your partner's bidding in these cases. Your emphasis in this paragraph on your hatred of it shows that you don't know what matters. What matters is your understanding of what his bid shows, and that is what must be disclosed. What doesn't matter is how much you hate it or that you have never agreed to it. -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 02:06:12 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:06:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A31D46.9010001@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> <46A31D46.9010001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707221706v6442d64amb3d96e8f333ee273@mail.gmail.com> On 7/22/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > In my example, it is clear that there is an > > *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, and > > that understanding is concealed by the convention card. Whether one > > agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed. > > > > That one we all agree upon. > Alas, no, for Wayne disagrees with both sentences. For the first sentence, Wayne has been quite clear that he thinks more questions must be asked and that 100 out of the last 100 times (in my specific example) is not sufficient to define a partnership understanding. He has not yet said what other questions he would ask or what answers might imply no CPU. I think the 100-out-of-100 fact in my example is way more than enough to safely rule CPU or MI. (Even 50 out of 100 would have been enough for me.) For the second sentence, Wayne's quote below seems to show that he feels that fighting about what bids *should* mean implies that what they actually show need not be disclosed: [Wayne:] > > I have one player with whom my frequent violations create an explicit > disagreement. You would need to be out of your mind to believe that > an implicit agreement occurred when you saw the fighting. Wayne and I have several areas of agreement, but our opposite position on these two sentences perhaps reveal our two most fundamental disagreements related to Law 75B. -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 02:13:22 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:13:22 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > I have one player with whom my frequent violations create an explicit > > disagreement. You would need to be out of your mind to believe that > > an implicit agreement occurred when you saw the fighting. > > > > > > > Its not entirely clear to me what the difference is between > > 'understanding' and 'agreement'. Agreement sounds more formal to me. > > Both terms seem to imply some mutual recognition of the situation. > > > > Oh, these paragraphs are so clear! We might be getting somewhere now. > I'll start with your second paragraph. > > I will try to clarify the difference between `understanding' and > `agreement' that I had in mind. I am referring to the common meanings > of the word. I may understand that my partner often opens 1NT with a > five-card major even though I don't agree with that style. We have an > understanding that partner's 1NT opening hand frequently contains a > 5-card major. That we have never agreed to this style and have never > discussed it is irrelevant. > > When the director comes to the table and asks us whether we have an > *agreement* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, the > director has made a big (but common) mistake. The mistake is to use > the word "agreement," which obviously can be misunderstood by the > average bridge player. What he should ask, instead, is whether there > is an *understanding* by me, based on agreement or experience, that my > partner frequently has a 5-card major when he opens 1NT. To say no to > this question would be a lie (yes, I am assuming that I have been > paying attention to my partner's past 1NT openings, Ed). In this > sense, our agreements are irrelevant and my understanding of what kind > of hands my partner is likely to have is what matters. His likely > hands must be disclosed---in my explanation, I cannot substitute what > I wish he was likely to have. > > Do you see a difference between the common meanings of `understanding' > and `agreement' now? I might agree with some of that - I haven't completely digested it I have to admit - except that I think the qualifier 'partnership' restricts the meaning of understanding. This is the dictionary definition that I think of when I see 'understanding' in this context "a mutual agreement, esp. of a private, unannounced, or tacit kind" which has more similarities to 'agreement' than 'experience'. In fact it is almost synonymous with 'agreement'. It is entirely consistent for me to have an 'understanding' with a partner while reserving my right to violate that 'understanding' whenever I feel like it. Equally there is nothing about a Herman's 1H that suggests it is a 'partnership understanding' it is a 'Herman idiosyncracy'. If he always makes this bid or even it is only made 90% of the time or whatever he can do so without any 'understanding' from his partner. > > Now to your earlier paragraph: > > > > I have one player with whom my frequent violations create an explicit > > disagreement. You would need to be out of your mind to believe that > > an implicit agreement occurred when you saw the fighting. > > Once more, Wayne, you are emphasizing the common meaning of agreement. > What I have been trying to say is that the common meaning of > agreement is not what matters. It is totally irrelevant how much you > despise your partner's opening 1NT with a 5-card major. You can yell > and scream at him; you can vow to never agree to such a disgusting > treatment; but you must disclose it. > > So, I think it safe to say, that if you have a long-standing, > never-ending, and unlikely-to-ever-change "explicit > disagreement"---your term---then that is exactly what you must > disclose, no matter how much you hate your partner's bidding in these > cases. Your emphasis in this paragraph on your hatred of it shows > that you don't know what matters. What matters is your understanding > of what his bid shows, and that is what must be disclosed. What > doesn't matter is how much you hate it or that you have never agreed to it. > The issue is not about disclosure. I have no problem disclosing what I know from partnership experience. I have a problem when the director tells me I have an agreement when I do not. Actually there may be an issue with disclosure. More on that later perhaps. Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 23 02:30:33 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:30:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen><20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a001c7ccc0$c7074cc0$0b9c87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we will discuss your options afterwards." ~ Bill Shankly. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > So YES: frequent psyching creates partnership > understanding, which must be disclosed. If there > is no disclosure, the TD can search for damage > and adjust on the basis of fuller explanations (but > not on the basis of the call not being made!). > > But NO: frequent psyching does not create > situations where it becomes illegal to perform > the psyches. > +=+ The assertions above are insufficiently explored. "Zonal organisations may, in addition, 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. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility. " (Law 40D) Not only must the partnership understanding be disclosed. It may be regulated. Regulation may take the form of prohibition of an initial action in conformity with the understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 23 03:16:04 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 02:16:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com><000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat >> >> When the director comes to the table and asks us >> whether we have an *agreement* that the 1NT >> opener frequently has a 5-card major, the director >> has made a big (but common) mistake. The mistake >> is to use the word "agreement," which obviously can >> be misunderstood by the average bridge player. What >> he should ask, instead, is whether there is an *understanding* >> by me, based on agreement or experience, that my partner >> frequently has a 5-card major when he opens 1NT. To say >> no to this question would be a lie (yes, I am assuming that I >> have been paying attention to my partner's past 1NT openings, >> Ed). In this sense, our agreements are irrelevant and my >> understanding of what kind of hands my partner is likely to >> have is what matters. His likely hands must be disclosed---in >> my explanation, I cannot substitute what I wish he was likely >> to have. >> >> Do you see a difference between the common meanings of >> `understanding' and `agreement' now? > +=+ +=+ When you quote the case of the Director who asks whether you have an agreement that the 1NT opener frequently has a five card major - do you and your partner not both agree that it is the case he frequently has a five card major? If not, which one of you is not in agreement upon the matter? It seems to me that you are restricting the meaning of 'agreement' in a way that it is not restricted in the law book. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 03:25:02 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:25:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707221825t2582105ew8c96dde4079a7802@mail.gmail.com> On 7/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > This is the dictionary definition that I think of when I see > 'understanding' in this context "a mutual agreement, esp. of a > private, unannounced, or tacit kind" which has more similarities to > 'agreement' than 'experience'. In fact it is almost synonymous with > 'agreement'. > Please don't think of the definition that is synonymous with agreement---this one is probably #3 or #4 in a short dictionary. I was suggesting "understanding" to be different from agreement---not a synonym. Please think of definition #1 in your dictionary, which is probably synonymous with comprehension. That is, please use a definition that corresponds more closely to "understand" than "agree." > > The issue is not about disclosure. I have no problem disclosing what > I know from partnership experience. I have a problem when the > director tells me I have an agreement when I do not. > Still thinking of the dictionary definition of agreement, aren't you? When the director says "agreement," maybe you can just imagine he is saying "understanding" with definition #1. I don't think he means anything other than you have to disclose it. I doubt that he cares at all whether your understanding is from agreement (in the common sense) or experience. He is using "agreement" as short for "what you understand about the likely hands that partner holds." With that understand, maybe you would have no problem with what the director tells you. -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 03:47:01 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:47:01 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707221825t2582105ew8c96dde4079a7802@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221825t2582105ew8c96dde4079a7802@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707221847q306a9dfere52f9b01cdfeac89@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > This is the dictionary definition that I think of when I see > > 'understanding' in this context "a mutual agreement, esp. of a > > private, unannounced, or tacit kind" which has more similarities to > > 'agreement' than 'experience'. In fact it is almost synonymous with > > 'agreement'. > > > > Please don't think of the definition that is synonymous with > agreement---this one is probably #3 or #4 in a short dictionary. I > was suggesting "understanding" to be different from agreement---not a > synonym. Please think of definition #1 in your dictionary, which is > probably synonymous with comprehension. That is, please use a > definition that corresponds more closely to "understand" than "agree." > Strange. When I look up "agreements" in the index of the lawbook it says "see understandings". I think the writers were thinking that these two words were more synonymous than you think. And further in the section under "understandings" in the index there are references to L75 which talks about "agreements" not "understandings". Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 03:49:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:49:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707221849j21bd247q644af66db8a8c317@mail.gmail.com> On 7/22/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************************** > "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" > - Henry II of England. > ................................................... > Q: Did the King yield up his four knights > to the justice of the See of Rome? > *********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 1:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > > > >> > >> When the director comes to the table and asks us > >> whether we have an *agreement* that the 1NT > >> opener frequently has a 5-card major, the director > >> has made a big (but common) mistake. The mistake > >> is to use the word "agreement," which obviously can > >> be misunderstood by the average bridge player. What > >> he should ask, instead, is whether there is an *understanding* > >> by me, based on agreement or experience, that my partner > >> frequently has a 5-card major when he opens 1NT. To say > >> no to this question would be a lie (yes, I am assuming that I > >> have been paying attention to my partner's past 1NT openings, > >> Ed). In this sense, our agreements are irrelevant and my > >> understanding of what kind of hands my partner is likely to > >> have is what matters. His likely hands must be disclosed---in > >> my explanation, I cannot substitute what I wish he was likely > >> to have. > >> > >> Do you see a difference between the common meanings of > >> `understanding' and `agreement' now? > > > +=+ +=+ When you quote the case of the Director who asks > whether you have an agreement that the 1NT opener frequently > has a five card major - do you and your partner not both agree > that it is the case he frequently has a five card major? If not, > which one of you is not in agreement upon the matter? > It seems to me that you are restricting the meaning of > 'agreement' in a way that it is not restricted in the law book. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Perhaps, Grattan, you missed the context I intended. My example is now about 24 hours old: [Jerry:] > Maybe an example helps. Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every > balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points, > say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities. Suppose we have > never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card > leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card. Any > competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my > opinion. But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU > due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement. In my example, both partners know that this 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major. I want no issue of bad memories here, so you can assume that both players have perfect memory of all partnership hands and bids in the past. But, in my example, I (hypothetically) just doesn't like it that my partner often has a 5-card major when he opens 1NT. I never agreed to it, but if pressed, I must admit that it happens with near perfect regularity. Furthermore, as we have still not talked about it yet, I have no reason to believe that my partner is now bidding with a different style. One way to pose the question is this: Should I disclose what I wants my partner to do, or what my partner actually does? Another way to pose the question is this: Since I never actually technically agreed to open 1NT with 5-card majors, and since I do not like the practice, can I state that we have agreed to never open 1NT with 5-card majors? Have I clarified my example for you? -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 03:57:12 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:57:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707221847q306a9dfere52f9b01cdfeac89@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221825t2582105ew8c96dde4079a7802@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221847q306a9dfere52f9b01cdfeac89@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707221857y62f96a8ao8a11184b05ca5af9@mail.gmail.com> On 7/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote:> > Strange. When I look up "agreements" in the index of the lawbook it > says "see understandings". > > I think the writers were thinking that these two words were more > synonymous than you think. Wayne, I was talking about the dictionary definitions of "agreement" and "understanding." Of course they are synonymous in the law book. That was my point. I was just wishing the law book had used "understanding" as the word to represent the concept. I was also saying that when the director asks a player at the table about their agreements, he is technically correct but nevertheless making a mistake because the average player does not know so well the technical law-book meaning of agreement---and that the technical meaning is closer to the common meaning of understanding than it is to the common meaning of agreement. -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 04:12:04 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:12:04 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707221857y62f96a8ao8a11184b05ca5af9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221825t2582105ew8c96dde4079a7802@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221847q306a9dfere52f9b01cdfeac89@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221857y62f96a8ao8a11184b05ca5af9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707221912u9883558yc740681ca007de03@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/22/07, Wayne Burrows wrote:> > > Strange. When I look up "agreements" in the index of the lawbook it > > says "see understandings". > > > > I think the writers were thinking that these two words were more > > synonymous than you think. > > Wayne, I was talking about the dictionary definitions of "agreement" > and "understanding." Of course they are synonymous in the law book. > That was my point. I was just wishing the law book had used > "understanding" as the word to represent the concept. > > I was also saying that when the director asks a player at the table > about their agreements, he is technically correct but nevertheless > making a mistake because the average player does not know so well the > technical law-book meaning of agreement---and that the technical > meaning is closer to the common meaning of understanding than it is to > the common meaning of agreement. > Perhaps if the meaning is synonymous in the law book then the synonymous meaning would be one that was shared by both words not one that was peculiar to only one of the two words that are used interchangably. Wayne From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 23 08:37:51 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:37:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com><000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <46A44CBF.4080500@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ +=+ When you quote the case of the Director who asks > whether you have an agreement that the 1NT opener frequently > has a five card major - do you and your partner not both agree > that it is the case he frequently has a five card major? If not, > which one of you is not in agreement upon the matter? > It seems to me that you are restricting the meaning of > 'agreement' in a way that it is not restricted in the law book. [nige1] IMO Grattan's example gets to the nub of the issue. IMO, the example illustrates the meaning that the law book ascribes to the word "agreement". In a perfect world this would be OK. A director could rule against the Wayne Notrump or the Herman Heart, simply by asking members of each partnership what they understood by the bid. In the real world, players are not as forthcoming as Wayne and Herman. In my experience, pairs often rationalise prevarication. Like so many other laws, those on disclosure seem to penalize honest players and over-reward truth-economists. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 23 09:34:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:34:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A44CBF.4080500@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >In the real world, players are not as forthcoming as Wayne and >Herman. In my experience, pairs often rationalise prevarication. > >Like so many other laws, those on disclosure seem to penalize >honest players and over-reward truth-economists. Richard Hills: On this issue of "penalize honest players", Herman seems to see eye to eye with Nigel, since Herman seems to argue that HUM systems should be legalised to prevent HUMophiliacs from being economical with the truth when they use an illegal HUM system. But the "economical with the truth" argument collapses under its own weight. While the disclosure Laws do not discourage liars who conceal their understandings, the _disciplinary_ Laws do. It is easy to gather sufficient evidence to find an illegally fielded "misbid" or "psyche", and then arrange an appropriate score adjustment and procedural penalty. And it is only a matter of time to gather sufficient evidence to suspend or expel cheats who are _habitually_ economical with the truth. Due to the logical and statistical nature of bridge, cheats give a fireworks-display advertisement of their cheating, since they frequently get abnormally good results in an abnormal way. 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 Jul 23 10:13:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:13:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707221912u9883558yc740681ca007de03@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>Wayne, I was talking about the dictionary definitions of "agreement" >>and "understanding." Of course they are synonymous in the law book. Wayne Burrows: >Perhaps if the meaning is synonymous in the law book then the >synonymous meaning would be one that was shared by both words not one >that was peculiar to only one of the two words that are used >interchangeably. Richard Hills: Perhaps the next edition of the Lawbook will be easier to understand than Wayne's sentence? According to Microsoft Word's bundled Readability Test, Wayne's sentence had a rather low Flesch Reading Ease of 45.7, and a rather high Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12.0. Wayne also violated Marvin French's sense of aesthetics by writing a passive sentence. :-) 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 Jul 23 10:26:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:26:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A4662D.9050501@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >> In the real world, players are not as forthcoming as Wayne and >> Herman. In my experience, pairs often rationalise prevarication. >> >> Like so many other laws, those on disclosure seem to penalize >> honest players and over-reward truth-economists. > > Richard Hills: > > On this issue of "penalize honest players", Herman seems to see > eye to eye with Nigel, since Herman seems to argue that HUM > systems should be legalised to prevent HUMophiliacs from being > economical with the truth when they use an illegal HUM system. I do see eye to eye with Nigel (on this one), but not for the reason Richard mentions. Rather, if all psychers were as forthocoming with their habits, and all directors were as harsh as Richard says they should be (calling my system HUM - how dare you! :)), then it would quickly become clear that what Richard et. al. are doing is banning psyches altogether. Then perhaps the world will see that Richard's point of view is simply wrong. > > But the "economical with the truth" argument collapses under its > own weight. While the disclosure Laws do not discourage liars > who conceal their understandings, the _disciplinary_ Laws do. > > It is easy to gather sufficient evidence to find an illegally > fielded "misbid" or "psyche", and then arrange an appropriate > score adjustment and procedural penalty. > Indeed it should be easy - but the penalty should not be procedural, simply the adjustment if it turns out the opponents have been damaged by insufficient information. > And it is only a matter of time to gather sufficient evidence to > suspend or expel cheats who are _habitually_ economical with > the truth. Due to the logical and statistical nature of bridge, > cheats give a fireworks-display advertisement of their cheating, > since they frequently get abnormally good results in an abnormal > way. > Please stop calling them cheats. They are economical with the truth because you threaten to stop them psyching, something you should not be able to do. And yes, maybe there are some psychers out there who are less careful than me not to have systemic sides to their psyches. Maybe if the directors were more careful in dissecting the psyches, and in recognizing which parts are systemic and which are merely disclosable, than maybe more people would learn how to psyche legally. But with most directors in Richard's camp, that will not come about and world opinion will remain firmly for banning psyches altogether (while pronouncing loudly that that is not what they are doing). Do you ever psyche, Richard? > > 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://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 23 10:43:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:43:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A37621.9080206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Yes Sven, but that creates partnership experience, which must be >disclosed, not partnership understanding, which can be regulated >as system! > >As Wayne has said, there is a difference between the two! Richard Hills: As the WBF Code of Practice has said, there is not a difference between the two. Perhaps Herman is spending too much time interpreting the highly ambiguous Laws 40 and 75, since it is easy to choose to interpret those ambiguities in a way consistent with Herman's pre-existing worldview? Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." Richard Hills: Perhaps Herman is not spending enough time reading the less ambiguous WBF Code of Practice, because it is an Inconvenient Truth which refutes this aspect of the De Wael School? :-) 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 Jul 23 12:23:42 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:23:42 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46A37621.9080206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707230323n7fc4b68at4bf10e003cd92199@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >Yes Sven, but that creates partnership experience, which must be > >disclosed, not partnership understanding, which can be regulated > >as system! > > > >As Wayne has said, there is a difference between the two! > > Richard Hills: > > As the WBF Code of Practice has said, there is not a difference > between the two. > > Perhaps Herman is spending too much time interpreting the highly > ambiguous Laws 40 and 75, since it is easy to choose to interpret > those ambiguities in a way consistent with Herman's pre-existing > worldview? > > Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): > > "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if > you pick the proper postulates." > > Richard Hills: > > Perhaps Herman is not spending enough time reading the less > ambiguous WBF Code of Practice, because it is an Inconvenient > Truth which refutes this aspect of the De Wael School? > Where in the WBF Code of Practice does it address the issue between partnership experience and partnership understanding? Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 23 13:08:21 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:08:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <469F2CB9.5060506@skynet.be> References: <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> <469C7B2D.6090300@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070718091743.02919550@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c7c93a$555f17d0$7b9187d9@Hellen> <20070718105423.16dacdb8@linuxbox> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070723130753.02803750@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:19 19/07/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >So YES: frequent psyching creates partnership understanding, which >must be disclosed. If there is no disclosure, the TD can search for >damage and adjust on the basis of fuller explanations Fuller didn't make explanations, but rather exrotundations. Sorry, couldn't resist. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 23 13:21:26 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:21:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman 1H In-Reply-To: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070723131629.028110d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:28 20/07/2007 +0200, Jeff Easterson wrote: >I haven't followed this thread from the beginning and am confused. >Herman says that he said that he "always" opened these hands with 1H. >Now he says that he doesn't always open them with 1H. No, he doesn't. There seems to have been some confusion about which 'always' it is. The right explanation is : 'when Herman psyches a 3rd-in-hand opening bid, it's (nearly) always 1H, and (nearly) always a very weak (0-3) flat hand.' This doesn't mean he does it everytime he holds such a hand. In maths language, the implication is one-way. Whence there is something to be disclosed, but no suspicion of systemic psyche nor any idea that a pass should show values. Those who interpreted it this way were too anxious to find something illegal. And you'll be able to compute that such a hand type is less common by far that the classical 1H opener. Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 23 13:25:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat) In-Reply-To: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Despite my several requests on BLML, no one has yet given a > distinction between MI and CPU that I find convincing. Tim's might > work if you consider CPU a conduct offense, but I don't think > intent can be a valid basis for score adjustment. Any score adjustment is independent of whether it is MI or a CPU. Such adjustments are given under L40c "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." The term "CPU" isn't even part of law40, it's merely a title. If I believe there has been active concealment I will issue a penalty (which may be as severe as expulsion) under the auspices of L75a. Please note that breaching L40c requires an "opponents' failure to explain". That means one (or more) of: - The CC wasn't properly completed as per SO requirements - A call wasn't alerted as per SO requirements - The answer to a question was incomplete/misleading. I.e. if the CC is properly completed, alerts are properly given but a piece of information isn't disclosed because no questions were asked then there can be no "damage" as per L40c. Please note that there is a high degree of variance between SOs as to what constitutes proper disclosure. In WBF events a note is required on the CC. In EBU events disclosure on the CC is explicitly forbidden. The other requirement of a failure to disclose is that there actually *be* some undisclosed knowledge. When a pair starts playing together there may be no mutual knowledge of one or the other's psyching habits (of course if they have shared discussions on BLML or played against eachother often then there may be some relevant knowledge). The longer they play together the more mutual awareness will develop. However, this comes with caveats. It takes *much* longer for a poor player to notice patterns in his/her partner's bidding. Indeed I'd suggest that a poor player could partner Herman regularly for 20 years without ever recognising the pattern of 1H openers which Herman describes. A good player might just recognise the pattern from the second occurrence onwards - but probably not. I'd reckon the best anyone who had not had the H1H explained could manage would be "sometimes psychs a 3rd in hand 1H, last time the idiot had a flat 2 count". Bear in mind that if Herman opens normal (and light) 1H, all "H1Hs", and throws in an occasional random psych (ie opens 1H on a hand which is neither natural/light nor H1H) the "noise" from the random psychs will hide the pattern of the H1Hs (particularly if he even once chooses to pace a H1H bid). Immediately a pair reaches the point of having a disclosable understanding there is are possibility (but nothing remotely approaching certainty) of them having a systemic agreement and/or that the psycher will *base* his choice of psych on the fact that partner is aware of the habit and will take precautions to minimise the risks. Thus it is at this point that we scrutinise the pair's agreements for systemic controls and their actual bidding for "catering" actions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 23 13:25:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a001c7ccc0$c7074cc0$0b9c87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ The assertions above are insufficiently explored. > "Zonal organisations may, in addition, 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. Zonal organisations may delegate > this responsibility. " (Law 40D) > Not only must the partnership understanding be > disclosed. It may be regulated. But care must taken. An awareness that partner will occasionally open a 4243 hand with 1H is not the same as understanding *permitting* such an action. The former must be disclosed but only the latter may be regulated. Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 13:59:17 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:59:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Herman 1H In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070723131629.028110d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070723131629.028110d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> On 7/23/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 21:28 20/07/2007 +0200, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >I haven't followed this thread from the beginning and am confused. > >Herman says that he said that he "always" opened these hands with 1H. > >Now he says that he doesn't always open them with 1H. > > No, he doesn't. There seems to have been some confusion about which > 'always' it is. > > The right explanation is : 'when Herman psyches a 3rd-in-hand opening bid, > it's (nearly) always 1H, and (nearly) always a very weak (0-3) flat > hand.' This doesn't mean he does it everytime he holds such a hand. In > maths language, the implication is one-way. This statement is wrong. Lets be clear about what we're talking about. Herman has said that that the Herman 1H is a deterministic bid. Herman has specifically stated that he makes this opening each and every time that he gets dealt a hand with 0-3 HCP in third seat. (I might be slightly off about the opening requirements. There could be a shape requirement that he holds 3 hearts or some such) If folks really want, I'll drag up the specific quote from a couple years back. However, I made VERY certain to pin down Herman on just this issue. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 15:42:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:42:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000701c7cb7e$c5b80dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c7cb7e$c5b80dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <92596E88-3789-4428-8792-29C66677FCF8@starpower.net> On Jul 21, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> And that is precisely what is wrong with your interpretation of the >> laws. I believe that the ruling on psyching should be independent of >> what you know, provided you can trust the players to give honest >> answers to the questions you ask. > > Sure I expect the players to give honest answers to my questions > but I never > discard the possibility that their answers could be biased. > > In my opinion a "psyche" that is predictable from knowledge of the > cards > _and_ player involved is no psyche; it is part of his established > agreements. This is true only if we understand "predictable" to mean "predictable by the partner of the alleged psycher". Otherwise, that it may be predictable by the TD (or a kibitzer, or anyone else), does not preclude it from being a legitimate psych. I don't think anybody doubts the legitmacy of Herman's opening his "Herman 1H" opposite a first-time partner who had previously neither seen nor heard of it, notwithstanding that any BLML reader could have easily predicted his bid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 23 15:49:31 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:49:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707221847q306a9dfere52f9b01cdfeac89@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221825t2582105ew8c96dde4079a7802@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221847q306a9dfere52f9b01cdfeac89@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:47 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Strange. When I look up "agreements" in the index of the lawbook it > says "see understandings". > > I think the writers were thinking that these two words were more > synonymous than you think. > > And further in the section under "understandings" in the index there > are references to L75 which talks about "agreements" not > "understandings". In the online ACBL version of TFLB, under "agreement" there is no cross reference, and no reference to that word in the context we're discussing, only references to "agreement on results of play". Under "understandings" there is no entry. Under "partnership understandings" there are four entries: "Concealment prohibited - 40 & 75", "Mistaken bid - 75", "Psychic - 40", "Violation of - 75". Since Law 75 speaks of "agreements" and Law 40 speaks of "understandings" it appears that, in the ACBL at least, the terms are to be considered synonymous. The bottom line is that you are permitted to psych unless you do so knowing that your partner will be aware that you are likely to do so *and* this tendency has not and will not be disclosed as the SO requires. It seems to me that if the EBU prohibits prior disclosure of psyching tendencies, then one must look to their alerting regulations to see if there is a requirement to disclose them there. Beyond that, if asked about the bidding generally, such known tendencies must be disclosed regardless what the alert regulations say. Why is this so hard? From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 16:07:34 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:07:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707211432l5dd302aeq84c107346403b2db@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707211432l5dd302aeq84c107346403b2db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 21, 2007, at 5:32 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 22/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >> ................. >>> One player regularly doing something does not a partnership >>> agreement >>> make. >>> >>> You seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement. >> >>> From Law 75B: "habitual violations within a partnership may >>> create implicit >> agreements, which must be disclosed" >> > > Exactly. > > "habitual violations" do not necessarily "creat implicit agreements" > they only "may" do so. And "habitual violations... may create implicit agreements" *only* if they they are "within a partnership". Sven is wrong, IMO, to want to take action against Herman's allegedly psychic 1H opening solely on the grounds that its habitual nature is known to Sven. Herman's partner must be taken into account. L75B doesn't encompass "implicit agreements" with the director. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 23 16:09:49 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:09:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707221849j21bd247q644af66db8a8c317@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0707221849j21bd247q644af66db8a8c317@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <502041EC-9FC4-47BD-8642-44D321476A5E@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > In my example, both partners know that this 1NT opener frequently has > a 5-card major. Your partnership has an understanding that your partner opens 1NT with a five card major. Your partnership has an understanding that you don't do that. Whether you call it "understanding" or "agreement" doesn't matter. It must be disclosed IAW SO regulations, or with Law 20 absent such regulations. On the ACBL CC, I would check the "five card major common" box under 1NT openings and append " only", since by regulation both cards must be identically completed. It is not alertable so I wouldn't alert it. If asked, I would explain, if I were you, that partner opens 1NT with a five card major. If I were your partner, I would not suggest that you do (if the explanation that I do this has come up with this pair, I would explain that you don't do it.) You may get complaints from some pairs that the two of you aren't playing the same method. The counter argument is that this is a matter of style, and is thus expressly permitted (Law 40E1). From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 16:10:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:10:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> Message-ID: <5BAC9138-E826-4D2E-810B-AABB3DD54CEF@starpower.net> On Jul 21, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Brian wrote: > "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > >> Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary >> definition of agreement. > > Does it supersede the dictionary definitions of "may" and "will"? No. The Preface does that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 23 16:11:35 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:11:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A44CBF.4080500@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> <46A44CBF.4080500@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2007, at 2:37 AM, Nigel wrote: > In the real world, players are not as forthcoming as Wayne and Herman. > In my experience, pairs often rationalise prevarication. Do they? Or is it simply that they don't understand their obligation? The latter is *my* experience. :-) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 16:20:44 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:20:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48C22848-8063-4896-A9F5-B89A57A21895@starpower.net> On Jul 21, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/21/07, Brian wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:33:43 -0500 >> "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: >> >>> Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary >>> definition of agreement. >> >> Does it supersede the dictionary definitions of "may" and "will"? > > No. > > Perhaps you missed my point. Wayne said, "One player regularly doing > something does not a partnership agreement make. You seem to have a > misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement." I read that as > emphasizing the dictionary definition of agreement over the bridge > laws meaning implied by Law 75B. > > I was also hoping to get some confirmation that it is the director who > decides what the partnership agreements are for purposes of > administering the bridge laws. > > Maybe an example helps. Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every > balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points, > say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities. Suppose we have > never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card > leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card. Any > competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my > opinion. But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU > due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement. That's unfair to Wayne, who argues that "may" does not mean "does", not that it means "does not". I doubt that Wayne would have any problem finding an infraction (perhaps MI; CPU seems a bit harsh) in Jerry's 100-out-of-100 hypothetical case. The most obvious reason for the "may" in L75B is to prevent the Don Oakies of the world (not a hypothetical!) from taking such a finding as precedent for a similar finding in a 1-out-of-1 case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 17:05:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:05:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707211925r22ad703ej9f4819d52cc486b6@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707212025l420c1a17yd7a3bfa06aa8f5ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2C9155D6-FBAA-4B39-B192-77163E2A768E@starpower.net> On Jul 21, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > It now seems unfortunate that the laws use the term "agreement." > Perhaps "understanding" should have been used to avoid confusion. > > Wayne still is focusing on the dictionary definition of agreement. He > wants the director to gather more evidence and find out what the > *agreements* are. In my example, it is clear that there is an > *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, and > that understanding is concealed by the convention card. Whether one > agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed. > > That's why I think "understanding" is a better word to use in this > context than "agreement." Any emphasis on the common meaning of > "agreement" is likely to lead to the wrong conclusion in this part of > bridge law. The problem is that the laws use both terms but define neither. To a non-BLMLer not inclined to analyze every jot and comma of the laws, L40B (which uses "partnership understanding") and L75A (which uses "partnership agreements") are two statements of the same rule, suggesting that "understanding" and "agreement" may be treated as synonyms for purposes of applying these laws. This thread, and others in BLML of late, have demonstrated that such linguistic sloppiness can readily lead to the sort of confusion and misreasoning that Wayne and Jerry are attempting to sort out. But we will not get a handle on our problems in these areas unless and until we come to a better understanding of the difference. All we seem able to glean from the laws at present is that there is some inherent and ineffable property of understandings that, inevitably within the context of a specific partnership, but also sometimes in other contexts, strengthens over time until it reaches some mysterious threshhold beyond which it causes the understanding to metamorphose into an agreement. The law, as Wayne suggests, buries this lack of clarity under the word "may". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 23 17:39:33 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:39:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <92596E88-3789-4428-8792-29C66677FCF8@starpower.net> References: <000701c7cb7e$c5b80dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <92596E88-3789-4428-8792-29C66677FCF8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46A4CBB5.5030100@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I don't think anybody doubts the legitmacy of Herman's opening his > "Herman 1H" opposite a first-time partner who had previously neither > seen nor heard of it, notwithstanding that any BLML reader could have > easily predicted his bid. > > I prefer not to use that argument. I do not want to have to prove to the director that my partner of the time does not read blml. Anything I know, my partner could know. And should be disclosable to opponents. That is how I want to rule against other frequent psychers, that is how I accept to be ruled against myself. None of my "frequent" partners has any inkling that the 1H I open is any more likely to be psychic than any other. They act according to our system, which does not include any ways of distinguishing between a real and a psychig opening. It is that way that I want my psyches to be judged, not by means of "this partner has never seen me psyche". That partner might have been an opponent the last time I did it, or know about it some other way. I repeat. I have performed a particular psyche a few times before. I do not want that "before" to be used against me if I want to do the same thing again. If that "before" is to be used against me, then I have no way of ruling the same manner against any other psyche, except by asking the player, who can easily say "I've never had this hand before, I don't remember my previous psyche". Only with full recording of all psyches can we then rule. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 23 17:40:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:40:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A4CC06.5080209@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Yes Sven, but that creates partnership experience, which must be >> disclosed, not partnership understanding, which can be regulated >> as system! >> >> As Wayne has said, there is a difference between the two! > > Richard Hills: > > As the WBF Code of Practice has said, there is not a difference > between the two. > Please give the quote. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 23 17:46:31 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:46:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman 1H In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> References: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070723131629.028110d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A4CD57.3090802@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On 7/23/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> At 21:28 20/07/2007 +0200, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> I haven't followed this thread from the beginning and am confused. >>> Herman says that he said that he "always" opened these hands with 1H. >>> Now he says that he doesn't always open them with 1H. >> No, he doesn't. There seems to have been some confusion about which >> 'always' it is. >> >> The right explanation is : 'when Herman psyches a 3rd-in-hand opening bid, >> it's (nearly) always 1H, and (nearly) always a very weak (0-3) flat >> hand.' This doesn't mean he does it everytime he holds such a hand. In >> maths language, the implication is one-way. > > This statement is wrong. > > Lets be clear about what we're talking about. > > Herman has said that that the Herman 1H is a deterministic bid. > Herman has specifically stated that he makes this opening each and > every time that he gets dealt a hand with 0-3 HCP in third seat. (I > might be slightly off about the opening requirements. There could be > a shape requirement that he holds 3 hearts or some such) > > If folks really want, I'll drag up the specific quote from a couple > years back. However, I made VERY certain to pin down Herman on just > this issue. > > In the sense of this discussion, Richard is correct, Alain is not. I have stated that I will psyche "every time" I receive a hand 0-3 third in hand. It is not exactly "every time", of course, but as near to it as you would like. Anyway, even if it is not "every time" it will be "every time with correct circumstances". I do not know a correct set of circumstances, but those could be written out, I presume. Anyway, if a player would ask me under particular circumstances when I passeds "would you have psyched if you held 3 points here?" I would be able to answer in the positive (thereby indeed having promised 4 points). I do not want to hide. If you believe that a statement such as this would preclude me from psyching, then your interpretation of the laws must be wrong, because I believe most psychers would have conditions such as mine, even if they were unable to express them thoroughly. John, am I right? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 17:50:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:50:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat) In-Reply-To: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From: "richard willey" >> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a >> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of >> magic >> words to justify their behavior. > > Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless. That sounds obvious, but may not be true. Numerous authorities have opined that the legitimacy of a psych depends on the extent to which it "comes as a surprise" (to partner and/or others). If you accept any of those interpretations, then it must perforce depend on how the action purportedly being psyched was previoulsy described to the relevant others. When we must deal with expectations as well as with actions, the "right set of magic words" can make all the difference. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 23 18:14:03 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:14:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A4D3CB.6060003@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] > But the "economical with the truth" argument collapses under its > own weight. While the disclosure Laws do not discourage liars > who conceal their understandings, the _disciplinary_ Laws do. > > It is easy to gather sufficient evidence to find an illegally > fielded "misbid" or "psyche", and then arrange an appropriate > score adjustment and procedural penalty. > > And it is only a matter of time to gather sufficient evidence to > suspend or expel cheats who are _habitually_ economical with > the truth. Due to the logical and statistical nature of bridge, > cheats give a fireworks-display advertisement of their cheating, > since they frequently get abnormally good results in an abnormal > way. [Nige1] In practice I don't see what Richard can do against truth-economists. Suppose a pair of New Zealanders visit Australia for a weekend to play in a Tournament. During the final session, one of the NZ pair opens 1H, third in hand, on a Yarborough with a void in hearts. As a direct result, opponents miss an easy lay-down heart slam. Hence the NZ pair win the tournament instead of their opponents. This NZ pair are not pushovers like Herman or Wayne. As far as you can find out, this their first "psych" of the tournament. They are adamant that they have fully disclosed their agreements and refuse to add anything to that statement. [A1] If that's all the facts, how do you rule, Richard? [A2] Do you record the psych? [A3] Are NZ authorities automatically informed about it? Suppose now as separate case, suppose that the NZ partner of the 1H bidder has been rather unenterprising. For example, in the subsequent auction, he passed 3 times. In each case, 60% of his peers would have doubled. He insists that his passes were normal for him and that he considered no alternatives. [B1,2,3] Further investigation reveals no more. How do you rule Richard? [C] In the latter case, what would the ruling be under ACBL jurisdiction? I guess that EBU is the only place where the NZ pair could be ruled against and then only in case [B]. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jul 23 18:33:54 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:33:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman 1H In-Reply-To: <46A4CD57.3090802@skynet.be> References: <46A10CE5.3000503@aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070723131629.028110d0@p op.ulb.ac.be><2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> <46A4CD57.3090802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46A4D872.7050509@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard willey wrote: >> On 7/23/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> At 21:28 20/07/2007 +0200, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>> I haven't followed this thread from the beginning and am confused. >>>> Herman says that he said that he "always" opened these hands with 1H. >>>> Now he says that he doesn't always open them with 1H. >>> No, he doesn't. There seems to have been some confusion about which >>> 'always' it is. >>> >>> The right explanation is : 'when Herman psyches a 3rd-in-hand opening bid, >>> it's (nearly) always 1H, and (nearly) always a very weak (0-3) flat >>> hand.' This doesn't mean he does it everytime he holds such a hand. In >>> maths language, the implication is one-way. >> This statement is wrong. >> >> Lets be clear about what we're talking about. >> >> Herman has said that that the Herman 1H is a deterministic bid. >> Herman has specifically stated that he makes this opening each and >> every time that he gets dealt a hand with 0-3 HCP in third seat. (I >> might be slightly off about the opening requirements. There could be >> a shape requirement that he holds 3 hearts or some such) >> >> If folks really want, I'll drag up the specific quote from a couple >> years back. However, I made VERY certain to pin down Herman on just >> this issue. >> >> > > In the sense of this discussion, Richard is correct, Alain is not. I > have stated that I will psyche "every time" I receive a hand 0-3 third > in hand. It is not exactly "every time", of course, but as near to it > as you would like. Anyway, even if it is not "every time" it will be > "every time with correct circumstances". I do not know a correct set > of circumstances, but those could be written out, I presume. > Anyway, if a player would ask me under particular circumstances when I > passeds "would you have psyched if you held 3 points here?" I would be > able to answer in the positive (thereby indeed having promised 4 points). ok, i start to understand: it may happen that herman psyches a pass 3rd in hand with 0-3, but only in very rare occurences compared to the occurences of his opening with such a hand, and they will meet the necessary characteristics of randomness suited to real psyches. jpr > > I do not want to hide. If you believe that a statement such as this > would preclude me from psyching, then your interpretation of the laws > must be wrong, because I believe most psychers would have conditions > such as mine, even if they were unable to express them thoroughly. > John, am I right? > -- _______________________________________________ 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 19:15:56 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:15:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000401c7ccab$27723ae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c7ccab$27723ae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FDD56F5-A057-4EF3-8C96-67D262F822A3@starpower.net> On Jul 22, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > .............. >>> Deliberate misbids are usually protected by Law 40A, but this >>> protection >>> does not extend to calls where partner from his partnership >>> experience can >>> predict when they will occur and/or on what kind of hands they >>> will be made. >> >> That is not what law 40 says and I think you know it Sven. The >> caveat >> in Law 40A is "provided that such call or play is not based on a >> partnership understanding". An 'understanding' is not 'experience'. >> I am willing to conceed that 'experience' through habitual violations >> 'may' lead to an 'agreement'. But not to an automatic you have done >> this before (once, twice or many times) so you are not allowed to do >> it any more. >> >> Its not entirely clear to me what the difference is between >> 'understanding' and 'agreement'. Agreement sounds more formal to me. >> Both terms seem to imply some mutual recognition of the situation. > > In between other more important activities I have given this > question some > thoughts. (I haven't realized that there should be such an important > difference between agreements, whether express or implied, > experiences and > understandings). > > The way I see it "Understanding" comprises the total knowledge of the > methods used within the partnership whether this knowledge comes from > agreements (explicit or implicit whatever 'implicit' shall mean here), > partnership experience or any other sources. > > I feel support for this definition of the term "understanding" in > Law 40 > which uses "understanding" universally when describing what > constitutes the > basis for calls and plays and also when establishing what duty > players have > to inform their opponents. Law 40 specifically establishes that the > use of > concealed partnership understandings (i.e. "understandings" that > have not > been revealed to opponents) is illegal. > > With this in mind it becomes rather unimportant, at least for me, > to have > precise definitions for what constitutes agreements or experience. > We must > concentrate on what understanding (in the widest sense) is > available and is > used within a partnership. I think it is very important, to recognize that there are qualitatively different kinds of "understanding... within a partnership". It may ultimately not matter which words we choose to use for which concepts, but if we keep using words like "experience" or "agreement" without defining what they mean we will be unable to communicate coherently on the subject. Partner doubles an opponent's bid. The bits of knowledge I will "use" to "interpret" his double include the following: (a) My "agreement" with this partner that his double is for penalty. (b) My "experience" with this partner that his double, although normally quite sound, may be somewhat speculative if he thinks we are having a bad game. (c) My "understanding" that we are quite obviously having a bad game. The notion that we can make sensible law by treating these very different kinds of knowledge, whatever we may call them, as though the differences between them are unimportant is, I would argue, misguided. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 23 20:57:12 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:57:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A4D3CB.6060003@NTLworld.com> References: <46A4D3CB.6060003@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5D40FBC0-B8A1-45B3-BBE9-F28FCC3D1683@starpower.net> On Jul 23, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Nigel wrote: > [Richard Hills] >> But the "economical with the truth" argument collapses under its >> own weight. While the disclosure Laws do not discourage liars >> who conceal their understandings, the _disciplinary_ Laws do. >> >> It is easy to gather sufficient evidence to find an illegally >> fielded "misbid" or "psyche", and then arrange an appropriate >> score adjustment and procedural penalty. >> >> And it is only a matter of time to gather sufficient evidence to >> suspend or expel cheats who are _habitually_ economical with >> the truth. Due to the logical and statistical nature of bridge, >> cheats give a fireworks-display advertisement of their cheating, >> since they frequently get abnormally good results in an abnormal >> way. > > [Nige1] > In practice I don't see what Richard can do against truth-economists. > > Suppose a pair of New Zealanders visit Australia for a weekend to play > in a Tournament. During the final session, one of the NZ pair opens > 1H, third in hand, on a Yarborough with a void in hearts. As a direct > result, opponents miss an easy lay-down heart slam. Hence the NZ pair > win the tournament instead of their opponents. > > This NZ pair are not pushovers like Herman or Wayne. As far as you can > find out, this their first "psych" of the tournament. They are adamant > that they have fully disclosed their agreements and refuse to add > anything to that statement. > > [A1] If that's all the facts, how do you rule, Richard? > [A2] Do you record the psych? > [A3] Are NZ authorities automatically informed about it? > > Suppose now as separate case, suppose that the NZ partner of the 1H > bidder has been rather unenterprising. For example, in the subsequent > auction, he passed 3 times. In each case, 60% of his peers would have > doubled. He insists that his passes were normal for him and that he > considered no alternatives. > > [B1,2,3] Further investigation reveals no more. How do you rule > Richard? > > [C] In the latter case, what would the ruling be under ACBL > jurisdiction? > > I guess that EBU is the only place where the NZ pair could be ruled > against and then only in case [B]. I suspect Nigel is the only member of BLML who is seriously concerned about what the law "can do against" a pair of total strangers, actually hardened sharpies, who fly in from another country, cheat their way to victory, foil the forces of retribution by refusing to admit to any of their actions, then promptly flee for home with their ill-gotten master points. At least this time he has refrained from insulting our intelligence by insisting that he is not calling them cheats. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 21:44:08 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:44:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat) In-Reply-To: References: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707231244p6b9a4773h837ffdf3caa213a0@mail.gmail.com> On 7/23/07, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "richard willey" > >> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a > >> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of > >> magic > >> words to justify their behavior. > > > > Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless. > > That sounds obvious, but may not be true. Numerous authorities have > opined that the legitimacy of a psych depends on the extent to which > it "comes as a surprise" (to partner and/or others). If you accept > any of those interpretations, then it must perforce depend on how the > action purportedly being psyched was previoulsy described to the > relevant others. When we must deal with expectations as well as with > actions, the "right set of magic words" can make all the difference. > > I don't see this. The auction is clear and unambiguous to everyone, as is the convention card. If the psych perpetrators answered any questions, that can be noted and remembered as needed. Well, maybe you can further explain the phrase "it must perforce depend on how the action purportedly being psyched was previously described to the relevant others." I may be a little confused by the passive voice. I don't yet see anything wrong or unworkable with Richard and Steve's suggestion. I find their idea appealing. Maybe an example would help? -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 22:05:38 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:05:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <48C22848-8063-4896-A9F5-B89A57A21895@starpower.net> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <48C22848-8063-4896-A9F5-B89A57A21895@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707231305w24bff69ch4d29b85ded28446@mail.gmail.com> [Eric:] > > That's unfair to Wayne, who argues that "may" does not mean "does", > not that it means "does not". I doubt that Wayne would have any > problem finding an infraction (perhaps MI; CPU seems a bit harsh) in > Jerry's 100-out-of-100 hypothetical case. First, I agree with Wayne that "may" does not mean "does," and I have had directors tell me that if I try something, it must immediate go on our convention cards as our agree. That point is well taken indeed. However, Eric, you prediction about Wayne in the next sentence seems wrong. He was the first to respond to my example. This is what he said: [Wayne:] > > I would require further evidence. Certainly what a partnership have > explicitly agreed will be part of that evidence. > If I don't agree that we should open every 3532 or 3523 within range > 1NT then that cannot be part of my partnerships agreements - explicit > or implicit. It might still need to be disclosed. > It > is moot whether your convention card should explain only your > agreements or whether it should also give details about your > partnership experience that is outside your agreements. > He is clearly unsure as to whether my example is a case of MI. (I wish I had called it MI instead of CPU for a more-neutral sound, but I know of no real logical difference between the two.) -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 22:27:42 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:27:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <003901c7cd15$541c5a20$619887d9@Hellen> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0707221849j21bd247q644af66db8a8c317@mail.gmail.com> <003901c7cd15$541c5a20$619887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707231327w4a42e855u45a5d42f9580608e@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry:] > > Have I clarified my example for you? > > [Grattan:] > +=+ Except that I believe you agree that in fact he does it > (and so does he). On that point you are in agreement and > it is an item of information that should be available to opponents. > ~ G ~ +=+ Good. But I am concerned that when a director asks a player about the "partnership agreements" on a call, the player may think that the question refers narrowly to what both have agreed to do and not to what his partner tends to do. I am not sure that very many bridge players would assume "agreement" covers what we agree that one player often does on his own. Do you think the word "understanding" may be clearer to the average bridge player? Do you think "understanding" would be more likely to elicit accurate responses in this kind of situation than "agreement?" The question comes up because directors tend to use words that appear in the law book. -Jerry Fusselman From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 24 02:14:44 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:14:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com><000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com><2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com><2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com><000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0707221849j21bd247q644af66db8a8c317@mail.gmail.com><003901c7cd15$541c5a20$619887d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0707231327w4a42e855u45a5d42f9580608e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003901c7cd87$a6bece30$20cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat > I am concerned that when a director asks a > player about the "partnership agreements" on > a call, the player may think that the question > refers narrowly to what both have agreed to > do and not to what his partner tends to do. > I am not sure that very many bridge players > would assume "agreement" covers what we > agree that one player often does on his own. > Do you think the word "understanding" may > be clearer to the average bridge player? Do > you think "understanding" would be more likely > to elicit accurate responses in this kind of > situation than "agreement?" > > The question comes up because directors tend > to use words that appear in the law book. > +=+ It is my personal opinion that the law book can do better in this area of definition than it has in the recent past. And in some other aspects of its contents too. But then if all were for the best in the best of all possible worlds our human kind would have no future. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 24 02:24:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:24:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707231305w24bff69ch4d29b85ded28446@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <48C22848-8063-4896-A9F5-B89A57A21895@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0707231305w24bff69ch4d29b85ded28446@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > (I wish I had called it MI instead of CPU for a more-neutral sound, > but I know of no real logical difference between the two.) If a player makes a call or play which is based on a special partnership understanding with the expectation that either the opponents can reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or that partner will disclose that meaning IAW SO regulations, then he cannot be concealing (or attempting to conceal) that understanding. If he makes such a call without one of those expectations, he is using a CPU. If he makes a call which is based on a special partnership understanding, and his partner attempts to explain it IAW SO regulations, but gets the explanation wrong, that is MI. So, by long standing usage if nothing else, is partner's inadvertent *failure* to explain IAW SO regs. NB: by inadvertent I mean that he is not attempting to conceal the partnership understanding. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 24 02:29:54 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:29:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <003901c7cd87$a6bece30$20cd403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707221338s323f9938w8d4117b67ced858c@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221622o54da51dbkad3e051fc738b634@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707221627lf0d4990vd363d3d0232acc80@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707221713i56513342xe4b61cd2c06daf3d@mail.gmail.com> <000801c7ccc7$0db7dc60$95d3403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0707221849j21bd247q644af66db8a8c317@mail.gmail.com> <003901c7cd15$541c5a20$619887d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0707231327w4a42e855u45a5d42f9580608e@mail.gmail.com> <003901c7cd87$a6bece30$20cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <0357DBC5-D3F3-4129-ACFF-657A7CA64643@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:14 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > But then if all were for the best > in the best of all possible worlds our human kind > would have no future. One sincerely hopes that the future of mankind does not depend on the efficacy of the laws of bridge. :-) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 24 02:41:53 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:41:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <5D40FBC0-B8A1-45B3-BBE9-F28FCC3D1683@starpower.net> References: <46A4D3CB.6060003@NTLworld.com> <5D40FBC0-B8A1-45B3-BBE9-F28FCC3D1683@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46A54AD1.5080009@NTLworld.com> > I suspect Nigel is the only member of BLML who is seriously concerned > about what the law "can do against" a pair of total strangers, > actually hardened sharpies, who fly in from another country, cheat > their way to victory, foil the forces of retribution by refusing to > admit to any of their actions, then promptly flee for home with their > ill-gotten master points. > > At least this time he has refrained from insulting our intelligence > by insisting that he is not calling them cheats. [nige1] Hiarious stuff! I don't call them cheats. That is quite ludicrous. It is frightening that Eric labels players "cheats" on such flimsy evidence. Even were the evidence stronger, I think the law should treat foreigners and locals the same. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 24 03:28:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:28:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0357DBC5-D3F3-4129-ACFF-657A7CA64643@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >One sincerely hopes that the future of mankind does >not depend on the efficacy of the laws of bridge. :-) Richard Hills: "Duplicate bridge is not a matter of life or death. It is much more important than that." 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 Tue Jul 24 03:52:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:52:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A4CC06.5080209@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>Yes Sven, but that creates partnership experience, which must be >>>disclosed, not partnership understanding, which can be regulated >>>as system! >>> >>>As Wayne has said, there is a difference between the two! Richard Hills: >>As the WBF Code of Practice has said, there is not a difference >>between the two. Herman De Wael: >Please give the quote. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic." Richard Hills: Surely a "heightened awareness" of partner's proclivities to violate your explicit agreements is a subset of "partnership experience"? What's the problem? 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 Tue Jul 24 04:17:25 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:17:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: >The experience that partner forgets his system and >misbids does not lead to any agreement however frequent. Richard Hills differs: I mostly disagree. If partner's misbids form a pattern, then they create implicit agreements. A classic example is the Ghestem Convention. If a jump overcall of 3C by explicit agreement shows a two-suiter in diamonds and hearts, but in practice 50% of the time partner's jump overcall of 3C is a misbid with long clubs, then there is an implicit agreement that partner's 3C overcall is a Multi with two meanings, either clubs, or the reds. And such a Multi meaning must be appropriately disclosed to the opponents. 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 sarahamos at onetel.net Tue Jul 24 03:44:13 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:44:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this Message-ID: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> Love All Dealer West With screens W N E S 3D Pass 4D Pass Pass ? North Holds A54 AQ1082 J7 K62 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070724/c9a53da2/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 24 05:56:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:56:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] It killed the Ancient Romans [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707220446n34a41e25pded2ae540e0e3e38@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows (Ignorantia thread): >That is simply not true unless the writers of the laws >had a particularly bad grasp of the English language. Richard Hills: It seems to me that Edgar Kaplan had _too good_ a grasp of the English language, always using a single "mot juste" word, instead of using several clarifying words which would limit possible interpretations to just one. 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 Tue Jul 24 07:57:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:57:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Carefully avoid." Was Zonal Delegation of L12c3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707212159n644ca7c2y99892d54dd111df3@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >If gratuitous, pointless director rudeness happens twenty times >per regional, we just have to accept it or stop playing, I guess. > >There is apparently nothing in the laws to prevent it, but I wish >there was. Richard Hills: In Australia there is a popular proverb, "What comes around, goes around", referring to the Iron Law of eventual consequences for actions. Some years ago, a major Australian bridge club advertised the post of a highly paid professional Chief Director. Two candidates were on the short list. One candidate was technically more competent, but had a history of rudeness to players, so the other candidate was appointed. :-) :-) :-) 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 Tue Jul 24 08:24:52 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:24:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Encrypted psychs Message-ID: <46A59B34.2080703@NTLworld.com> About five years ago, in BLML, I suggested that you could assign an arbitrary card pattern to each psych. For example... When you hold four deuces, you psych 1C, ...................treys.............1D, ...................fours.............1H, ...................fives.............1S, ...................sixes.............1N, and so on. These are low frequency psychs but whenever partner smells a rat, the presence in his hand of any of the pattern cards will dispel any suspicion, which reduces the risk of disaster. For example he knows that your 1N bid is genuine whenever his hand contains a six. It strikes me that this method is like the Herman Heart except that the Herman heart clue for partner is that the deck seems to contain about 52 HCP. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 24 09:09:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:09:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A5A5A4.3090907@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >>>> Yes Sven, but that creates partnership experience, which must be >>>> disclosed, not partnership understanding, which can be regulated >>>> as system! >>>> >>>> As Wayne has said, there is a difference between the two! > > Richard Hills: > >>> As the WBF Code of Practice has said, there is not a difference >>> between the two. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Please give the quote. > > WBF Code of Practice, page 8: > > "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by > the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the > implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem > that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined > that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened > awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic." > Note firstly the use of the word "may". Then note that the text speaks of "a number of circumstances". Very vague, but certainly meaning that there has to be more than mere frequency. And then the heightened awareness. Heightened as against what? And again, there is a must in one direction. In order for an understanding to exist, the partner must be aware of it. That does not mean that whenever partner is aware of the possibility of a psyche (with John that's on every board), there is an understanding. > Richard Hills: > > Surely a "heightened awareness" of partner's proclivities to > violate your explicit agreements is a subset of "partnership > experience"? > > What's the problem? > The problem is: what are you trying to prove? The the H1H belongs in partnership experience, should be explained to opponents and may lead to MI adjustment? That one was settled 10 years ago! The question we were addressing was if there was a difference between partnership agreements and partnership experience. Both have to be disclosed, but only the first can lead to system regulatory moves. You said that the CoP says that they are the same thing - I read nothing in the above passage to substantiate that claim. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 24 09:58:55 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:58:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Rather, Law 40A does not give a player the right to open >>whatever that player chooses if such a bid is "based on a >>partnership understanding". Harald Skjaeran: >Uhum. So if I open 1S with 13 hcp and 5 spades and our >partnership understanding is that the bid shows at least 5 >spades and 11-22 hcp (and some 8-10 with a lot of >distribution) that's not allowed? > >That's (part of) what you say above. :-) Richard Hills: "Does not give a player the right" is a phrase which is not identical in meaning to "prohibits a player from". Law 40A is silent on whether or not Harald's 1S bid is a legal call. However, against most opponents Harald's 1S bid would be legal under Law 40B, since the: "opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". :-) But most opponents would _not_ expect a 1S opening bid to be made with a yarborough, three spades and six diamonds. I perpetrated such a 1S opening bid once. My partner then responded 1NT, which in my Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) methods was an artificial game force. I cunningly rebid 2C, so when partner relayed again with 2D I then passed, to play in my best suit. Partner was less than impressed to fail in 2D when he held a ten playing trick hand in spades (he had been relaying to investigate the grand slam). Note that my psyche was "unsafe, legal and rare", since if my partner had had a "heightened awareness" - a la Adam "Plum" Meredith - about my 1S bid, partner would have reached the par contract by immediately raising to 4S. 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 Tue Jul 24 12:37:38 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:37:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <46A5D672.5030109@cs.elte.hu> Mike Amos wrote: > Love All > Dealer West > With screens > > W N E S > > 3D Pass 4D Pass > Pass ? > > > North Holds > A54 > AQ1082 > J7 > K62 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider? > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > 4H I would bid 3H or DBL instead of the first pass. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 24 11:56:19 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:56:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A5CCC3.2030603@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > I perpetrated such a 1S opening bid once. My partner then > responded 1NT, which in my Symmetric Relay (system notes > emailed on request) methods was an artificial game force. > I cunningly rebid 2C, so when partner relayed again with 2D > I then passed, to play in my best suit. Partner was less > than impressed to fail in 2D when he held a ten playing > trick hand in spades (he had been relaying to investigate > the grand slam). > > Note that my psyche was "unsafe, legal and rare", since if > my partner had had a "heightened awareness" - a la Adam > "Plum" Meredith - about my 1S bid, partner would have > reached the par contract by immediately raising to 4S. > You cite three conditions, but one of them (legal) can hardly be called a condition, since it is what we are trying to determine. That leaves "unsafe" and "rare". The second one is of course difficult to quantify. What is rare? But let's assume that it's a good condition. So that leavs us with "unsafe". Do you agree that this translates (maybe only in part) into "without systemic safeguards"? Would you then not agree that the way I play it, my 1He is also "unsafe". I can further assure you that it's "rare". What do you then call the distinction between my "1He" and your "1Sp"? > > 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://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 12:57:02 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:57:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Herman_1H?= In-Reply-To: <46A5DAEF.000001.90735@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> <46A5DAEF.000001.90735@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707240357k6d82b25bl15324669aaac8d61@mail.gmail.com> On 7/24/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Lets be clear about what we're talking about. >> >> Herman has said that that the Herman 1H is a deterministic bid. >> Herman has specifically stated that he makes this opening each and >> every time that he gets dealt a hand with 0-3 HCP in third seat. > AG : I don't understand. My own experience is that this isn't the case. >Why would Herman have said this ? > BTW, this would have made his system an HUM, and we wouldn't be discussing it >here, as the issue would be obvious. > > I'm afraid you'll indeed have to find said srtatement; Or perhaps Herman could >simply answer the questions definitively ? If necessary, I'll search through the BLML archives this evening when I get back home from work in (roughly) 12 hours or so. However, I am hoping that Herman will conform his earlier statement and spare me the bother. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 13:25:54 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:25:54 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000301c7cc6a$804936f0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707240425q5bce1fd1hc2f35259e593a99b@mail.gmail.com> On 24/07/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran asserted: > > >The experience that partner forgets his system and > >misbids does not lead to any agreement however frequent. > > Richard Hills differs: > > I mostly disagree. If partner's misbids form a pattern, > then they create implicit agreements. > > A classic example is the Ghestem Convention. If a jump > overcall of 3C by explicit agreement shows a two-suiter > in diamonds and hearts, but in practice 50% of the time > partner's jump overcall of 3C is a misbid with long > clubs, then there is an implicit agreement that > partner's 3C overcall is a Multi with two meanings, > either clubs, or the reds. And such a Multi meaning > must be appropriately disclosed to the opponents. > There is not an implicit agreement just because you say so. You need some evidence to determine that this agreement exists. Players are allowed to make mistakes. I would find it very surprising if a partnership had an agreement to make mistakes. A pair that forgot their system so regularly would have an obligation to disclose this experience in answer to a question - its possible they wouldn't creating a MI situation. To say they have an agreement is a great leap of unwarranted faith. Wayne From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 24 14:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000201c7cbc9$26764a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Wrote: > I don't think so. Trusting that you would answer my questions > honestly I shall first ask if it is correct what I understand that > you regularly open at the one level after two passes when you have > such particularly weak hands in third hand opening position. Why on earth are you asking Herman? You should be asking Herman's partner about *his* awareness. Nobody cares what Herman does if his partner doesn't know about it. > If you confirm that this is correct I shall ask to see your > declaration of this opening bid, and if you can show me a proper > declaration then that will be the end of it as far as I am concerned > provided HUM is allowed in the actual event. Please do use the term "HUM" in this way. It risks causing confusion with the WBF definition of the term. A proper declaration of Herman's partner's awareness of the habit (assuming such exists) might read "Herman *very* occasionally holds a very weak hands with short hearts when he opens 1H in 3rd sat at favourable." [Assuming the Norwegian Authorities mandate any sort of disclosure on the CC.] The WBF Psychic bidding guidelines make it 100% clear that such disclosure does not make the habit a "HUM". (OK technically the guidelines make clear that such disclosure doesn't prevent the methods being used even in events where HUMs are prohibited.) To rule "HUM" one would need further evidence (from the system or the auction) that Herman and his partner were actually basing their calls on the understanding. > If you are unable to show me a proper declaration I shall rule that > you in> fact are using a concealed partnership understanding (with > all the consequences of such a ruling). Even if there is a failure to disclose the normal ruling would be MI (e.g. Herman's partner didn't realise he should have disclosed this under the given regulations) with normal redress for damage. One would normally need to judge a degree of *wilful* concealment before assessing penalties. Tim From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jul 24 14:13:21 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:13:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A5CCC3.2030603@skynet.be> References: <46A5CCC3.2030603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46A5ECE1.4090408@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> I perpetrated such a 1S opening bid once. My partner then >> responded 1NT, which in my Symmetric Relay (system notes >> emailed on request) methods was an artificial game force. >> I cunningly rebid 2C, so when partner relayed again with 2D >> I then passed, to play in my best suit. Partner was less >> than impressed to fail in 2D when he held a ten playing >> trick hand in spades (he had been relaying to investigate >> the grand slam). >> >> Note that my psyche was "unsafe, legal and rare", since if >> my partner had had a "heightened awareness" - a la Adam >> "Plum" Meredith - about my 1S bid, partner would have >> reached the par contract by immediately raising to 4S. >> > > You cite three conditions, but one of them (legal) can hardly be > called a condition, since it is what we are trying to determine. > That leaves "unsafe" and "rare". The second one is of course difficult > to quantify. What is rare? But let's assume that it's a good condition. > > So that leavs us with "unsafe". Do you agree that this translates > (maybe only in part) into "without systemic safeguards"? > > Would you then not agree that the way I play it, my 1He is also > "unsafe". I can further assure you that it's "rare". > What do you then call the distinction between my "1He" and your "1Sp"? randomness (or reproductibility) jpr > > >> Best wishes >> >> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >> Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC >> 02 6225 6776 -- _______________________________________________ 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 david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Jul 24 08:07:06 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:07:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> I double. I do not consider any other bid. Should your polling sample be restricted to those who agree with North's initial pass? - Not me. I would have doubled the previous round. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Amos To: blml Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:44 AM Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this Love All Dealer West With screens W N E S 3D Pass 4D Pass Pass ? North Holds A54 AQ1082 J7 K62 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007 19:45 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070724/8d581f37/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007 19:45 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 24 12:32:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:32:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070724123029.0281b370@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:44 24/07/2007 +0100, you wrote: > >W N E S > >3D Pass 4D Pass >Pass ? > > >North Holds >A54 >AQ1082 >J7 >K62 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider? Screens, schmeens. We all know who hesitated. I pass, though it's marginal that I'd have passed the round before. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070724/73b4a3bb/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 24 12:56:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:56:47 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Herman_1H?= References: <2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A5DAEF.000001.90735@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Lets be clear about what we're talking about. Herman has said that that the Herman 1H is a deterministic bid. Herman has specifically stated that he makes this opening each and every time that he gets dealt a hand with 0-3 HCP in third seat. AG : I don't understand. My own experience is that this isn't the case. Why would Herman have said this ? BTW, this would have made his system an HUM, and we wouldn't be discussing it here, as the issue would be obvious. I'm afraid you'll indeed have to find said srtatement; Or perhaps Herman could simply answer the questions definitively ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070724/cfaf9312/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/20070724/cfaf9312/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/20070724/cfaf9312/attachment-0001.gif From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 14:29:41 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:29:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Encrypted psychs In-Reply-To: <46A59B34.2080703@NTLworld.com> References: <46A59B34.2080703@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707240529v46615d47yd4a63ba40b5c9247@mail.gmail.com> On 7/24/07, Nigel wrote: > About five years ago, in BLML, I suggested that you could assign an > arbitrary card pattern to each psych. For example... > > When you hold four deuces, you psych 1C, > ...................treys.............1D, > ...................fours.............1H, > ...................fives.............1S, > ...................sixes.............1N, > and so on. > > These are low frequency psychs but whenever partner smells a rat, the > presence in his hand of any of the pattern cards will dispel any > suspicion, which reduces the risk of disaster. For example he knows > that your 1N bid is genuine whenever his hand contains a six. > > It strikes me that this method is like the Herman Heart except that > the Herman heart clue for partner is that the deck seems to contain > about 52 HCP. For what its worth, this strategy dates back considerably longer than five years. There is an old out of print book titled "Poker Strategy - Winning with Game Theory" by Nesmith Ankeny that suggests linking optimal bluffing percentages to specific card holdings. The book is at least 30 years old. I've seen this basic principle discussed in different bridge newsgroups for close to 15 years. Regardless: There is a very substantive difference between your example and the Herman 1H opening. In your example, the keying system doesn't appear to be tied to the definition of the hand types in any salient way. Hypothetically, we could switch arround the key strategy so that one would psych 1C with four 5s and psych 1D with four deuces. This wouldn't effect the frequency of the psyches in any form. Nor would it impact the strategic considerations. In the case of the Herman 1H, the key is based on the number of High Card Points held in the hand. However, "hand strength" also one of the dimensions of the strategy space. Therefore, its not appropriate to consider this as a "key". -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 24 15:15:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:15:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707231244p6b9a4773h837ffdf3caa213a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> <2b1e598b0707231244p6b9a4773h837ffdf3caa213a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/23/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> From: "richard willey" >>>> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on >>>> to a >>>> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of >>>> magic >>>> words to justify their behavior. >>> >>> Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless. >> >> That sounds obvious, but may not be true. Numerous authorities have >> opined that the legitimacy of a psych depends on the extent to which >> it "comes as a surprise" (to partner and/or others). If you accept >> any of those interpretations, then it must perforce depend on how the >> action purportedly being psyched was previoulsy described to the >> relevant others. When we must deal with expectations as well as with >> actions, the "right set of magic words" can make all the difference. > > I don't see this. The auction is clear and unambiguous to everyone, > as is the convention card. If the psych perpetrators answered any > questions, that can be noted and remembered as needed. Well, maybe > you can further explain the phrase "it must perforce depend on how the > action purportedly being psyched was previously described to the > relevant others." I may be a little confused by the passive voice. > > I don't yet see anything wrong or unworkable with Richard and Steve's > suggestion. I find their idea appealing. Maybe an example would > help? We sit down to play, and you ask me about my 1NT openings. Scenario (a): I reply 15-17. Scenario (b): 15-17, but I do like to psych a 1NT opening with fewer than 5 HCP and a long suit to run to. Then during the session I open 1NT with x/xx/QJxxxxx/xxx, which, inevitably, winds up in some kind of disclosure-related adjudication. Richard and Steve seem to be saying that the difference between scenarios (a) and (b) should never be a factor in determining the outcome; I do not agree. In scenario (c), I give the same answer as in (b), but this time I also describe the "psychic" possibility on my CC (having moved to a jurisdiction that allows me to). That is yet a third situation, for which the appropriate adjudication might well be different from that in either (a) or (b). I'd have thought that the point I was trying to make was trivial and obvious: *If* you believe that your ruling depends on the extent to which one party's action "came as a surprise" to another, it must perforce depend on what the second party was previously told to expect. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 24 15:22:51 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:22:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Herman_1H?= In-Reply-To: <46A5DAEF.000001.90735@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> <46A5DAEF.000001.90735@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46A5FD2B.9020909@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > > Lets be clear about what we're talking about. > > Herman has said that that the Herman 1H is a deterministic bid. > Herman has specifically stated that he makes this opening each and > every time that he gets dealt a hand with 0-3 HCP in third seat. > > AG : I don't understand. My own experience is that this isn't the case. > Why would Herman have said this ? > BTW, this would have made his system an HUM, and we wouldn't be > discussing it here, as the issue would be obvious. > > I'm afraid you'll indeed have to find said srtatement; Or perhaps Herman > could simply answer the questions definitively ? > > Best regards > > Alain > I think I have done so quite recently. Yes, under certain circumstances, I will "always" open the suitable hands. So what? And I don't believe this makes the system HUM. That's exactly the question we've been discussing all along. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 24 15:24:33 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:24:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A5ECE1.4090408@meteo.fr> References: <46A5CCC3.2030603@skynet.be> <46A5ECE1.4090408@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <46A5FD91.9050104@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> I perpetrated such a 1S opening bid once. My partner then >>> responded 1NT, which in my Symmetric Relay (system notes >>> emailed on request) methods was an artificial game force. >>> I cunningly rebid 2C, so when partner relayed again with 2D >>> I then passed, to play in my best suit. Partner was less >>> than impressed to fail in 2D when he held a ten playing >>> trick hand in spades (he had been relaying to investigate >>> the grand slam). >>> >>> Note that my psyche was "unsafe, legal and rare", since if >>> my partner had had a "heightened awareness" - a la Adam >>> "Plum" Meredith - about my 1S bid, partner would have >>> reached the par contract by immediately raising to 4S. >>> >> You cite three conditions, but one of them (legal) can hardly be >> called a condition, since it is what we are trying to determine. >> That leaves "unsafe" and "rare". The second one is of course difficult >> to quantify. What is rare? But let's assume that it's a good condition. >> >> So that leavs us with "unsafe". Do you agree that this translates >> (maybe only in part) into "without systemic safeguards"? >> >> Would you then not agree that the way I play it, my 1He is also >> "unsafe". I can further assure you that it's "rare". >> What do you then call the distinction between my "1He" and your "1Sp"? > > randomness (or reproductibility) > And in what way is that of importance to the discussion we are having? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 24 15:29:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707231305w24bff69ch4d29b85ded28446@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560707211332u4031221t13c25bed3755e234@mail.gmail.com> <000301c7cbdb$02d5f080$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0707211433n2b6e6608r92f926e8418b371@mail.gmail.com> <20070721191251.7a841198@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0707211843p7c629d5j7736bee4a63bee2c@mail.gmail.com> <48C22848-8063-4896-A9F5-B89A57A21895@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0707231305w24bff69ch4d29b85ded28446@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > (I wish I had called it MI instead of CPU for a more-neutral sound, > but I know of no real logical difference between the two.) That's because we spend our time reading TFLB, where the difference, if it exists, is obscured by the precise language used. But to our customers, who get their words from the dictionary, not the bridge lawbook, the difference is that "misinform" suggests making an error, while "conceal" suggests taking a deliberate action. Even if there is no difference in how they are formally treated by the law, distinguishing between them remains useful in discourse. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 24 14:48:35 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:48:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070724144300.0281aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:07 24/07/2007 +0100, David Barton wrote: >I double. >I do not consider any other bid. > >Should your polling sample be restricted to those who agree >with North's initial pass? - Not me. I would have doubled the >previous round. Right. Not acting on the round before means a specific state of mind that would make acting now very improbable. Those who consider a bid (or double) automatic should perform the classical experience : chose a semi-fitting hand and see how you expect both contracts to fare. With the CA usually offside and possible bad breaks, 4H could be very bad and 4D a laydown. I don't claim it's right to pass ; I do claim that it would look right to pass to those who passed first. Those who claim that the 4D bid made our making a contact more plausible are very gullible indeed. I'd love to preempt against them. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070724/ed93378d/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 24 15:46:32 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:46:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A54AD1.5080009@NTLworld.com> References: <46A4D3CB.6060003@NTLworld.com> <5D40FBC0-B8A1-45B3-BBE9-F28FCC3D1683@starpower.net> <46A54AD1.5080009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <93A940BE-BE82-4001-9FFB-DD709AC007B0@starpower.net> On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Nigel wrote: >> I suspect Nigel is the only member of BLML who is seriously concerned >> about what the law "can do against" a pair of total strangers, >> actually hardened sharpies, who fly in from another country, cheat >> their way to victory, foil the forces of retribution by refusing to >> admit to any of their actions, then promptly flee for home with their >> ill-gotten master points. >> >> At least this time he has refrained from insulting our intelligence >> by insisting that he is not calling them cheats. > > [nige1] > Hiarious stuff! I don't call them cheats. That is quite ludicrous. > > It is frightening that Eric labels players "cheats" on such flimsy > evidence. Even were the evidence stronger, I think the law should > treat foreigners and locals the same. But I don't. And it did. "The law" did nothing "against [the] truth- economists" [Nigel's words]. But if Nigel "[doesn't] call them cheats", then isn't nothing is what should have "been done against" them? So WTP? Why would Nigel be objecting to the fact that "the EBU is the only place where [this] pair could be ruled against"? If they lied outright about their psyching practices to the director or the AC, they were cheating (perforce). If they told the truth, why does Nigel want to see them ruled against? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 24 15:58:31 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:58:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2007, at 9:52 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >>>> Yes Sven, but that creates partnership experience, which must be >>>> disclosed, not partnership understanding, which can be regulated >>>> as system! >>>> >>>> As Wayne has said, there is a difference between the two! > > Richard Hills: > >>> As the WBF Code of Practice has said, there is not a difference >>> between the two. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Please give the quote. > > WBF Code of Practice, page 8: > > "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by > the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the > implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem > that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined > that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened > awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic." > > Richard Hills: > > Surely a "heightened awareness" of partner's proclivities to > violate your explicit agreements is a subset of "partnership > experience"? > > What's the problem? Defining the boundary of the subset. We cannot assume that it is identical to the boundary of the full set (i.e. that "there is not a difference between the two"). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 24 16:13:53 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:13:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Herman_1H?= In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707240357k6d82b25bl15324669aaac8d61@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0707230459t4c4fd32x786c47d183900a73@mail.gmail.com> <46A5DAEF.000001.90735@CERAP-MATSH1> <2da24b8e0707240357k6d82b25bl15324669aaac8d61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 24, 2007, at 6:57 AM, richard willey wrote: > On 7/24/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> Lets be clear about what we're talking about. >>> >>> Herman has said that that the Herman 1H is a deterministic bid. >>> Herman has specifically stated that he makes this opening each and >>> every time that he gets dealt a hand with 0-3 HCP in third seat. > >> AG : I don't understand. My own experience is that this isn't the >> case. >> Why would Herman have said this ? >> BTW, this would have made his system an HUM, and we wouldn't be >> discussing it >> here, as the issue would be obvious. >> >> I'm afraid you'll indeed have to find said srtatement; Or perhaps >> Herman could >> simply answer the questions definitively ? > > If necessary, I'll search through the BLML archives this evening when > I get back home from work in (roughly) 12 hours or so. However, I am > hoping that Herman will conform his earlier statement and spare me the > bother. Why bother? I thought "what we're talking about" was how to deal with psychs, not how to deal with Herman. There are two questions here: a. What are Herman's legal obligations if he opens his 1H "psych" every time he holds the hand he describes? [Alain supplies an answer, but not everyone accepts it.] b. What are Herman's legal obligations if he opens his 1H "psych" almost, but not, every time he holds the hand he describes? Why should what Herman actually does in real life make one of these questions of interest and the other not? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 16:41:00 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:41:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat) In-Reply-To: References: <46A3B91F.7020706@cfa.harvard.edu> <2b1e598b0707231244p6b9a4773h837ffdf3caa213a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707240741w597aefbagdd28d5c897ddf89f@mail.gmail.com> On 7/24/07, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 23, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > On 7/23/07, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >>> From: "richard willey" > >>>> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on > >>>> to a > >>>> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of > >>>> magic > >>>> words to justify their behavior. > >>> > >>> Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless. > >> > >> That sounds obvious, but may not be true. Numerous authorities have > >> opined that the legitimacy of a psych depends on the extent to which > >> it "comes as a surprise" (to partner and/or others). If you accept > >> any of those interpretations, then it must perforce depend on how the > >> action purportedly being psyched was previoulsy described to the > >> relevant others. When we must deal with expectations as well as with > >> actions, the "right set of magic words" can make all the difference. > > > > > > I don't yet see anything wrong or unworkable with Richard and Steve's > > suggestion. I find their idea appealing. Maybe an example would > > help? > > We sit down to play, and you ask me about my 1NT openings. Scenario > (a): I reply 15-17. Scenario (b): 15-17, but I do like to psych a > 1NT opening with fewer than 5 HCP and a long suit to run to. Then > during the session I open 1NT with x/xx/QJxxxxx/xxx, which, > inevitably, winds up in some kind of disclosure-related > adjudication. Richard and Steve seem to be saying that the > difference between scenarios (a) and (b) should never be a factor in > determining the outcome; I do not agree. > > In scenario (c), I give the same answer as in (b), but this time I > also describe the "psychic" possibility on my CC (having moved to a > jurisdiction that allows me to). That is yet a third situation, for > which the appropriate adjudication might well be different from that > in either (a) or (b). > > I'd have thought that the point I was trying to make was trivial and > obvious: *If* you believe that your ruling depends on the extent to > which one party's action "came as a surprise" to another, it must > perforce depend on what the second party was previously told to expect. > I doubt that Richard and Steve mean that (a) and (b) should be adjudicated the same, because they describe clearly different sets of hands. What they probably are saying is that if (b) and (c) define the exact same set of hands that would open 1NT, and also the same set of hands that would not open 1NT, then they should be adjudicated the same. And if another scenario, (d), also describes the same set of hands that would open 1NT but if avoids the use of the word "psych," then (b) (c) and (d) should be adjudicated the same. > >>> From: "richard willey" > >>>> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on > >>>> to a > >>>> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of > >>>> magic > >>>> words to justify their behavior. Whether the pair call it a psych is irrelevant, but whether they disclose their understandings is certainly relevant. As long as they accurately disclose the set of hands that open 1NT according to their understandings, their choice of words in the description should not matter. I think that is their point, and I think it is worth considering, for many SO regulations violate this. -Jerry Fusselman From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 24 16:52:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Herman 1H In-Reply-To: <46A5FD2B.9020909@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Yes, under certain circumstances, I will "always" open the suitable > hands. > So what? > And I don't believe this makes the system HUM. Herman, I'm afraid that if your PU is such that a Pass in 3rd Seat favourable *denies* 0-3 HCP then even I am going to have to rule that the system is HUM. You must have either some shape requirements for the H1H or choose not to bid it sometimes with a 0-3 hand in order to prevent that happening. Obviously if partner was aware of your habit to psych 1H but unaware that you would do so on *all* 0-3 hands then a pass wouldn't promise 3+ and the system wouldn't be a HUM (at least not based on propensity to make the 1H bid). Tim From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jul 24 17:00:24 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:00:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A5FD91.9050104@skynet.be> References: <46A5CCC3.2030603@skynet.be><46A5ECE1.4090408@meteo.fr> <46A5FD91.9050104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46A61408.3050909@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>> I perpetrated such a 1S opening bid once. My partner then >>>> responded 1NT, which in my Symmetric Relay (system notes >>>> emailed on request) methods was an artificial game force. >>>> I cunningly rebid 2C, so when partner relayed again with 2D >>>> I then passed, to play in my best suit. Partner was less >>>> than impressed to fail in 2D when he held a ten playing >>>> trick hand in spades (he had been relaying to investigate >>>> the grand slam). >>>> >>>> Note that my psyche was "unsafe, legal and rare", since if >>>> my partner had had a "heightened awareness" - a la Adam >>>> "Plum" Meredith - about my 1S bid, partner would have >>>> reached the par contract by immediately raising to 4S. >>>> >>> You cite three conditions, but one of them (legal) can hardly be >>> called a condition, since it is what we are trying to determine. >>> That leaves "unsafe" and "rare". The second one is of course difficult >>> to quantify. What is rare? But let's assume that it's a good condition. >>> >>> So that leavs us with "unsafe". Do you agree that this translates >>> (maybe only in part) into "without systemic safeguards"? >>> >>> Would you then not agree that the way I play it, my 1He is also >>> "unsafe". I can further assure you that it's "rare". >>> What do you then call the distinction between my "1He" and your "1Sp"? >> randomness (or reproductibility) >> > > And in what way is that of importance to the discussion we are having? because i think that randomness is a necessary condition for a call to be a psych. the problem as i see it, and i don't know how to deal with, is the one of "personal system", i mean a deterministic way of bidding used by a player but unrevealed to his partner. what to do with this about disclosure and system regulations? should we judge that after some number of deals played together, each player is supposed to be aware of his partner's individual system (i think so)? only if he uses the information (the CoP says it's irrelevant)? this is a real paradox: bidding is a collective action, it needs cooperation and collective training but we have individuals who bid of their own, even in regular partnerships, maybe due to old rubber habits. are the laws adapted to this real situation? jpr > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 24 16:33:14 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:33:14 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Her?= =?iso-8859-1?q?man_1H?= References: <46A5FD2B.9020909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46A60DA9.000001.29399@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 24/07/2007 15:23:05 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Herman 1H Yes, under certain circumstances, I will "always" open the suitable hands. So what? And I don't believe this makes the system HUM. That's exactly the question we've been discussing all along. I must confess not having followed those umpteen thousand messages, but I'm afraid I'm now compelled to follow the noes. A psyche and a determinist bid are incompatible. If you always do bid X with holding Y, doing so is no misstatement, hence no psychic. No need to invoke definitions (like convention or agreement). Bridge isn't the key here. Mathematical logic is. Said otherwise, even if it is no convention ar agreement, it is part of your system. Partner is able to use bridge logic to deduce that if you pass, you don't hold such-and-such hand, and that's what a system is about. And that's illegal, because you and your partner must play the same system. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070724/e380dd3e/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/20070724/e380dd3e/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/20070724/e380dd3e/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 24 18:03:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:03:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A61408.3050909@meteo.fr> References: <46A5CCC3.2030603@skynet.be><46A5ECE1.4090408@meteo.fr> <46A5FD91.9050104@skynet.be> <46A61408.3050909@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <46A622D0.4070808@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>>> I perpetrated such a 1S opening bid once. My partner then >>>>> responded 1NT, which in my Symmetric Relay (system notes >>>>> emailed on request) methods was an artificial game force. >>>>> I cunningly rebid 2C, so when partner relayed again with 2D >>>>> I then passed, to play in my best suit. Partner was less >>>>> than impressed to fail in 2D when he held a ten playing >>>>> trick hand in spades (he had been relaying to investigate >>>>> the grand slam). >>>>> >>>>> Note that my psyche was "unsafe, legal and rare", since if >>>>> my partner had had a "heightened awareness" - a la Adam >>>>> "Plum" Meredith - about my 1S bid, partner would have >>>>> reached the par contract by immediately raising to 4S. >>>>> >>>> You cite three conditions, but one of them (legal) can hardly be >>>> called a condition, since it is what we are trying to determine. >>>> That leaves "unsafe" and "rare". The second one is of course difficult >>>> to quantify. What is rare? But let's assume that it's a good condition. >>>> >>>> So that leavs us with "unsafe". Do you agree that this translates >>>> (maybe only in part) into "without systemic safeguards"? >>>> >>>> Would you then not agree that the way I play it, my 1He is also >>>> "unsafe". I can further assure you that it's "rare". >>>> What do you then call the distinction between my "1He" and your "1Sp"? >>> randomness (or reproductibility) >>> >> And in what way is that of importance to the discussion we are having? > > because i think that randomness is a necessary condition for a call to > be a psych. I don't see why. > the problem as i see it, and i don't know how to deal with, is the one > of "personal system", i mean a deterministic way of bidding used by a > player but unrevealed to his partner. what to do with this about > disclosure and system regulations? should we judge that after some > number of deals played together, each player is supposed to be aware of > his partner's individual system (i think so)? only if he uses the > information (the CoP says it's irrelevant)? Yes indeed, that is a valid way of looking at it. I certainly believe that my habits are disclosable to opponents, even if partner is not aware of them. That is my "personal system". But how do we go about explaining that "personal system"? In my case, it would be something like "if he has psyched, he must have less than 4 points, because he won't open on 4 points anymore" and "he won't have psyched in second position, he has never done that". But those announcements are independent of whether I do it "always" or not. Of course, doing it always means that we can say something like "guarantees 4 points" when I do pass in third position. But apart from that being of very little worth (third hand usually has around 10 points), it's not even true, as I might have decided not to psyche after all. There probably is a narrower set of circumstances (that even I can't fully enumerate) within which I will really always open. But that is true of every psyche, even those that you call random. Let me explain it like this: if I were to say that I open 0-4 3rd hand, 50% of the time, then you might think it is "random". But if I then add that I never open 4 points, never with a certain partner, never if I have 3-3 or more in the majors and never during the first hour of a tournament, it has turned into 100% again. I truely believe that people who psyche more often than never, all have some set of circumstances that they recognize as being psycheworthy. That turns many psyches into "reproductible". > this is a real paradox: bidding is a collective action, it needs > cooperation and collective training but we have individuals who bid of > their own, even in regular partnerships, maybe due to old rubber habits. > are the laws adapted to this real situation? > > jpr >> > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 24 18:03:26 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:03:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .............. > > What's the problem? > > Defining the boundary of the subset. We cannot assume that it is > identical to the boundary of the full set (i.e. that "there is not a > difference between the two"). IMO "Understanding" is the "full set", must be available to opponents (declared) and may be regulated by SO. "Understanding" includes explicit agreements, implied agreements (from experience) as well as knowledge (from whatever source) of partner's habits as long as such knowledge can have impact on interpreting partner's calls. Wherever the laws use any other term like "agreement" or "experience" I take that to be synonymous with "understanding" unless it is quite clear from the context that a more restricted meaning is intended. I am not aware of any place in the laws where such restricted meaning seems relevant except that Law 75C introduces the terms "general experience" and "general knowledge" which clearly means experience and knowledge that apply regardless of partnership (rather than because of the partnership). As for the legality (under Law 40A) of psychic calls I still consider such legality to be void whenever partner from his "understanding" (as described above) has reason to positively be aware of the call being a "psyche". Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as surprised as opponents. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 24 18:06:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:06:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Herman_1H?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A62388.40309@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> Yes, under certain circumstances, I will "always" open the suitable >> hands. >> So what? >> And I don't believe this makes the system HUM. > > Herman, I'm afraid that if your PU is such that a Pass in 3rd Seat > favourable *denies* 0-3 HCP then even I am going to have to rule that the > system is HUM. You must have either some shape requirements for the H1H > or choose not to bid it sometimes with a 0-3 hand in order to prevent > that happening. > OK, I do. Is it really that easy? I don't believe so. But I do admit that if it is really "every hand with 0-3" then it becomes a problem. So let's assume that I have some more requirements. > Obviously if partner was aware of your habit to psych 1H but unaware that > you would do so on *all* 0-3 hands then a pass wouldn't promise 3+ and > the system wouldn't be a HUM (at least not based on propensity to make > the 1H bid). > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Jul 24 22:59:30 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:59:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <20070724165930.5c970d74@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:03:26 +0200 "Sven Pran" wrote: > > Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as > surprised as opponents. > And I have real trouble in understanding how this short form does not equate to barring psyches, Sven. My regular partner knows I psyche occasionally. Random opponents do not. How, then, can a psyche be "at least" as surprising to my partner as to an opponent? My partner has *got* to have seen more of them than any pair of opponents, unless I reserve all my psyches for one specific pair of opponents. IMO, the WBF should write it into Law that psychic habits must be disclosed, and impose that all the way down the tree (fat chance of THAT happening! :-(( ). Partners have to be very careful *not* to take advantage of any possibility of a psyche, at such point as they can deduce that a psyche must have occurred from the bidding it's up to them to alert opponents, and there's a defined minimum frequency below which psyches *cannot* be considered to have become an implicit agreement. This sort of scheme surely *has* to be better than leaving it to the whims of an individual TD, or an individual NCBO? And better than banning psyches outright, which seems to be the only other way to level the playing field. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGpmgyX39R2QaHMdMRAsVzAJ9THBX6RxL+ZmJc4jaX3yPTA2VAUACgmCyt OxAitZhVJqPsgdUNu0xB+vg= =hl8K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 23:24:11 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:24:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> On 25/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > .............. > > > What's the problem? > > > > Defining the boundary of the subset. We cannot assume that it is > > identical to the boundary of the full set (i.e. that "there is not a > > difference between the two"). > > IMO "Understanding" is the "full set", must be available to opponents > (declared) and may be regulated by SO. "Understanding" includes explicit > agreements, implied agreements (from experience) as well as knowledge (from > whatever source) of partner's habits as long as such knowledge can have > impact on interpreting partner's calls. > > Wherever the laws use any other term like "agreement" or "experience" I take > that to be synonymous with "understanding" unless it is quite clear from the > context that a more restricted meaning is intended. > > I am not aware of any place in the laws where such restricted meaning seems > relevant except that Law 75C introduces the terms "general experience" and > "general knowledge" which clearly means experience and knowledge that apply > regardless of partnership (rather than because of the partnership). > > As for the legality (under Law 40A) of psychic calls I still consider such > legality to be void whenever partner from his "understanding" (as described > above) has reason to positively be aware of the call being a "psyche". > > Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as > surprised as opponents. > All I can say is that this interpretation is completely not obvious from the words written in the laws. I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' and 'experience' from anything written in the laws. It is more like the conclusion of someone who premeditated that they did not want players to psyche so found a way to interpret what is written to make a psyche as difficult as possible. A psyche is legal so long as it is 'not based on a partnership understanding' this is nothing like the distortion above "from his "understanding" (as described above) has reason to positively be aware of the call being a "psyche" " or the short form "unless partner becomes at least as surprised as opponents." I can easily be 'aware' or a psyche for reasons other than having a 'partnership understanding'. I am never or at least very seldom 'surprised' when my partner 'psyches' and I don't have any regular partner who I would consider psyches a lot. You say 'his "understanding" ' when the law says "partnership understanding". I can only come to the conclusion that your view is distorted from what is written in the law book. When the bidding goes: P P ? 1C X ? 3D X ? 3H P ? 1C* ? *Precision etc etc I know that my partner might psyche. This knowledge is not based on a 'partnership understanding' it is based on a general knowledge. General knowledge that when you play a game a decent strategy is to make it as hard as possible for your opponents. General knowledge rather than 'partnership understanding' because I would have the same or a very similar expectation whether playing with my regular partner or a pick-up partner - I am allowed to assume that my partner is going to do her best to make life difficult for the opponents. L75B says "...so long as his partner is unaware of the violation ..." . This statement uses the definite article which means that it refers to this particular violation. When the bidding goes 2H P 2S ... I have no idea that my partner has psyched this particular time even though I am aware that it would be a particularly good psyche and so she might have. This awareness comes from my own analysis of the situation not from a 'partnership understanding'. I have a few psyches stored up in my mind - situations that I think will be good to psyche - just waiting for the right hand to come along. I haven't discussed any of these with my partner. However if and when they occur I wouldn't be surprised if she was more aware than the opponents that I might have psyched. This heightened awareness is something that we have no 'partnership understanding' about - as far as I am aware she has no specific knowledge of my proposed psyches - so even though there is a heightened awareness how can these psyches be illegal. As an aside, actually, I fully expect to get into trouble with one of the psyches as it is or at least will be perceived by many to be very close to the boundary in the regulations between a legal and illegal psyche. So expect to see a thread sometime in the future when I attract an adverse ruling for this one. I am 100% convinced that in fact what I have planned is legal - at least as the regulations are written. I am however quickly coming to the view that some 'interpretations' (I would prefer to use the word 'distortions') are based on what the director wants the law or regulation to say rather than what it actually says. Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 23:53:38 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:53:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707241453r48a30ecem38ee7ae5e72cd5@mail.gmail.com> On 7/24/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' and > 'experience' from anything written in the laws. > That 'understanding' is the big category should be clear from Law 40D, and probably other places as well. That it encompasses both 'agreement' and 'experience' is especially clear in Law 75C. -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 00:32:38 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:32:38 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707241453r48a30ecem38ee7ae5e72cd5@mail.gmail.com> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707241453r48a30ecem38ee7ae5e72cd5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707241532h6cd47ba5mcf3f2a3b3aa1bfdb@mail.gmail.com> On 25/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/24/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' and > > 'experience' from anything written in the laws. > > > > That 'understanding' is the big category should be clear from Law 40D, > and probably other places as well. That it encompasses both > 'agreement' and 'experience' is especially clear in Law 75C. > Wow!!! You are reading something in L40D that I cannot see. There is nothing there that suggests 'understanding' encompasses 'experience'. In so much as 'understanding' is synonymous with 'agreement' I can see how that is included. My experience includes that fact that partner is a lunatic and bids on all sorts of hands that I wouldn't. I'd be pleased if the SO could regulate against this but I don't really think that is possible. And similarly in L75C there is nothing stating that 'partnership agreement and partnership experience' make up the whole 'partnership understanding'. If in fact they did why wouldn't the lawmaker just write the simpler 'partnership understanding'. And as stated above 'experience' just can't be part of 'understanding' since 'understanding' is able to be regulated but clearly it would be nonsense to regulate 'experience'. Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 00:48:12 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:48:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707241532h6cd47ba5mcf3f2a3b3aa1bfdb@mail.gmail.com> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707241453r48a30ecem38ee7ae5e72cd5@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707241532h6cd47ba5mcf3f2a3b3aa1bfdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707241548t5c1bbe70wdde6e3039c80d81c@mail.gmail.com> On 7/24/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Wow!!! You are reading something in L40D that I cannot see. There is > nothing there that suggests 'understanding' encompasses 'experience'. > In so much as 'understanding' is synonymous with 'agreement' I can see > how that is included. > And similarly in L75C there is nothing stating that 'partnership > agreement and partnership experience' make up the whole 'partnership > understanding'. Well, no doubt it will be far clearer very soon---in the next laws. In brief, L75C says that the stuff you need to disclose includes partnership agreements and partnership experience. L40D calls all that stuff by one word, understanding. Unfortunately, as you point out, the laws blur that one-word summary, sometimes calling it agreement. I bet this won't happen in the next laws. -Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 25 01:27:55 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:27:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c7ce4a$43a7f150$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > .............. > I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' and > 'experience' from anything written in the laws. If you with this are stating that you have "agreements" and "experience" on which you base your calls at the bridge table in spite of not "understanding" these "agreements" and "experiences" I absolutely understand your position, but I really hope (for your sake) that you understand what you and your partner are doing at the bridge table? Sven From sarahamos at onetel.net Wed Jul 25 01:23:07 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:23:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> david raises a point of fundamental imortance which we often encounter in UI positions. if we ask players what they would bid at some point in the auction we should clearly ask if they agree with previous actions. The only players qualified to answer the question "What would you bid now?" must be those who agree with the pass over 3D - apart from thos e who had dropped three honour cards on the floor I can conatin myself no more The TDs in Jesolo ruled 33% of 4H= NS +420 and 67% of 4D-2 NS +100 Comments please mike ----- Original Message ----- From: David Barton To: Mike Amos ; blml Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this I double. I do not consider any other bid. Should your polling sample be restricted to those who agree with North's initial pass? - Not me. I would have doubled the previous round. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Amos To: blml Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:44 AM Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this Love All Dealer West With screens W N E S 3D Pass 4D Pass Pass ? North Holds A54 AQ1082 J7 K62 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007 19:45 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007 19:45 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070725/fb7ca72d/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 25 01:31:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:31:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A61408.3050909@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: >So that leaves us with "unsafe". Do you agree that this >translates (maybe only in part) into "without systemic >safeguards"? Richard Hills: No. In the case I quoted I did have a so-called "systemic safeguard" (my relay system), which allowed me to play in my real suit at the two-level ..... but lost me 13 imps in so doing. My use of the word "unsafe" was shorthand for "randomness is a necessary condition for a call to be a psych" (Jean- Pierre Rocafort) and "a psyche is not legal unless partner is at least as surprised as opponents" (Sven Pran). 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 25 01:43:15 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:43:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707241532h6cd47ba5mcf3f2a3b3aa1bfdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c7ce4c$67f11e40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ................. > And similarly in L75C there is nothing stating that 'partnership > agreement and partnership experience' make up the whole 'partnership > understanding'. If in fact they did why wouldn't the lawmaker just > write the simpler 'partnership understanding'. And as stated above > 'experience' just can't be part of 'understanding' since > 'understanding' is able to be regulated but clearly it would be > nonsense to regulate 'experience'. Can you not see the fallacy of your argument? A player has in his system declaration that he opens 1 in hearts with as little as 5 HCP. When the Director calls his attention to the regulation that this is forbidden he answers: "Oh no, I have no understanding as basis for this opening bid, it is my experience that it may work to my advantage. SO is only permitted to regulate understandings, so this opening bid which is based on experience is perfectly legal!" Good luck! Sven From ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 25 01:48:13 2007 From: ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com (Ken Richardson) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:48:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis In-Reply-To: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: Close. Just 33% out. 0% of 4H= NS +420 and 100% of 4D-2 NS +100 Why North passes over 3D is beyond me. Ken -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Mike Amos Sent: 25 July 2007 00:23 To: David Barton Cc: blml Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis david raises a point of fundamental imortance which we often encounter in UI positions. if we ask players what they would bid at some point in the auction we should clearly ask if they agree with previous actions. The only players qualified to answer the question "What would you bid now?" must be those who agree with the pass over 3D - apart from thos e who had dropped three honour cards on the floor I can conatin myself no more The TDs in Jesolo ruled 33% of 4H= NS +420 and 67% of 4D-2 NS +100 Comments please mike ----- Original Message ----- From: David Barton To: Mike Amos ; blml Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this I double. I do not consider any other bid. Should your polling sample be restricted to those who agree with North's initial pass? - Not me. I would have doubled the previous round. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Amos To: blml Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:44 AM Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this Love All Dealer West With screens W N E S 3D Pass 4D Pass Pass ? North Holds A54 AQ1082 J7 K62 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007 19:45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007 19:45 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007 19:45 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070725/26d4be89/attachment-0001.htm From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 01:56:34 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:56:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c7ce4a$43a7f150$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> <000201c7ce4a$43a7f150$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707241656o7dab32ffv8276504a09bfd9e3@mail.gmail.com> On 25/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > > .............. > > I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' and > > 'experience' from anything written in the laws. > > If you with this are stating that you have "agreements" and "experience" on > which you base your calls at the bridge table in spite of not > "understanding" these "agreements" and "experiences" I absolutely understand > your position, but I really hope (for your sake) that you understand what > you and your partner are doing at the bridge table? > Sven you are mixing to different things ... I understand is a verb An understanding is a noun It is the noun understanding that is used in the Law 40 not the verb understand. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 01:59:14 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:59:14 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707241548t5c1bbe70wdde6e3039c80d81c@mail.gmail.com> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707241453r48a30ecem38ee7ae5e72cd5@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707241532h6cd47ba5mcf3f2a3b3aa1bfdb@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707241548t5c1bbe70wdde6e3039c80d81c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707241659y62bd2725u49f3db5825c87812@mail.gmail.com> On 25/07/07, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/24/07, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > Wow!!! You are reading something in L40D that I cannot see. There is > > nothing there that suggests 'understanding' encompasses 'experience'. > > In so much as 'understanding' is synonymous with 'agreement' I can see > > how that is included. > > > > > And similarly in L75C there is nothing stating that 'partnership > > agreement and partnership experience' make up the whole 'partnership > > understanding'. > > Well, no doubt it will be far clearer very soon---in the next laws. And meanwhile we ignore the current laws. > In brief, L75C says that the stuff you need to disclose includes > partnership agreements and partnership experience. L40D calls all > that stuff by one word, understanding. Unfortunately, as you point > out, the laws blur that one-word summary, sometimes calling it > agreement. I bet this won't happen in the next laws. > L75C and L40D are different beasts. L75C is talking about disclosure in response to a question (inquiry). L40 when it talks about disclosure is talking about prior disclosure. I cannot rationally equate these two situations. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 02:16:32 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:16:32 +1200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis In-Reply-To: References: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707241716n655b489ai1979d360a7be76fa@mail.gmail.com> On 25/07/07, Ken Richardson wrote: > > Close. Just 33% out. > > 0% of 4H= NS +420 and 100% of 4D-2 NS +100 > > Why North passes over 3D is beyond me. This last statement is completely irrelevant to the ruling. Wayne From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 02:32:22 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:32:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707241659y62bd2725u49f3db5825c87812@mail.gmail.com> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560707241424g1ae59afs7089de229451c916@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707241453r48a30ecem38ee7ae5e72cd5@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707241532h6cd47ba5mcf3f2a3b3aa1bfdb@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0707241548t5c1bbe70wdde6e3039c80d81c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560707241659y62bd2725u49f3db5825c87812@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707241732p62ead46ah15b892c3f66b4ffb@mail.gmail.com> I suspect that I am approaching this thread with a somewhat different aim than many of the participants. As I noted earlier, I think that the existing regulations regarding psyches fail to frame the problem set appropriately. The concept of a psyche should be removed from the Law books and replaced with convention regulations based on concepts like "mixed strategies", "multi-way" bids and the like. If you don't have the appropriate vocabulary in place to describe people's behavior you won't be able to craft effective regulations. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 25 03:45:43 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:45:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707241659y62bd2725u49f3db5825c87812@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>Well, no doubt it will be far clearer very soon---in >>the next laws. Wayne Burrows: >And meanwhile we ignore the current laws. Richard Hills: No, we ignore any unofficial interpretation of Law, and instead abide by official interpretations of Law (for example, the official interpretations contained in the WBF Code of Practice). Grattan Endicott: >>>...In each of our several spheres of being the >>>correct interpretation of the law is determined by a >>>constitutionally appointed body...for these present >>>concerns the 'Laws Committee' of the World Bridge >>>Federation. 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 Jul 25 06:40:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A61408.3050909@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort: [snip] >This is a real paradox: bidding is a collective action, >it needs cooperation and collective training but we have >individuals who bid of their own, even in regular >partnerships, maybe due to old rubber habits. > >Are the laws adapted to this real situation? Richard Hills: A unilateral action by one partner does not imply an "a priori" mutual partnership understanding. A unilateral action by one partner often creates an "a posteriori" mutual partnership understanding. What's the problem? 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 sarahamos at onetel.net Wed Jul 25 08:49:58 2007 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:49:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis References: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <2a1c3a560707241716n655b489ai1979d360a7be76fa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001c01c7ce88$045f5860$8595f257@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Ken Richardson" Cc: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis > On 25/07/07, Ken Richardson wrote: >> >> Close. Just 33% out. >> >> 0% of 4H= NS +420 and 100% of 4D-2 NS +100 >> >> Why North passes over 3D is beyond me. > > This last statement is completely irrelevant to the ruling. > I personally don't think it is irrelevant Wayne. I've always been taught to take into account a player's ability when considering Logical Alternatives. For example in re-opening situations Club players are much more likely to consider point count as the most significant factor in their considerations whereas expert players will pay more heed to their distribution. So in this case we need to consider the logical alternatives for a player who has passed 3D, a player who on his first turn demonstrated remarkable timidity but on the second, emboldened by the information that his partner has something to think about, summons up a dangerous 4H. When consulting players, IMHO, the TD needed to find players who thought it right to pass over 3D, but then thought it correct to call over 4D. Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. I had always understood that if we decided to disallow a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the weightings. It is certainly illegal in England (White Book 16.3) Mike > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 25 08:59:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:59:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Clarification... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A0FDBC.4010700@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >a good idea to *simplify* the law to legalize a concealed >partnership understanding on which partner *never* acts; >because such a CPU would go undetected by normal >"fielding" criteria Richard Hills: A bad idea. The contract is 3NT. Declarer needs two stoppers in spades to make the game. The lead is a fourth best deuce of spades, promising an honour. North (Dummy) S QT South (Declarer) S A9 East-West have a concealed partnership understanding that they never lead from a jack-empty suit (except when they hold four jack-empty suits). On this combination it is impossible for East to field, since it is normal defence for East to cover a "misguessed" ten with the jack. East-West later boast to declarer how useful their legal concealed agreement was, thanks to the Laws of Guthrie Bridge in force at that club. Declarer has no hope of doing better in future, since the next time that declarer meets those defenders there is a 50% chance that their legal concealed agreement for the new session would be to never lead from a king-empty suit. :-( Meanwhile, the Director would be too busy assessing the facts on other boards (trying to discover if that legal concealed agreement was perhaps sometimes illegally fielded), to finish more boring tasks such as scoring the session. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 25 10:06:19 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:06:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis References: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <2a1c3a560707241716n655b489ai1979d360a7be76fa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00be01c7ce92$d1b007b0$7c9c87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we will discuss your options afterwards." ~ Bill Shankly. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ 'completely irrelevant'? I would want to know whether he passed as a matter of bridge judgement or because the partnership methods required him to pass. I would want to reassure myself that the players consulted by the Director were given this information. Then I would want to know what proportion of them adopted the Alan Gottcheiner position. I think we are lacking a certain amount of information that could affect judgement, and I am not prepared to support or condemn the ruling (whether it allowed 33% or 0% of 4H) without it. Mike Amos comments, more recently, that "Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. I had always understood that if we decided to disallow a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the weightings. It is certainly illegal in England " In EBL and WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply. When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the time if that was judged to be what would happen had no irregularity occurred. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Ken Richardson" Cc: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis > On 25/07/07, Ken Richardson wrote: >> >> Close. Just 33% out. >> >> 0% of 4H= NS +420 and 100% of 4D-2 NS +100 >> >> Why North passes over 3D is beyond me. > > This last statement is completely irrelevant to the ruling. > > Wayne > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jul 25 10:16:43 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:16:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A706EB.90707@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort: > > [snip] > >> This is a real paradox: bidding is a collective action, >> it needs cooperation and collective training but we have >> individuals who bid of their own, even in regular >> partnerships, maybe due to old rubber habits. >> >> Are the laws adapted to this real situation? > > Richard Hills: > > A unilateral action by one partner does not imply an "a > priori" mutual partnership understanding. > > A unilateral action by one partner often creates an "a > posteriori" mutual partnership understanding. > > What's the problem? the problem is with deaf and stubborn players (not rare from my experience) denying a posteriori mpu. they think their view right, partner's wrong, agree to disagree and, be it for this reason or whatever else, refuse to take into account the knowledge of partner's habits in their future actions. recent contributions to blml suggested you had not to disclose knowledge you don't take into account for your actions. jpr > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 25 10:53:50 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:53:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560707241656o7dab32ffv8276504a09bfd9e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c7ce99$526000d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > > > .............. > > > I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' > > > and 'experience' from anything written in the laws. > > > > If you with this are stating that you have "agreements" and "experience" > > on which you base your calls at the bridge table in spite of not > > "understanding" these "agreements" and "experiences" I absolutely > > understand your position, but I really hope (for your sake) that you > > understand what you and your partner are doing at the bridge table? > > > > Sven you are mixing to different things ... > > I understand is a verb > > An understanding is a noun > > It is the noun understanding that is used in the Law 40 not the verb > understand. And your "understanding" is what you "understand" - right? Sven PS.: It would be better if you send your comments to BLML only and not also directly to me. Two copies of each message is nothing but a nuisance. From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 11:10:02 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:10:02 +1200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c7ce99$526000d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560707241656o7dab32ffv8276504a09bfd9e3@mail.gmail.com> <000a01c7ce99$526000d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560707250210xb3a3cfge28719d33b0d074b@mail.gmail.com> On 25/07/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > > > > .............. > > > > I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' > > > > and 'experience' from anything written in the laws. > > > > > > If you with this are stating that you have "agreements" and "experience" > > > on which you base your calls at the bridge table in spite of not > > > "understanding" these "agreements" and "experiences" I absolutely > > > understand your position, but I really hope (for your sake) that you > > > understand what you and your partner are doing at the bridge table? > > > > > > > Sven you are mixing to different things ... > > > > I understand is a verb > > > > An understanding is a noun > > > > It is the noun understanding that is used in the Law 40 not the verb > > understand. > > And your "understanding" is what you "understand" - right? I "understand" much more than my "understandings". Wayne > > Sven > > PS.: It would be better if you send your comments to BLML only and not also > directly to me. Two copies of each message is nothing but a nuisance. > Very sorry. I delete the address but occasionally i forget. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 25 11:10:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:10:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis In-Reply-To: <00be01c7ce92$d1b007b0$7c9c87d9@Hellen> References: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <2a1c3a560707241716n655b489ai1979d360a7be76fa@mail.gmail.com> <00be01c7ce92$d1b007b0$7c9c87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <46A71392.9070309@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "If you're not sure what to do with > the ball, just pop it in the net and > we will discuss your options afterwards." > ~ Bill Shankly. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > +=+ 'completely irrelevant'? I would want to know > whether he passed as a matter of bridge judgement > or because the partnership methods required him to > pass. I would want to reassure myself that the players > consulted by the Director were given this information. > Then I would want to know what proportion of them > adopted the Alan Gottcheiner position. > I think we are lacking a certain amount of > information that could affect judgement, and I am not > prepared to support or condemn the ruling (whether > it allowed 33% or 0% of 4H) without it. > Mike Amos comments, more recently, that > "Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. > I had always understood that if we decided to disallow > a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the > weightings. It is certainly illegal in England " In EBL and > WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply. > When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of > weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that > equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the > time if that was judged to be what would happen had > no irregularity occurred. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Come on, Grattan, be a bit more positive. I'm certain that if this would have happened in Antalya, with you or I (more often both of us) in the Committee Room, the EBLAC would not allow a call that was banned for UI reasons to appear among the alternatives that are weighted. If the WBF has not issued a proclamation such as the one the EBU has issued, then that is solely because the WBF and EBL feel that their ACs are good enough to avoid those kinds of wrong rulings all by themselves. I for one am not going to hide under a rock and state clearly that in the sentence "had the irregularity ont occured", the irregularity referred to is the bid that was made with use of UI. If that irregularity does not occur, then that result cannot be taken into account for a weighted L12C3 score. Other bids, not influenced by the UI, may be considered and weighted, as can the results of the various contracts. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Jul 25 11:11:11 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:11:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D155@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott Sent: 25 July 2007 09:06 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** Mike Amos comments, more recently, that "Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. I had always understood that if we decided to disallow a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the weightings. It is certainly illegal in England " In EBL and WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply. When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the time if that was judged to be what would happen had no irregularity occurred. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --------------------------------------------------- So player A avoids taking advantage of the UI and passes and scores 4D, but player B uses UI and scores 4H, ruled back to 30% of 4D and 70% of 4H. Player B (or should that be "C") seems to have broken the law (both L16 and L73) and yet is getting a better score than player B. This does not seem to be "equitable". So in this position a player has to use UI (deliberately) to get the weighted score, no wonder the Americans (and Nigel) don't like L12C3 if it abused in this way. Harrumph! Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 25 12:35:52 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:35:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis In-Reply-To: <001c01c7ce88$045f5860$8595f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: Mike: Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. I had always understood that if we decided to disallow a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the weightings. It is certainly illegal in England (White Book 16.3) ton: As is should be everywhere, illegal I mean. Law 12 is clear about it. The irregularity being the call after having received UI and the adjusted score to be based on the situation had the irregularity not occurred. I know that the chief TD of this event (if it was Ricardi) likes this kind of ruling but it is certainly against the laws. And as far as I know there is no consideration to change this in the new laws. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 25 12:44:17 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:44:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis In-Reply-To: <46A71392.9070309@skynet.be> Message-ID: I knew it to be unavoidable to agree with Herman once in a rare while, ton Come on, Grattan, be a bit more positive. I'm certain that if this would have happened in Antalya, with you or I (more often both of us) in the Committee Room, the EBLAC would not allow a call that was banned for UI reasons to appear among the alternatives that are weighted. If the WBF has not issued a proclamation such as the one the EBU has issued, then that is solely because the WBF and EBL feel that their ACs are good enough to avoid those kinds of wrong rulings all by themselves. I for one am not going to hide under a rock and state clearly that in the sentence "had the irregularity ont occured", the irregularity referred to is the bid that was made with use of UI. If that irregularity does not occur, then that result cannot be taken into account for a weighted L12C3 score. Other bids, not influenced by the UI, may be considered and weighted, as can the results of the various contracts. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 25 13:04:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: Mike wrote: > > I can conatin myself no more > The TDs in Jesolo ruled 33% of 4H= NS +420 and 67% of 4D-2 NS +100 > Comments please That might be a Reevely. OTOH supposing a double was chosen at the table (and 4H bid by partner) but the TD(s) believed that double was a suggested action while 4H/P were not then the ruling would be reasonable. Those who think action on the previous round was clear-cut obviously haven't lost as much money as I have over the years by wandering into an auction where opps are unlimited and we have no known fit. OK, I'd *probably* have bid this one, but it's close. Once opps have limited with 4D there's much stronger case for backing in (and I'd choose double). I wouldn't even begin to consider pass an LA if *I* had previously broken tempo over the 3D bid. While pass is borderline for being an LA both 4H and X are clearly in the frame. I incline towards believing that X is suggested over 4H but could be persuaded otherwise. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 25 12:42:50 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:42:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070725123419.02819e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:23 25/07/2007 +0100, Mike Amos wrote: >david raises a point of fundamental imortance which we often encounter in >UI positions. if we ask players what they would bid at some point in the >auction we should clearly ask if they agree with previous actions. The >only players qualified to answer the question "What would you bid >now?" must be those who agree with the pass over 3D - apart from thos e >who had dropped three honour cards on the floor > >I can conatin myself no more >The TDs in Jesolo ruled 33% of 4H= NS +420 and 67% of 4D-2 NS +100 >Comments please Illegal. If 4H was considered an irregularity, it should be cancelled and one should consider the future of the deal. Here, it is easy : 4D - 2. Weighted scores can only apply when an irregularity changed the progress of the deal and one doesn't know what would have happened had the irregularity not occurred. e.g. without the misexplanation, would NS have found their contract ? e.g. without the hesitation, would declarer have found that crucial Queen ? e.g. without the mistimed question, would the lead have been found ? Here, if you erase the 4H bid, the contract can only be 4D. The AC seems to have considered that the irregularity was the hesitation (without the hesitation, some %age that the 4H bid would have been made). However, the irregularity lies in the reopening under (possible) UI, not the hesitation. Therefore, they're plain wrong. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070725/cd805515/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 25 14:44:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:44:33 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__European_Youth_Champion?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ships_or_have_we_really_come_tothis?= References: Message-ID: <46A745AE.000001.61663@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads Date : 25/07/2007 13:05:27 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis > Tim : While pass is borderline for being an LA both 4H and X are clearly in the frame. I incline towards believing that X is suggested over 4H but could be persuaded otherwise. AG : yes, it is, since Dbl would lead to the right contract facing spade semi-length, while 4H will usually be based on a weak hand with long hearts and is therefore more or less definitive. However, if we consider that 4H was also suggested over pass and pass is a LA (which most would do), the conditions for adjusting the score are met. > Tim : Those who think action on the previous round was clear-cut obviously haven't lost as much money as I have over the years by wandering into an auction where opps are unlimited and we have no known fit. AG : those who think action on this round is clearcut (ie pass is no LA) obviously haven't lost enough IMPs and MPs by felling into the trap of a push bid". May I suggest the following layout ? North xxxx KJxx Axx Ax West Axx AQ10xx Jx Kxx South xx xx KQJxxx xxx East KQJx xx xx QJxxx Note that 4D might make while 3NT can't and 4H is a disaster. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070725/5ce637bb/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/20070725/5ce637bb/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070725/5ce637bb/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 25 15:06:29 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:06:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) In-Reply-To: <46A61408.3050909@meteo.fr> References: <46A5CCC3.2030603@skynet.be><46A5ECE1.4090408@meteo.fr> <46A5FD91.9050104@skynet.be> <46A61408.3050909@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > because i think that randomness is a necessary condition for a call to > be a psych. > the problem as i see it, and i don't know how to deal with, is the one > of "personal system", i mean a deterministic way of bidding used by a > player but unrevealed to his partner. what to do with this about > disclosure and system regulations? should we judge that after some > number of deals played together, each player is supposed to be > aware of > his partner's individual system (i think so)? only if he uses the > information (the CoP says it's irrelevant)? > this is a real paradox: bidding is a collective action, it needs > cooperation and collective training but we have individuals who bid of > their own, even in regular partnerships, maybe due to old rubber > habits. > are the laws adapted to this real situation? Neither disclosure nor system regulations can apply to a player's bidding habits, deterministic or otherwise, as long as they are "unrevealed to his partner"; as such, they cannot be considered "agreements" or "system". Of course, they need not be "revealed" explicitly, but may become so via "experience". The problem, of course, is that we have no way of knowing when partner's level of "awareness" reaches the critical threshhold that would transform a previously unnoticed habit into an "implicit agreement". The argument for requiring a finding of "use" rather than just "awareness" is simply that it *is* possible to make such judgments, albeit not entirely objectively -- the problems would not be dissimilar to what we face in routine UI adjudications. Jean-Pierre sensibly seeks some objective test, such as the "number of deals played together". The problem with that particular suggestion is that these things (consider the "Herman 1H") occur rather infrequently, so that the number of times they come up in a given number of deals played would vary wildly, and would always be zero in some cases regardless of the chosen number. As with so many other practical problems in bridge jurisprudence, the solution is trivial in theory: record everything, make complete histories available to TDs/ACs, yada yada. But that isn't going to happen in my lifetime, and I'm not sure we'd want it to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Wed Jul 25 15:18:35 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:18:35 +0900 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (wasEquity) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200707251318.AA09974@geller204.nifty.com> Eric Landau writes: >As with so many other practical problems in bridge jurisprudence, the >solution is trivial in theory: record everything, make complete >histories available to TDs/ACs, yada yada. But that isn't going to >happen in my lifetime, and I'm not sure we'd want it to. I don't see why it can't happen. All you need to do is put bar codes on the bidding cards. The playing cards already have bar codes so duplimate can deal them. Every time you bid or play you swipe the bidding card or playing card over a scanner. The cost would be low enough that this system could easly be afforded at major national and international events. It would make vu graph a lot easier to implement too. The data base would be avialble for all kinds of research purposes. A psyching history would be a minor benefit. If someone wanted to develop this system it shouldn't be too hard, as you could use all the preexisting technology from cash registers at supermarket checkouts. -Bob -Bob -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 25 15:39:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:39:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > .............. >>> What's the problem? >> >> Defining the boundary of the subset. We cannot assume that it is >> identical to the boundary of the full set (i.e. that "there is not a >> difference between the two"). > > IMO "Understanding" is the "full set", must be available to opponents > (declared) and may be regulated by SO. "Understanding" includes > explicit > agreements, implied agreements (from experience) as well as > knowledge (from > whatever source) of partner's habits as long as such knowledge can > have > impact on interpreting partner's calls. The "full set" offered by Richard was "heightened awareness", which I take to mean anything you are aware of that your opponents are not that might potentially affect your interpretation of partner's bidding or your subsequent choice of action. "Understandings" is the subset of "heightened awareness" that "must be available to opponents" -- that is what we are trying to define. I am not convinced that the set difference is empty. > Wherever the laws use any other term like "agreement" or > "experience" I take > that to be synonymous with "understanding" unless it is quite clear > from the > context that a more restricted meaning is intended. > > I am not aware of any place in the laws where such restricted > meaning seems > relevant except that Law 75C introduces the terms "general > experience" and > "general knowledge" which clearly means experience and knowledge > that apply > regardless of partnership (rather than because of the partnership). > > As for the legality (under Law 40A) of psychic calls I still > consider such > legality to be void whenever partner from his "understanding" (as > described > above) has reason to positively be aware of the call being a "psyche". > > Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as > surprised as opponents. I would argue that that's too simplistic. I may have a "heightened awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a) he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", or that my failure to reveal it makes the psych "not legal". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 25 15:56:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:56:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis References: Message-ID: <005c01c7cec3$90b1e270$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis > > Mike: > > Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. I had always > understood that if we decided to disallow a call for UI reasons then that > call was not included in the weightings. It is certainly illegal in > England > (White Book 16.3) > That is so. When we discuss it amongst the purple jackets we reason as follows: The guy cheated his way to a contract. A non-cheat would not have made this call but we must consider all calls the non-cheat might have made. This does not preclude a different route arriving in the same contract, of course. I don't see why this needs regulation, - either the "cheat" "... carefully avoid..."s the bid, so it's not in the frame, or he wasn't "cheating" John From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 25 15:56:28 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:56:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9D155@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** Mike Amos comments, more recently, that "Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. I had always understood that if we decided to disallow a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the weightings. It is certainly illegal in England " In EBL and WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply. When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the time if that was judged to be what would happen had no irregularity occurred. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ton: I don't know what the appeal committee of the WBF is doing. I am not even sure that that committee has the authority to allow weighted rulings. I remember that the Laws Committee has talked about the subject. And I can assure you that 'no strong body' has expressed its opinion that if a call is not accepted because it could have been made under the influence of UI, it could get a weight other then zero in the adjusted score. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 25 16:16:44 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:16:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070725160331.02827270@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:39 25/07/2007 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as > > surprised as opponents. > >I would argue that that's too simplistic. I may have a "heightened >awareness" that partner is psyching his call AG : I may also have awareness because I see my hand, and that's not disclosable. Take EBU appeal # 19, for example. South holds a 9-count, sees partner open a stong NT (3rd, none vul) and opponents bid to 3NT without any apparent problem. As South, partner's psyche wouldn't be a surprise at all, while opponents might well place the cards wrongly, because they don't know I don't hold a yarborough (which would give partner enough for his bid). Other case : partner opens a natural 2C, and they double for penalties. If I hold 6 clubs, am I compelled to raise ? NB : it happened not far ago (I wasn't implied), and the player only made a slip of the finger : he wanted to open a Multi 2D. The fact that he did *something* unusual was obvious to partner, but a surprise to opponents. So what ? should the ruling be different if 2C was a psyche ? Best regards Alain From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 16:11:24 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:11:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: References: <001401c7ce0c$2b7de9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707250711p4d43ddb8ve93006d1c6b5fbc2@mail.gmail.com> On 7/25/07, Eric Landau wrote: > I would argue that that's too simplistic. I may have a "heightened > awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a) > he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has > been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I > estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that > that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", or that my failure > to reveal it makes the psych "not legal". Eric has just raised what I consider to be an interesting point: To what extent should psyches be considered as "atomic". Alternatively, are psyches correlated with one another. Case in point: Suppose that parnter has psyched a 1S advance after the sequence 1C - (X) - 1S. Two hands later, the opponents open a strong club and partner overcalls 1S. Does my knowledge that partner is prone to one "baby psyche" impact our understandings about other baby psyches? -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 25 16:19:51 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:19:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c7cec6$dd471c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .............. > > Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as > > surprised as opponents. > > I would argue that that's too simplistic. Well, it is a (simplified) short form. I may have a "heightened > awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a) > he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has > been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I > estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that > that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", or that my failure > to reveal it makes the psych "not legal". As long as the latter is just your feeling and not a fact that you have a very bad game I fully agree. But if you know for certain, for example from half-time comparison of team results, that you have a very bad game and "know" that your partner in such situations is likely to try some "wild shots" I am not so sure. I believe such knowledge ("understanding") is an example of "special partnership experience" which _is_ disclosable. However, I am not so sure that I would rule a psyche illegal just for that reason. I think this (interesting question as it is) could be a borderline decision. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 25 17:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: Réf. : Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis In-Reply-To: <46A745AE.000001.61663@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > However, if we consider that 4H was also suggested over pass and > pass is a LA (which most would do), the conditions for adjusting the > score are met. Indeed they are. But here's a curious thing. The irregularities were the break in tempo over 4D *and* the use of UI in selecting a double. Remove the irregularities and ask what calls may have been chosen: Your answer is 4H and Pass. That might (depends on perceived probabilities) lead to a L12c2 ruling of 4H=NOS, 4D-2 OS. Reviewing that ruling in search of equity one might arrive at the 67/33 weighting given in Jesolo. The fact that one believes 4H (a bid not actually made) is also suggested over pass does not legally preclude a weighting of the 4H bid in the final adjustment. > AG : those who think action on this round is clearcut I don't think the action on this round is necessarily clear-cut - I think X and 4H are both possible. > (ie pass is no LA) obviously haven't lost enough IMPs and MPs by IMPs, Schimps. Follow the money. I'm not a junior and hope I haven't implied that Pass wouldn't be an LA for anyone. I'm just saying (as part of the poll response) that I'm someone who might have passed last time but wouldn't consider passing this time. Most poll respondents were of the "I would definitely have bid previously" school. > felling into the trap of a push bid". > May I suggest the following layout ? > > North xxxx KJxx Axx Ax > West Axx AQ10xx Jx Kxx > South xx xx KQJxxx xxx > East KQJx xx xx QJxxx Hey, if the kid in the North seat is good enough to find a trap 4D bid on that hand instead of just shooting 3N last time *and* my defence is crap enough to let 4Dx make then hats off to him. BTW 4H might be a disaster but 4S isn't a tragedy on the expected DK lead. Maybe there are reasons why I choose to double 4D rather than bid 4H ;) Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 25 17:30:02 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000a01c7cec6$dd471c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c7cec6$dd471c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46A76C7A.8060807@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > As long as the latter is just your feeling and not a fact that you have a > very bad game I fully agree. But if you know for certain, for example from > half-time comparison of team results, that you have a very bad game and > "know" that your partner in such situations is likely to try some "wild > shots" I am not so sure. > > I believe such knowledge ("understanding") is an example of "special > partnership experience" which _is_ disclosable. However, I am not so sure > that I would rule a psyche illegal just for that reason. I think this > (interesting question as it is) could be a borderline decision. > Of course such knowledge is disclosable - how can that be in any doubt? But why this would lead to the psyche being "illegal" is still a mistery to me. Are you still under the mistaken impression that non-disclosure makes the call itself illegal, Sven? That is not what L40C says! If there is an infraction of non-disclosure, then the TD will assign an AS on the basis of the call being better explained, NOT on the basis of the call not being made. OTOH, if you still believe that a psyche about which something more can be said by partner is not a psyche, but a piece of system which would be considered HUM, then you have learnt nothing from this very long thread. In order for a psyche to become systemic, something more is needed than mere knowledge by partner about the psyching frequencies of the psycher. Could we agree on some of these points at last, please? > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 25 18:43:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:43:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> On Jul 24, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Mike Amos wrote: > I can conatin myself no more > The TDs in Jesolo ruled 33% of 4H= NS +420 and 67% of 4D-2 NS +100 > Comments please Nigel has written several posts in this forum deprecating the use of L12C3. He argues that it results in adjustments that are insufficiently harsh on the OS to serve as a deterrent to future infractions, and do not fully and fairly compensate the NOS. A couple more rulings like that one and there will be nobody left on BLML willing to argue otherwise. Perhaps the TDs thought that there was a 33% chance that North was still looking at his hand from the previous board when he passed 3D. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 25 19:14:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:14:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1><000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david><001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c7cedf$39c13260$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis > On Jul 24, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Mike Amos wrote: > >> I can conatin myself no more >> The TDs in Jesolo ruled 33% of 4H= NS +420 and 67% of 4D-2 NS +100 >> Comments please > > Nigel has written several posts in this forum deprecating the use of > L12C3. He argues that it results in adjustments that are > insufficiently harsh on the OS to serve as a deterrent to future > infractions, and do not fully and fairly compensate the NOS. A > couple more rulings like that one and there will be nobody left on > BLML willing to argue otherwise. I find I have to agree. John > > Perhaps the TDs thought that there was a 33% chance that North was > still looking at his hand from the previous board when he passed 3D. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 25 21:23:14 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:23:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis In-Reply-To: <000601c7cedf$39c13260$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: > > Perhaps the TDs thought that there was a 33% chance that North was > still looking at his hand from the previous board when he passed 3D. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net I like the joke, could somebody pass it to Antonio Ricardi please? I don't agree with the conclusion that these rulings weaken the position of L 12C3, it should weaken the position of the TD giving such ruling. But then Antonio knows he is not allowed to do it. With this kind of argument every law is in danger. ton From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 26 00:02:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:02:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200707251425.l6PEPSbe007459@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >> Mike Amos comments, more recently, that >>"Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. >>I had always understood that if we decided to disallow >>a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the >>weightings. It is certainly illegal in England " In EBL and >>WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply. >>When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of >>weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that >>equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the >>time if that was judged to be what would happen had >>no irregularity occurred. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ton Kooijman: >I don't know what the appeal committee of the WBF is doing. I >am not even sure that that committee has the authority to >allow weighted rulings. I remember that the Laws Committee has >talked about the subject. And I can assure you that 'no strong >body' has expressed its opinion that if a call is not accepted >because it could have been made under the influence of UI, it >could get a weight other then zero in the adjusted score. Richard Hills: Have we really come to this, that the WBF Appeals Committee has allowed rulings which are _disallowed_ by the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees??? WBF Code of Practice, page 7: "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." Richard Hills: The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made a basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is "the irregularity". Since the WBF CoP states that it is _the use of information_ which is "the irregularity", then it is illegally contrary to the WBF CoP for the WBF AC to include the disallowed call in the weightings. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 26 01:07:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made a > basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is > "the irregularity". Hesitations *are* irregularities (L73a2 Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste). The use of UI is an infraction. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 26 03:23:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:23:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, page 7: "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." Richard Hills: >>The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made >>a basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is >>"the irregularity". Tim West-Meads: >Hesitations *are* irregularities: Law 73A2 (first phrase): "Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste" Richard Hills: In my opinion, "without undue" in Law 73A2 equals "without design" in the CoP. That is, it is only those rare hesitations which are Law 73F2 "could have known" deceptive hesitations, or alternatively those rare hesitations which are Law 73B2 deliberate communications with partner, that can be described as irregularities. 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 geller at nifty.com Thu Jul 26 05:20:12 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:20:12 +0900 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200707260320.AA09982@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes >In my opinion, "without undue" in Law 73A2 equals "without >design" in the CoP. That is, it is only those rare hesitations >which are Law 73F2 "could have known" deceptive hesitations, or >alternatively those rare hesitations which are Law 73B2 >deliberate communications with partner, that can be described as >irregularities. Irregularity is clearly defined in the Laws (definitions) http://web2.acbl.org/laws/definitions.htm#SECTION00400000000000000000 as follows: Irregularity A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws. This definition appears to make it clear that a deviation from the regular tempo encouraged by the Laws is indeed an irrgularity. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 26 08:18:05 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:18:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ton: I am not aware of such a decision taken by the WBF appeal committee. It would have upset some of us at that time and I do not remember such feeling. **************** WBF Code of Practice, page 7: "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." Richard Hills: The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made a basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is "the irregularity". Since the WBF CoP states that it is _the use of information_ which is "the irregularity", then it is illegally contrary to the WBF CoP for the WBF AC to include the disallowed call in the weightings. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 26 09:19:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > In my opinion, "without undue" in Law 73A2 equals "without > design" in the CoP. Due hesitations are those required by the SO in relation to stop bids or expected based on local custom and practice. Undue hesitations are those caused by players thinking too long about their next action. Bridge is a game of regular tempo, the laws say so, WTP? Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 26 11:17:14 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:17:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> References: <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:43 25/07/2007 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Nigel has written several posts in this forum deprecating the use of >L12C3. He argues that it results in adjustments that are >insufficiently harsh on the OS to serve as a deterrent to future >infractions, and do not fully and fairly compensate the NOS. A >couple more rulings like that one and there will be nobody left on >BLML willing to argue otherwise. When L12C3 is used in its proper field of action, there is no problem. When you unduly hesitate with a small doubleton and the TD or AC rules your opponent would have found the Queen two-thirds of the time, you aren't better placed than before the infraction. The fact that giving a throw-in to the soccer team one of whose members was just fouled within the box is insufficient compensation doesn't necessarily mean that the rules for throw-ins are wrong. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 26 11:51:09 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:51:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard wrote: > >> The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals >> Committee made a basic error by assuming that it is >> _the hesitation_ which is "the irregularity". > > Hesitations *are* irregularities (L73a2 Calls and plays > should be made without special emphasis, mannerism > or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste). > The use of UI is an infraction. > > Tim > +=+Law 16A2: "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." Law 12C3: "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." Law 12C2 contains the phrase "had the irregularity not occurred". Variation under Law 12C3 is open-ended in the discretion of the appeals committee (subject to any regulation). It is for the appeals committee to judge how to "do equity". One should not be led by one's personal inclination to read into a law words that are not present. I support a principle that was enunciated by our WBF CTD Emeritus in 1997: "Mr Schoder remarked upon Edgar Kaplan's skills in separating out the concerns of the committee from those of other bodies, avoiding trespass in other areas of responsibility He invited the committee post-Kaplan to further this aspect of his methods." Matters of bridge judgement, including the assessment of 'equity', are not within the purview of the Laws Committee and there should be no restriction in law on the making of such judgements by appeals committees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 26 13:33:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:33:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> References: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <46A886A4.4000008@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************************** > "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" > - Henry II of England. > ................................................... > Q: Did the King yield up his four knights > to the justice of the See of Rome? > *********************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard wrote: >> >>> The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals >>> Committee made a basic error by assuming that it is >>> _the hesitation_ which is "the irregularity". >> Hesitations *are* irregularities (L73a2 Calls and plays >> should be made without special emphasis, mannerism >> or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste). >> The use of UI is an infraction. >> >> Tim >> > +=+Law 16A2: "The Director shall require the auction > and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted > score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted > in damage." > Law 12C3: "Unless Zonal Organisations specify > otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned > adjusted score in order to do equity." > Law 12C2 contains the phrase "had the irregularity > not occurred". Variation under Law 12C3 is open-ended > in the discretion of the appeals committee (subject to any > regulation). It is for the appeals committee to judge how > to "do equity". One should not be led by one's personal > inclination to read into a law words that are not present. > I support a principle that was enunciated by our WBF > CTD Emeritus in 1997: "Mr Schoder remarked upon > Edgar Kaplan's skills in separating out the concerns of the > committee from those of other bodies, avoiding trespass > in other areas of responsibility He invited the committee > post-Kaplan to further this aspect of his methods." > Matters of bridge judgement, including the assessment of > 'equity', are not within the purview of the Laws Committee > and there should be no restriction in law on the making of > such judgements by appeals committees. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Come off the fence, Grattan, and tell us what you really think. It is all very fine to keep saying that a particular body has the power to make a particular decision. That does not mean that they are correct in doing so (I originally had the word "right" in two places in these 2 sentences). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 26 14:19:42 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:19:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20070726065358.05D2D1C000A1@mwinf3417.me.freeserve.com> Message-ID: <000801c7cf7f$52c84000$cfa687d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we will discuss your options afterwards." ~ Bill Shankly. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: ; Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > ton: > > I am not aware of such a decision taken by the > WBF appeal committee. It would have upset > some of us at that time and I do not remember > such feeling. > +=+ It is not necessarily the case that a non-member of the appeals committee would be aware of the discussion. For reasons that will occur to some I do not wish to name names but I am clear in my mind as to how we negotiated the decision to incorporate weighted 12C3 adjustments in our armoury. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 26 15:17:31 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:17:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <000a01c7cec6$dd471c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c7cec6$dd471c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2CA9B594-D5E4-4630-9708-A23CDC141C85@starpower.net> On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > .............. >>> Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as >>> surprised as opponents. >> >> I would argue that that's too simplistic. > > Well, it is a (simplified) short form. > > I may have a "heightened >> awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a) >> he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has >> been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I >> estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that >> that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", or that my failure >> to reveal it makes the psych "not legal". > > As long as the latter is just your feeling and not a fact that you > have a > very bad game I fully agree. But if you know for certain, for > example from > half-time comparison of team results, that you have a very bad game > and > "know" that your partner in such situations is likely to try some > "wild > shots" I am not so sure. > > I believe such knowledge ("understanding") is an example of "special > partnership experience" which _is_ disclosable. However, I am not > so sure > that I would rule a psyche illegal just for that reason. I think this > (interesting question as it is) could be a borderline decision. Although I wrote that partner will only make this psych "when he has been having a very bad game", what that really means, of course, is "when *he thinks* he has been having a very bad game". It's not obvious that my own estimate (assuming I haven't shared it with my partner) can ever be considered "partnership experience", "special" or otherwise. Or does partner's psych "become illegal" only if my "partnership experience" tells me that partner's estimates of our game typically match my own? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 26 15:36:27 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:36:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat In-Reply-To: <46A76C7A.8060807@skynet.be> References: <000a01c7cec6$dd471c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46A76C7A.8060807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <57E76338-0690-4E51-8820-6EFE40547908@starpower.net> On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> As long as the latter is just your feeling and not a fact that you >> have a >> very bad game I fully agree. But if you know for certain, for >> example from >> half-time comparison of team results, that you have a very bad >> game and >> "know" that your partner in such situations is likely to try some >> "wild >> shots" I am not so sure. >> >> I believe such knowledge ("understanding") is an example of "special >> partnership experience" which _is_ disclosable. However, I am not >> so sure >> that I would rule a psyche illegal just for that reason. I think this >> (interesting question as it is) could be a borderline decision. >> > > Of course such knowledge is disclosable - how can that be in any > doubt? From the strength of his language, I suspect Herman has misread the exchange. The "knowledge" in question is my estimate of my current score, on which my "heightened awareness" that partner may be psyching depends. This thread is the first time I've heard anyone even suggest the possibility that this is information to which the opponents are entitled by law, so "of course" or "how can that be in any doubt" look like serious overbids. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 26 16:06:14 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:06:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>> Mike Amos comments, more recently, that >>> "Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. >>> I had always understood that if we decided to disallow >>> a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the >>> weightings. It is certainly illegal in England " In EBL and >>> WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply. >>> When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of >>> weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that >>> equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the >>> time if that was judged to be what would happen had >>> no irregularity occurred. >>> >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Ton Kooijman: > >> I don't know what the appeal committee of the WBF is doing. I >> am not even sure that that committee has the authority to >> allow weighted rulings. I remember that the Laws Committee has >> talked about the subject. And I can assure you that 'no strong >> body' has expressed its opinion that if a call is not accepted >> because it could have been made under the influence of UI, it >> could get a weight other then zero in the adjusted score. > > Richard Hills: > > Have we really come to this, that the WBF Appeals Committee has > allowed rulings which are _disallowed_ by the WBF Code of > Practice for Appeals Committees??? > > WBF Code of Practice, page 7: > > "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information > available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law > or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a > breach of the laws." > > Richard Hills: > > The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made a > basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is > "the irregularity". Since the WBF CoP states that it is _the > use of information_ which is "the irregularity", then it is > illegally contrary to the WBF CoP for the WBF AC to include the > disallowed call in the weightings. I think I see where the problem is coming from. The "real" infraction is making a call which was suggested by the UI, which does not necessarily mean making the call actually chosen; in Ton's words, "a call is not accepted because it could have been made under the influence of UI". Thus a literal reading of "had the irregularity not occurred" would require that zero weight be given not only to the call the offender actually made, but to all other "suggested alternatives" as well. That would certainly please some folks, as it would make L12C3 applicable to far fewer cases than it otherwise would be (and result, on average, in harsher adjustments for offenders). But it would represent a whole new approach, and negate the precedential value of established L12C3-related jurisprudence. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 26 16:16:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:16:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42E3D541-58D6-4051-8718-F49C25051448@starpower.net> On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Richard wrote: > >> The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made a >> basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is >> "the irregularity". > > Hesitations *are* irregularities (L73a2 Calls and plays should be made > without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue > hesitation or haste). The use of UI is an infraction. Hesitations are irrgularities, but L12C2 carefully uses the phrase "had *the* [emphasis mine] irregularity not occurred" rather than something like "had no irregularity occurred". That denotes some specific irregularity. Since L12 applies only when there has been a "violation of law", I think we can safely assume that it is the violation of law that is "the" irregularity beling referred to. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 16:27:37 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:27:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707260727w31d1bb74x561ba67fb3236d4f@mail.gmail.com> On 7/26/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > When L12C3 is used in its proper field of action, there is no problem. > When you unduly hesitate with a small doubleton and the TD or AC rules your > opponent would have found the Queen two-thirds of the time, you aren't > better placed than before the infraction. > OK, you are assuming that absent the infraction, the Queen is found only half the time, even by the best opponents. But actually you *are* better placed than before the infraction, provided your infraction earns a director call and the ruling less than 75% of the time. In practice, this would be the case in a universe with your 2/3-style rulings, don't you think? The appeal of L12C3 escapes me. Did a proponent of L12C3 ever attempt to refute the obvious bad incentive effects (for NOS as well as OS) of their law? -Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 26 16:44:08 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:44:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> References: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <281324F2-038F-4F1D-AF74-83FF3CB14C58@starpower.net> On Jul 26, 2007, at 5:51 AM, wrote: > +=+Law 16A2: "The Director shall require the auction > and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted > score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted > in damage." > Law 12C3: "Unless Zonal Organisations specify > otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned > adjusted score in order to do equity." > Law 12C2 contains the phrase "had the irregularity > not occurred". Variation under Law 12C3 is open-ended > in the discretion of the appeals committee (subject to any > regulation). It is for the appeals committee to judge how > to "do equity". One should not be led by one's personal > inclination to read into a law words that are not present. > I support a principle that was enunciated by our WBF > CTD Emeritus in 1997: "Mr Schoder remarked upon > Edgar Kaplan's skills in separating out the concerns of the > committee from those of other bodies, avoiding trespass > in other areas of responsibility He invited the committee > post-Kaplan to further this aspect of his methods." > Matters of bridge judgement, including the assessment of > 'equity', are not within the purview of the Laws Committee > and there should be no restriction in law on the making of > such judgements by appeals committees. In other words, the (presumably intended) effect of L12C3 is to totally invalidate L12C2, at least for infractions that reach an AC, which is free to give any assigned score it chooses (including scores that could not actually have been obtained in play) any time it chooses on any basis it chooses (that is what "open-ended in the discretion of" means, isn't it?), subject only to whatever regulations may be imposed by local jurisdictions; TFLB has no guidance whatsoever to offer on the subject beyond "do equity". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 26 16:56:10 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:56:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707260727w31d1bb74x561ba67fb3236d4f@mail.gmail.co m> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:27 26/07/2007 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >On 7/26/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>When L12C3 is used in its proper field of action, there is no problem. >>When you unduly hesitate with a small doubleton and the TD or AC rules your >>opponent would have found the Queen two-thirds of the time, you aren't >>better placed than before the infraction. > >OK, you are assuming that absent the infraction, the Queen is found >only half the time, even by the best opponents. But actually you >*are* better placed than before the infraction, provided your >infraction earns a director call and the ruling less than 75% of the >time. In practice, this would be the case in a universe with your >2/3-style rulings, don't you think? AG : then you'll have to weight and add a PP for the OS. The fact of giving to the NOS 100% benefit of the right line of play isn't fair to those who sit in the same line. Best regards Alain From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 18:09:26 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:09:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0707260909u4961e6d2re9c116416de61433@mail.gmail.com> On 7/26/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:27 26/07/2007 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >On 7/26/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> > >>When L12C3 is used in its proper field of action, there is no problem. > >>When you unduly hesitate with a small doubleton and the TD or AC rules your > >>opponent would have found the Queen two-thirds of the time, you aren't > >>better placed than before the infraction. > > > >OK, you are assuming that absent the infraction, the Queen is found > >only half the time, even by the best opponents. But actually you > >*are* better placed than before the infraction, provided your > >infraction earns a director call and the ruling less than 75% of the > >time. In practice, this would be the case in a universe with your > >2/3-style rulings, don't you think? > > > AG : then you'll have to weight and add a PP for the OS. The fact of giving > to the NOS 100% benefit of the right line of play isn't fair to those who > sit in the same line. > Since you now want to add a PP (though wonderfully rare for this kind of infraction), you clearly consider 2/3 by itself inadequate. (And many L12C3 users will rule 50% to "do equity"---even worse.) As for fairness to those who sit in the same line, I call it just one more kind of rub of the green. Furthermore, it is unfairly beneficial to those who sit in the same line when the infraction is unredressed, which is more frequent with L12C3. No matter what you do with your laws, you need a good set of incentives. With the weaker incentives that you get with L12C3, the undue hesitations would become more frequent. Though it may be counterintuitive, fairness to those who sit in the same line is therefore probably better on average without L12C3. -Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 26 18:19:30 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:19:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A8C992.2060909@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Mike Amos comments, more recently, that >>>> "Having said that, no one has attended to the ruling itself. >>>> I had always understood that if we decided to disallow >>>> a call for UI reasons then that call was not included in the >>>> weightings. It is certainly illegal in England " In EBL and >>>> WBF tournaments the English inhibition does not apply. >>>> When the WBF Appeals Committee decided to allow of >>>> weighted rulings there was a strong body of opinion that >>>> equity requires that we allow the call a proportion of the >>>> time if that was judged to be what would happen had >>>> no irregularity occurred. >>>> >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> Ton Kooijman: >> >>> I don't know what the appeal committee of the WBF is doing. I >>> am not even sure that that committee has the authority to >>> allow weighted rulings. I remember that the Laws Committee has >>> talked about the subject. And I can assure you that 'no strong >>> body' has expressed its opinion that if a call is not accepted >>> because it could have been made under the influence of UI, it >>> could get a weight other then zero in the adjusted score. >> Richard Hills: >> >> Have we really come to this, that the WBF Appeals Committee has >> allowed rulings which are _disallowed_ by the WBF Code of >> Practice for Appeals Committees??? >> >> WBF Code of Practice, page 7: >> >> "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information >> available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law >> or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a >> breach of the laws." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The "strong body of opinion" on the WBF Appeals Committee made a >> basic error by assuming that it is _the hesitation_ which is >> "the irregularity". Since the WBF CoP states that it is _the >> use of information_ which is "the irregularity", then it is >> illegally contrary to the WBF CoP for the WBF AC to include the >> disallowed call in the weightings. > > I think I see where the problem is coming from. The "real" > infraction is making a call which was suggested by the UI, which does > not necessarily mean making the call actually chosen; in Ton's words, > "a call is not accepted because it could have been made under the > influence of UI". Thus a literal reading of "had the irregularity > not occurred" would require that zero weight be given not only to the > call the offender actually made, but to all other "suggested > alternatives" as well. That would certainly please some folks, as it > would make L12C3 applicable to far fewer cases than it otherwise > would be (and result, on average, in harsher adjustments for > offenders). But it would represent a whole new approach, and negate > the precedential value of established L12C3-related jurisprudence. > Of course it makes all suggested alternatives weight zero. But then it's rather unusual to be using L12C3 (or rather, weighted scores) in UI cases anyway. L12C3 is more often used for MI cases, in which it is far less contested (I think). After all, do you really want to give a NOs 100% of the best thing they could have done with better information? > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 26 20:40:14 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:40:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? References: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> <281324F2-038F-4F1D-AF74-83FF3CB14C58@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c7cfb4$81e85b60$749887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we will discuss your options afterwards." ~ Bill Shankly. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? > In other words, the (presumably intended) effect of L12C3 is to > totally invalidate L12C2, at least for infractions that reach an AC, > which is free to give any assigned score it chooses (including scores > that could not actually have been obtained in play) any time it > chooses on any basis it chooses (that is what "open-ended in the > discretion of" means, isn't it?), subject only to whatever > regulations may be imposed by local jurisdictions; TFLB has no > guidance whatsoever to offer on the subject beyond "do equity". > +=+ The history of the matter is that when Kaplan wished to introduce 12C2 into the Law Book the European Zonal Organization opposed it and was not prepared to accept it. Of this a compromise was born whereby Kaplan had his 12C2 and, via the forerunner to 12C3, the Europeans retained the right to continue to do what they believed in - award an adjustment, as was their practice, that sought to be more equitable and less extreme. (This was before the calculation was refined with the introduction of weighting.) If there had been no such compromise there would have been no 12C2. I know; I was the hit man despatched by the EBL to ensure it would not be saddled with a Law it considered pernicious. The Europeans viewed 12C2 as departing from the avowed canon of the law book that the " Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather as redress for damage". What you say, Eric, is therefore broadly right, except that the basis must be an effort to do equity. It is neither the function nor the aim of the Law Book to define 'equity'. That is a question of bridge judgement, a question for those appointed to make bridge judgements, and I would doubt that it would even be possible to safely and conclusively define for all situations in specific terms what constitutes 'equity'. Herman invites me to "Come off the fence, Grattan, and tell us what you really think." He adds "it is all very fine to keep saying that a particular body has the power to make a particular decision. That does not mean that they are correct in doing so". Well, what I think is that having fought to retain for appeals committees the power to exercise judgement, I should not be surprised if, on occasion, they do so in a manner that I find strange. So, to adapt a common misquotation, I may disapprove of what they do but I will defend to the death their right to do it. As for the particular AC decision, I was not in the committee room, I know only as little as I have read of the scant amount that has been reported here at third hand and, I could opine, tendentiously. That is no basis on which I would express an opinion or condemn the judgement of those who dealt with the case in the committee room. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 26 22:16:43 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:16:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:27 26/07/2007 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On 7/26/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> When L12C3 is used in its proper field of action, there is no >>> problem. >>> When you unduly hesitate with a small doubleton and the TD or AC >>> rules your >>> opponent would have found the Queen two-thirds of the time, you >>> aren't >>> better placed than before the infraction. >> >> OK, you are assuming that absent the infraction, the Queen is found >> only half the time, even by the best opponents. But actually you >> *are* better placed than before the infraction, provided your >> infraction earns a director call and the ruling less than 75% of the >> time. In practice, this would be the case in a universe with your >> 2/3-style rulings, don't you think? > > AG : then you'll have to weight and add a PP for the OS. The fact > of giving > to the NOS 100% benefit of the right line of play isn't fair to > those who > sit in the same line. "Giving to the NOS 100% benefit of the right [guess]" has exactly the same effect on "those who sit in the same line" as does the pair at the next table guessing correctly. If the latter isn't "unfair", why should the former be? To be "fair to the line" in the way Alain suggests would require giving every pair an adjusted score that was weighted by the percentage of the time that the opposite line guessed right or wrong, as every pair's scores were just as much "at the mercy" of their opponents', and beyond their own control, as the NOS's. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 26 22:26:39 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: <46A8C992.2060909@skynet.be> References: <46A8C992.2060909@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 26, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Of course it makes all suggested alternatives weight zero. > But then it's rather unusual to be using L12C3 (or rather, weighted > scores) in UI cases anyway. L12C3 is more often used for MI cases, in > which it is far less contested (I think). After all, do you really > want to give a NOs 100% of the best thing they could have done with > better information? No, not "the best thing they could have done", merely "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". Gee, that phrase has a nice ring to it. Perhaps I'd already seen it somewhere once before. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 27 10:22:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:22:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707260909u4961e6d2re9c116416de61433@mail.gmail.com> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0707260909u4961e6d2re9c116416de61433@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A9AB57.3080001@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 7/26/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> At 09:27 26/07/2007 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> On 7/26/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> When L12C3 is used in its proper field of action, there is no problem. >>>> When you unduly hesitate with a small doubleton and the TD or AC rules your >>>> opponent would have found the Queen two-thirds of the time, you aren't >>>> better placed than before the infraction. >>> OK, you are assuming that absent the infraction, the Queen is found >>> only half the time, even by the best opponents. But actually you >>> *are* better placed than before the infraction, provided your >>> infraction earns a director call and the ruling less than 75% of the >>> time. In practice, this would be the case in a universe with your >>> 2/3-style rulings, don't you think? >> >> AG : then you'll have to weight and add a PP for the OS. The fact of giving >> to the NOS 100% benefit of the right line of play isn't fair to those who >> sit in the same line. >> > > Since you now want to add a PP (though wonderfully rare for this kind > of infraction), you clearly consider 2/3 by itself inadequate. (And > many L12C3 users will rule 50% to "do equity"---even worse.) As for > fairness to those who sit in the same line, I call it just one more > kind of rub of the green. Furthermore, it is unfairly beneficial to > those who sit in the same line when the infraction is unredressed, > which is more frequent with L12C3. > > No matter what you do with your laws, you need a good set of > incentives. With the weaker incentives that you get with L12C3, the > undue hesitations would become more frequent. Though it may be > counterintuitive, fairness to those who sit in the same line is > therefore probably better on average without L12C3. > Since L12C3 should really not be invoked in UI cases, your point is moot. It is a good point though against those who overuse L12C3, as in this case. But anyway, I would really wish the Americans stopped argueing against L12C3. You don't know it, so don't criticize it. We know it and we think it's OK. > -Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 27 10:25:20 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:25:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1><000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david><001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1><3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net><5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0707260727w31d1bb74x561ba67fb3236d4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009901c7d027$cb368bc0$359387d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "The trouble with referees is that they know the rules , but they don't know the game." [Bill Shankly] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Alain Gottcheiner" Cc: ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this > > The appeal of L12C3 escapes me. Did a proponent > of L12C3 ever attempt to refute the obvious bad incentive > effects (for NOS as well as OS) of their law? > +=+ Jerry, I think you need to go back to the roots of the matter. In Europe the practice was to assess the equity in the board of each side and award an adjusted score that reflected the assessment. Along came Edgar with his "most favourable result that was likely" and his "most unfavourable result that was at all probable", and the EBL said 'this man is trying to use score adjustment to punish and that is not the purpose of score adjustment - no way do we agree to that, if there are grounds for punishing (i.e. malfeasance) the recourse is to deduct penalty points from the adjusted score of the offending side'. This reflected exactly the provisions in the 1975 Law Book. The will of the EBL was to maintain the law as it was in the 1975 book, but the Gigante Kaplan was determined to reform it to his concept so that the 12C3 option (initially a footnote) was negotiated to allow the EBL retention of its 1975 method. Calculation of the assessed equity by a weighted adjustment was a later development and may have tended to obscure partly the penalty points provision in the 1975 Law 12. This reads: : "The number of points assigned to the non-offending side should not exceed the number required to offset the irregularity. The number of points assigned to the offending side may be reduced by penalty points. Penalty points and indemnity points need not balance." Frankly speaking, as a statement of principle of what score adjustment is all about, that reads as well for me as anything I have seen. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 27 10:26:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:26:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46A9AC42.8040403@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> AG : then you'll have to weight and add a PP for the OS. The fact >> of giving >> to the NOS 100% benefit of the right line of play isn't fair to >> those who >> sit in the same line. > > "Giving to the NOS 100% benefit of the right [guess]" has exactly the > same effect on "those who sit in the same line" as does the pair at > the next table guessing correctly. But in cases where L12C3 applies, the pair at the next table that guesses correctly is balanced by the pair at the table after that one, that guesses wrongly. Anyway, I don't like the argument of protecting the field, but I do like the argument of giving two pairs who have done nothing right or wrong (the infraction being cancelled *) a top and a bottom. (*) remember that we're talking on the whole about MI cases. Usually, the NOs there has done not a lot wrong, MI being often the result of misunderstandings or such. People do not deserve zeroes for that, nor do their opponents deserve automatic tops. > If the latter isn't "unfair", why > should the former be? To be "fair to the line" in the way Alain > suggests would require giving every pair an adjusted score that was > weighted by the percentage of the time that the opposite line guessed > right or wrong, as every pair's scores were just as much "at the > mercy" of their opponents', and beyond their own control, as the NOS's. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 27 14:32:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707260727w31d1bb74x561ba67fb3236d4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry wrote: > The appeal of L12C3 escapes me. The main usefulness of L12c3 is to give NOS some recognition of more favourable, but not likely, results that L12c2 denies them. E.g. 20% 4S+1, 80% 4S= instead of just 4S=. (Similarly one can impose some measure of "improbable" worse scores on OS). In MI cases there are often multiple possible results and percentage mix (for NOS) of top/pretty good/decent/average will meet not only the expectations of NOS but also those of others who held the same cards. There is (almost) never a need to use L12c3 if the L12c2 split ruling has already given NOS the best of two *plausible* results and OS the worst one. Indeed, as a TD I would happily instruct an AC that they were not allowed so to do as a point of law. I'll also happily (until the WBFLC minutes otherwise) instruct TD's as to how they *must* interpret "doing equity". Judgements are for ACs - interpreting the law is the duty and responsibility of the TD alone. To me this approach is fairer on NOS than L12c2 and gives more incentive for them to call the TD (they can get adjustments more often). BTW, the *best* opponents find the Queen a lot more than half the time:) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 27 14:32:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <42E3D541-58D6-4051-8718-F49C25051448@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Wrote: > > Hesitations are irrgularities, but L12C2 carefully uses the phrase > "had *the* [emphasis mine] irregularity not occurred" rather than > something like "had no irregularity occurred". That denotes some > specific irregularity. Since L12 applies only when there has been > a "violation of law", I think we can safely assume that it is the > violation of law that is "the" irregularity beling referred to. Assuming Grattan's recollections are broadly correct I think one can readily believe that L12c2 is *very* carefully worded to allow either the initial irregularity OR the later infraction to be the referent. Taking a lead from the spirit expressed back then I would suggest that L12c3 rulings should (almost) never balance. While I don't disagree that restoring equity in an exercise in judgement I don't think that a closer definition of what equity *is* would damage the ability to exercise such judgement. IMO a Bit is not only an irregularity but a clear technical error. The opponents have every right to gain full benefit from such an error (albeit not all errors cost). Those who believe that breaking tempo isn't an error of itself are likely to have a different view of what equity means on a given hand. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 27 14:54:05 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:54:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: ...have we really come to this??? References: <67A3F4FC-3D20-4B11-B78B-A6670AFB3F56@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> In other words, the (presumably intended) effect of L12C3 is to >> totally invalidate L12C2, at least for infractions that reach an AC, >> which is free to give any assigned score it chooses (including scores >> that could not actually have been obtained in play) any time it >> chooses on any basis it chooses (that is what "open-ended in the >> discretion of" means, isn't it?), subject only to whatever >> regulations may be imposed by local jurisdictions; TFLB has no >> guidance whatsoever to offer on the subject beyond "do equity". >> > +=+ The history of the matter is that when Kaplan wished > to introduce 12C2 into the Law Book the European Zonal > Organization opposed it and was not prepared to accept it. > Of this a compromise was born whereby Kaplan had his > 12C2 and, via the forerunner to 12C3, the Europeans > retained the right to continue to do what they believed in - > award an adjustment, as was their practice, that sought to > be more equitable and less extreme. (This was before the > calculation was refined with the introduction of weighting.) > If there had been no such compromise there would have > been no 12C2. I know; I was the hit man despatched by > the EBL to ensure it would not be saddled with a Law it > considered pernicious. The Europeans viewed 12C2 as > departing from the avowed canon of the law book that > the > " Laws are primarily designed not as punishment > for irregularities but rather as redress for damage". > > What you say, Eric, is therefore broadly right, except that > the basis must be an effort to do equity. > It is neither the function nor the aim of the Law Book > to define 'equity'. That is a question of bridge judgement, > a question for those appointed to make bridge judgements, > and I would doubt that it would even be possible to safely > and conclusively define for all situations in specific terms > what constitutes 'equity'. Herman invites me to "Come off > the fence, Grattan, and tell us what you really think." He > adds "it is all very fine to keep saying that a particular > body has the power to make a particular decision. That > does not mean that they are correct in doing so". > Well, what I think is that having fought to retain for > appeals committees the power to exercise judgement, > I should not be surprised if, on occasion, they do so in > a manner that I find strange. So, to adapt a common > misquotation, I may disapprove of what they do but > I will defend to the death their right to do it. As for > the particular AC decision, I was not in the committee > room, I know only as little as I have read of the scant > amount that has been reported here at third hand and, > I could opine, tendentiously. That is no basis on which > I would express an opinion or condemn the judgement > of those who dealt with the case in the committee room. Grattan is to be thanked for providing us with some insight into the WBF's thinking. They do seem a bit schizoid, writing words into the law which they then follow up with minutes or interpretations saying that those words are not binding on any SO that wishes to ignore them. If the ACBL wanted L12C2, and the rest of the world wanted ACs to have discretion to do equity, why not have TFLB say that ACs have discretion to do equity subject to regulation by their ZO, and let the ACBL pass its own equivalent to L12C2? Could there be something in the subconscious psyche of the WBF that hates the idea that the ACBL will go its own way and there's nothing the WBF can do about it, that prevents them from writing laws that acknowledge this explicitly? It sounds to me like seven out of eight ZOs really do believe that there should be one set of laws and one interpreting authority, but are thwarted by the 800-pound gorilla who must be appeased at all costs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 27 16:10:32 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:10:32 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__European_Youth_Champion?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ships_or_have_we_really_come_tothis?= References: Message-ID: <46A9FCD7.000001.62619@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads Date : 07/27/07 14:35:32 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come tothis There is (almost) never a need to use L12c3 if the L12c2 split ruling has already given NOS the best of two *plausible* results and OS the worst one. Indeed, as a TD I would happily instruct an AC that they were not allowed so to do as a point of law. I'll also happily (until the WBFLC minutes otherwise) instruct TD's as to how they *must* interpret "doing equity". AG : many (including YT) will insist that, after MI or UI, except in absolutely obvious cases, the TD either : a) give the OS the worst possible result and let the AC change that, if needed. b) give a detailed ruling (e.g. weighting) but only after consulting. Ergo, the TD isn't instructed to do equity himself. He will seldom be able to touch all bases, however competent he is. Note that, on at least two occasions in the last batch of EBC/WBC appeals transmitted by David (that is, at a high level, where TDing should be top-flight too), the TD gave some benefit of doubt to the OS, from his own initiative, and at least once he was totally wrong in doing so (case 15). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070727/018f6423/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/20070727/018f6423/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 21075 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070727/018f6423/attachment-0001.gif From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jul 27 16:12:49 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:12:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really cometothis In-Reply-To: <009901c7d027$cb368bc0$359387d9@Hellen> Message-ID: provision in the 1975 Law 12. This reads: : "The number of points assigned to the non-offending side should not exceed the number required to offset the irregularity. The number of points assigned to the offending side may be reduced by penalty points. Penalty points and indemnity points need not balance." Frankly speaking, as a statement of principle of what score adjustment is all about, that reads as well for me as anything I have seen. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Though it seems clear what we want to say there the literal text reads as obscure as the worst laws in the '97 edition. I am happy it isn't used anymore. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 27 16:28:30 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:28:30 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__European_Youth_Champion?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ships_or_have_we_really_come_tothis?= References: <46A9FCD7.000001.62619@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46AA010D.000004.62619@CERAP-MATSH1> Note that, on at least two occasions in the last batch of EBC/WBC appeals transmitted by David (that is, at a high level, where TDing should be top-flight too), the TD gave some benefit of doubt to the OS, from his own initiative, and at least once he was totally wrong in doing so (case 15). Sorry, meant Case 9 (other being case 1) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070727/dcec8162/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/20070727/dcec8162/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070727/dcec8162/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 28 11:28:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:28:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0707270819u2de5280fu738bef0d6b4ba96c@mail.gmail.com> References: <000801c7cd94$25050b90$f44b9058@oakdene1> <000f01c7cdb8$dd0690a0$0600a8c0@david> <001f01c7ce49$981620f0$8595f257@oakdene1> <3EE707FC-B44C-49DF-8782-A53DF5234434@starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726111315.02813110@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20070726165355.027e6080@pop.ulb.ac.be> <46A9AC42.8040403@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0707270819u2de5280fu738bef0d6b4ba96c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46AB0C4B.3080507@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Herman, you wrote: > >> Anyway, I don't like the argument of protecting the field, but I do >> like the argument of giving two pairs who have done nothing right or >> wrong (the infraction being cancelled *) a top and a bottom. > > I cannot figure this sentence out, sorry. Is there a typo? (Maybe > everyone else can tell what you meant.) > Well, perhaps the sentence is better if I add: I do like the argument of _not having to give_ two pairs who have done nothing right or wrong a top and a bottom. What I mean is that for the small infraction of MI (sometimes) the Os do not deserve a full zero, while the NOs do not deserve a full top. > Regards, > Jerry Fusselman > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jul 28 12:25:28 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:25:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? References: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> <281324F2-038F-4F1D-AF74-83FF3CB14C58@starpower.net> <000e01c7cfb4$81e85b60$749887d9@Hellen> <67A3F4FC-3D20-4B11-B78B-A6670AFB3F56@starpower.net> <007e01c7d01a$2fb66c40$359387d9@Hellen> <4D0A9CA0-F03F-4899-B3EE-A25212AE8DFA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c7d102$97abffc0$f0aa87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "The trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they don't know the game." [Bill Shankly] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? > Hello Grattan. > > I have now reposted my original to BLML. Your response was > illuminating, and I urge you to post a public reply. /eric > =========================================== +=+ With respect to Eric's paragraph in which he wrote: << >> "If the ACBL wanted L12C2, and the rest of the >> world wanted ACs to have discretion to do equity, why >> not have TFLB say that ACs have discretion to do equity >> subject to regulation by their ZO, and let the ACBL pass >> its own equivalent to L12C2?" >> <<< I responded to Eric on this wise: << > " In the paragraph quoted here the reference to what the > 'ACBL' wanted is dubious - we did not identify 'Kaplan' as > 'the ACBL' and there was no evidence that he was proposing > with an ACBL mandate. Nor, on the other hand, did the EBL > constitute, or seek to speak for, the 'rest of the world' - even > if one could possibly say it was the only part of the rest of the > world sufficiently progressed at that time to stand up to Kaplan. > We did have a vision of the individual as being imbued > with his own sense of power and inclined to act as though the > law was what Kaplan said it was (and if it wasn't it should be)." ============================================ I can add something to the above. First, there were ACBL personalities who saw dangers in the kind of 'authoritarian' approach adopted by Edgar. It was largely their initiative that led to the 'Stop' placed on creation of law by individuals post Kaplan (WBFLC, item 4, 20th January 2000). Second, I quote from a letter I wrote with EBL LC backing on 28th July 1987, to Ed Theus (Chairman WBFLC): << I do ask that the Committee give attention to a point on which I have corresponded with Edgar and where we do not share an identical point of view. Put in the simplest terms I seek to institute a footnote to Law 93B3, with an asterisk against 'all powers', to say "But may vary a score assigned under Law 12C2 on grounds of equity." It is becoming apparent to me that, even allowing whatever deprivation the non-offending side may have suffered, a literal application of the Law will still prove grossly inequitable at times - there should be an escape clause for Appeals Committees to apply in such circumstances. I make these points: 1. It is not for our committee to seek to dictate the policy of Organizations, as distinct from the framework of Laws within which they operate. 2. Still less is it right for our committee to enter into the field of value judgements which are, in essence, matters for Appeal Committees. To have a law which, as here, dictates a value judgement is autocratic and inappropriate. 3. I am convinced that some of the organizations will continue to award what they consider to be equitable split results, not conforming to the prescription in the laws, whilst the prestigious W.B.F. Laws Committee sits like some latter-day Canute ordering the flood to retreat. >> (At a meeting on 18th October 1987 the WBFLC added a footnote to Law 12 (in reference to 'Director') saying "An Appeals Committee may vary an assigned score in order to do equity.") ============================================= So it was. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sat Jul 28 12:41:36 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:41:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] European Youth Championships or have we really come to this In-Reply-To: <32729F3C2BAD444CAE7CC6EDCA307322@FK27.local> References: <32729F3C2BAD444CAE7CC6EDCA307322@FK27.local> Message-ID: <000a01c7d103$df4a3d00$1410a8c0@FK27.local> I found the historical comments of Grattan Endicott very insightful. It gives a much better understanding of why the Laws are as they are today, curious as they seem at times. I once read that records of all the Law books exist somewhere. I would love to read them. Anyone who knows where to refer me to? Appreciated! From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jul 28 23:45:44 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:45:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure Message-ID: <46ABB908.1020500@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > The danger here is in trying to address two rather different kinds of > understanding ... > Partner makes a call. You might or might not "know" (i.e. "have more > reason to be aware of... than [your] opponents") the probability that > he is psyching. And you might or might not "know", if he is > psyching, what he is likely to hold. These are two different pieces > of knowledge; you may have neither, either or both. Whatever > knowledge you do have must, of course, be disclosed, in accordance etc. The important point is that disclosure is required for whichever piece of knowledge you hold (as long as it comes from partnership experience and not general knowledge). > All > we seem able to glean from the laws at present is that there is some > inherent and ineffable property of understandings that, inevitably > within the context of a specific partnership, but also sometimes in > other contexts, strengthens over time until it reaches some > mysterious threshhold beyond which it causes the understanding to > metamorphose into an agreement. I don't think it's quite so bad as that. We need to keep in mind the difference between "what must be disclosed" (nearly everything) and "what may be regulated" (a proper subset but one whose exact boundaries are vague). In general, "understandings" is the term for the former, and "agreements" is the term for the latter. The only place this distinction seems blurred is L40D, which gives permission to regulate some types of "understandings." I suspect this was some kind of political compromise to allow each ZO to do whatever it likes. > Numerous authorities have > opined that the legitimacy of a psych depends on the extent to which > it "comes as a surprise" (to partner and/or others). It seems to me these "authorities" obfuscate -- perhaps deliberately -- the difference between disclosure and regulation. (The CoP is guilty in that regard, though close reading suggests it means disclosure.) > We sit down to play, and you ask me about my 1NT openings. Scenario > (a): I reply 15-17. Scenario (b): 15-17, but I do like to psych a > 1NT opening with fewer than 5 HCP and a long suit to run to. Then > during the session I open 1NT with x/xx/QJxxxxx/xxx, which, > inevitably, winds up in some kind of disclosure-related > adjudication. Richard and Steve seem to be saying that the > difference between scenarios (a) and (b) should never be a factor in > determining the outcome; I do not agree. If I'm "Steve," I hope I've said no such thing. The reply, whether (a) or (b), constitutes "partnership experience" in my view and has to be disclosed if the SO so requires (and always in response to questions). > the difference [between MI and CPU] is that "misinform" suggests > making an error, while "conceal" suggests taking a deliberate action. Fair enough, though if you accept this, the implication is that most L40B violations are likely to be inadvertent. The question for BLML is whether L40B violations are to be treated as MI or as illegal convention. Herman says the former. Grattan says the SO ought to specify when it adopts its convention regulations. I can't disagree with that but point out that some SO's fail to do so. At least one (the EBU) disagrees with Herman, I think. If there's "deliberate action," then I'd expect conduct penalties, not mere score adjustment. > From: "Sven Pran" > The way I see it "Understanding" comprises the total knowledge of the > methods It's helpful to read the Laws as written. L40B contains the phrase "special partnership understanding." It says such understandings must (in general) be disclosed in accordance with SO regulations. L75A says much the same thing, and L75C emphasizes the requirement when questions are asked. I don't think anyone disputes that the disclosure requirement is broad indeed. > Law 40 specifically establishes that the use of > concealed partnership understandings (i.e. "understandings" that have not > been revealed to opponents) is illegal. Not exactly. If the SO doesn't _require_ disclosure, there's no infraction of L40B. Tim puts it well: "if the CC is properly completed, alerts are properly given, but a piece of information isn't disclosed because no questions were asked, then there can be no "damage" as per L40c." > it becomes rather unimportant, at least for me, to have > precise definitions for what constitutes agreements or experience. The importance comes when we need to consider whether the agreement itself is illegal. > IMO "Understanding" is the "full set", must be available to opponents > (declared) ... Yes, for an appropriate definition of "available" as noted above. > and may be regulated by SO. Not so. As Grattan pointed out, there's a confusing bit in L40D, which allows ZO's to "regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional)." As TBW has pointed out, the preceding sentence "use of bidding or play conventions" is also ambiguous. (Does "conventions" mean the agreement itself or the use of the agreement at the table?) The practical effect is that SO's can regulate whatever they want. In the absence of clear regulations, it's hardly surprising that people will disagree. However, even if you accept L40D as inclusive, it doesn't allow regulation of things that are neither conventions nor weak initial actions at the one level. Also, it requires a specific regulation to be violated. > Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as > surprised as opponents. This doesn't seem supported by the Laws or WBF regulations. [I've lost track of who said what here, but the example is one partner who often opens 1NT with a 5cM] > In my example, it is clear that there is an > *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major What needs to be disclosed depends on your SO. The ACBL, for example, requires a notation on the convention card. Other SO's probably have similar requirements, but some may not. Full disclosure is required in answer to questions. From: Herman De Wael > Anything > I know, my partner could know. And should be disclosable to opponents. This is admirable but seems to me to be going too far. If you really just met your partner at the partnership desk, there will be not be much shared knowledge. On the other hand, if you've been playing together for ten years, the Director will properly be skeptical of any claimed lack of experience. This is, of course, a judgment matter. As Tim says, "permanent beginners" may well have no "experience" no matter how long they have played together. > From: "richard willey" > I think that > the existing regulations regarding psyches fail to frame the problem > set appropriately. The concept of a psyche should be removed from the > Law books and replaced with convention regulations based on concepts > like "mixed strategies", "multi-way" bids and the like. Multi-way bids are included in many existing regulations. (Consider either/or club or takeout double that may be strong and one-suited.) Mixed strategies where each branch of the strategy is a legal agreement are no problem. If one branch would constitute an illegal agreement -- as in the H1H in a non-HUM event -- I don't see that the frequency should matter. As a practical matter, if the frequency is low, it will never be knowable, even by keeping very detailed records. I have an idea how to approach the distinction between "agreement" and "understanding," but it will have to wait for another message. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Jul 28 23:59:54 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:59:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> (sorry, meant to include this in my previous message) From: Eric Landau > I may have a "heightened > awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a) > he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has > been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I > estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that > that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", Your knowledge comes from partnership experience, and I don't see why it isn't disclosable. It's akin to, for example, complex signalling agreements that depend on the contents of dummy. You don't need to give explanations that are not relevant to the present situation, but you need to disclose everything that's relevant. (Simpler examples: no need to explain your spot card leads when partner has just led an honor or your suit leads against a notrump contract.) In the example you give, you might answer a question with something to the effect of "I've seen him psych a few times (or once or never) in similar situations," or whatever your estimate is. You don't need to include the factors you considered to make your estimate (which might include vulnerability, position at table, or perceived skill of opponents as well as your estimate of your scores). > or that my failure > to reveal it makes the psych "not legal". This is a separate question. It may depend on SO regulations, but in general I agree with you here. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 29 10:58:20 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:58:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "The trouble with referees is that they know the rules , but they don't know the game." [Bill Shankly] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure > (sorry, meant to include this in my previous message) > > From: Eric Landau >> I may have a "heightened >> awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a) >> he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has >> been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I >> estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that >> that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", > > Steve Willner: > Your knowledge comes from partnership experience, and I don't > see why it isn't disclosable. < +=+ Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. It is more a case of "should partner think we are having a bad game". The underlying question is whether opponent has the same information as yourself to judge what that individual seated opposite you is doing. The test, I think, is whether you have information (other than information generally known to bridge players) that you have not disclosed and it turns out to be crucial for opponent's judgement of his (opponent's) action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 29 12:54:50 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:54:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > "The trouble with referees is that they > know the rules , but they don't know > the game." [Bill Shankly] > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:59 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure > > >> (sorry, meant to include this in my previous message) >> >> From: Eric Landau >>> I may have a "heightened >>> awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that (a) >>> he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when he has >>> been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I >>> estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that >>> that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", >> Steve Willner: >> Your knowledge comes from partnership experience, and I don't >> see why it isn't disclosable. > < > +=+ Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's > own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. It is more a case > of "should partner think we are having a bad game". > The underlying question is whether opponent has the > same information as yourself to judge what that individual > seated opposite you is doing. The test, I think, is whether > you have information (other than information generally known > to bridge players) that you have not disclosed and it turns out > to be crucial for opponent's judgement of his (opponent's) > action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I don't think that is a good criterion. Examples: - "That is 10-12 if we're non-vulnerable, 15-17 if we are vulnerable". Surely the info if they are vul is crucial, but it is known. - "That shows 1 or 4 aces". Surely the info if asker has 1 or 3 aces is crucial, but we all agree that this need not be disclosed. - "That is certainly natural if we are having a good game, but very frequently a psyche if we are not". Surely the info if they are having a good game or not is crucial. Does it have to be disclosed? And the fact that partners might disagree as to what constitutes a bad game does not alter the fact that in a majority of cases, both players will have the same opinion - should that not be revealed? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jul 29 14:53:38 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:53:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Jul 29, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's > own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. It is more a case > of "should partner think we are having a bad game". > The underlying question is whether opponent has the > same information as yourself to judge what that individual > seated opposite you is doing. The test, I think, is whether > you have information (other than information generally known > to bridge players) that you have not disclosed and it turns out > to be crucial for opponent's judgement of his (opponent's) > action. Both members of a partnership have had the same opportunity, as a session progresses, to estimate how well or poorly they did on each hand. Opponents, of course, have not. Well, they have for their own partnership, but they can't know anything about ours. I suppose one could argue this is disclosable partnership experience, but I don't know if that is the intent of the law. If it is, then what about such things as whether partner is more optimistic, or more pessimistic, than most - or than me? All these seem rather nebulous and subjective - and beginners, whether of the permanent variety or not, are unlikely to have a clue. I've seen players complain throughout a session about their terrible game, only to be completely surprised that they placed second or third. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 29 19:52:32 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:52:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu><46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu><002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <002801c7d209$71166460$a2b387d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits." [Mark Twain] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure > > On Jul 29, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's >> own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. It is more a case >> of "should partner think we are having a bad game". >> The underlying question is whether opponent has the >> same information as yourself to judge what that individual >> seated opposite you is doing. The test, I think, is whether >> you have information (other than information generally known >> to bridge players) that you have not disclosed and it turns out >> to be crucial for opponent's judgement of his (opponent's) >> action. > > Both members of a partnership have had the same opportunity, as a > session progresses, to estimate how well or poorly they did on each > hand. Opponents, of course, have not. Well, they have for their own > partnership, but they can't know anything about ours. I suppose one > could argue this is disclosable partnership experience, but I don't > know if that is the intent of the law. If it is, then what about such > things as whether partner is more optimistic, or more pessimistic, > than most - or than me? All these seem rather nebulous and > subjective - and beginners, whether of the permanent variety or not, > are unlikely to have a clue. I've seen players complain throughout a > session about their terrible game, only to be completely surprised > that they placed second or third. > +=+ I wrote: "The test, I think, is whether you have information (other than information generally known to bridge players) that you have not disclosed and it turns out to be crucial for opponent's judgement of his (opponent's) action." 1. To be clear, 'his (opponent's) action' was intended to mean your opponent's judgement of his own choice of action. 2. Herman quotes the question of vulnerability, something which in my view is known to players generally. What I have in mind is information of which the partners are mutually aware and which opponent should have in order to be on an even keel with them in interpreting the action. 3. I am inclined to think that how well you are doing is more a matter of judgement than of information in a pairs movement. Even in head to head teams and some other events that judgement is equally available to both pairs at the table and I would not deem it information that is not disclosed.. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jul 29 21:57:43 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure Message-ID: <46ACF137.1010006@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Grattan Endicott" > Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's > own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. I agree with that. > I am inclined to think that how well you are doing is more a matter > of judgement than of information in a pairs movement. Even in head to > head teams and some other events that judgement is equally available > to both pairs at the table If you have played head to head, then the opponents have the same information about your game you do. Their judgment may be better or worse than yours, but that's fine. The problem comes in a pairs movement, when they lack access to the relevant information. From: Herman De Wael > - "That is 10-12 if we're non-vulnerable, 15-17 if we are vulnerable". > Surely the info if they are vul is crucial, but it is known. Giving only the answer relevant to the current conditions would suffice, though it won't hurt to add "at this vulnerability" to avoid future problems. (In the extreme of playing many different ranges depending on seat and vul., a complete answer for all conditions is not even desirable.) > - "That is certainly natural if we are having a good game, but very > frequently a psyche if we are not". My suggestion is that good/bad game is not disclosable _per se_, but its _implication_ for your partnership experience is disclosable. Thus I'd suggest "almost certainly natural" or "frequently a psyche" would be proper, depending on your judgment of your game. ("Almost" because your judgment may possibly be wrong, but you could leave out the qualifier if you are sure.) From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 30 05:11:41 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure References: <46ACF137.1010006@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002401c7d257$59dd1fc0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure > From: "Grattan Endicott" >> Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's >> own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. > > I agree with that. > >> I am inclined to think that how well you are doing is more a matter >> of judgement than of information in a pairs movement. Even in head to >> head teams and some other events that judgement is equally available >> to both pairs at the table I've been asked by Hackett on a late round of an event "How are you doing"; - he's not asking for me to dump, but he is telling me he and his punter are doing well. I answered honestly "Pretty good, need a top off you" and then we got down to the game, but all that needed to be said had been said. I didn't think Hackett had done anything wrong, and he knows I'm pretty dangerous. I did get a top off his punter, cheered me up, and he was gracious to me, less so to the punter. I think he's entitled to know how I'm going to play, when he has an interest in the game. John > > If you have played head to head, then the opponents have the same > information about your game you do. Their judgment may be better or > worse than yours, but that's fine. The problem comes in a pairs > movement, when they lack access to the relevant information. > > From: Herman De Wael >> - "That is 10-12 if we're non-vulnerable, 15-17 if we are vulnerable". >> Surely the info if they are vul is crucial, but it is known. > > Giving only the answer relevant to the current conditions would suffice, > though it won't hurt to add "at this vulnerability" to avoid future > problems. (In the extreme of playing many different ranges depending on > seat and vul., a complete answer for all conditions is not even > desirable.) > >> - "That is certainly natural if we are having a good game, but very >> frequently a psyche if we are not". > > My suggestion is that good/bad game is not disclosable _per se_, but its > _implication_ for your partnership experience is disclosable. Thus I'd > suggest "almost certainly natural" or "frequently a psyche" would be > proper, depending on your judgment of your game. ("Almost" because your > judgment may possibly be wrong, but you could leave out the qualifier if > you are sure.) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 30 15:16:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:16:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: <000e01c7d102$97abffc0$f0aa87d9@Hellen> References: <000201c7cf6b$5a5c7ed0$ecc9403e@Mildred> <281324F2-038F-4F1D-AF74-83FF3CB14C58@starpower.net> <000e01c7cfb4$81e85b60$749887d9@Hellen> <67A3F4FC-3D20-4B11-B78B-A6670AFB3F56@starpower.net> <007e01c7d01a$2fb66c40$359387d9@Hellen> <4D0A9CA0-F03F-4899-B3EE-A25212AE8DFA@starpower.net> <000e01c7d102$97abffc0$f0aa87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <4075A687-BD8A-4151-8FAF-1B7DF7F006C7@starpower.net> On Jul 28, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ With respect to Eric's paragraph in which he wrote: > << >>> "If the ACBL wanted L12C2, and the rest of the world wanted ACs >>> to have discretion to do equity, why not have TFLB say that ACs >>> have discretion to do equity subject to regulation by their ZO, >>> and let the ACBL pass its own equivalent to L12C2?" > <<< I responded to Eric on this wise: << >> " In the paragraph quoted here the reference to what the >> 'ACBL' wanted is dubious - we did not identify 'Kaplan' as 'the >> ACBL' and there was no evidence that he was proposing with an ACBL >> mandate. Nor, on the other hand, did the EBL constitute, or seek >> to speak for, the 'rest of the world' - even if one could possibly >> say it was the only part of the rest of the world sufficiently >> progressed at that time to stand up to Kaplan. >> We did have a vision of the individual as being imbued with >> his own sense of power and inclined to act as though the law was >> what Kaplan said it was (and if it wasn't it should be)." > ============================================ > I can add something to the above. First, there were ACBL > personalities who saw dangers in the kind of 'authoritarian' > approach adopted by Edgar. It was largely their initiative that > led to the 'Stop' placed on creation of law by individuals post > Kaplan (WBFLC, item 4, 20th January 2000). Second, I quote from a > letter I wrote with EBL LC backing on 28th July 1987, to Ed Theus > (Chairman WBFLC): > << I do ask that the Committee give attention to a point on which > I have corresponded with Edgar and where we do not share an > identical point of view. Put in the simplest terms I seek to > institute a footnote to Law 93B3, with an asterisk against 'all > powers', to say "But may vary a score assigned under Law > 12C2 on > grounds of equity." > It is becoming apparent to me that, even allowing whatever > deprivation the non-offending side may have suffered, a literal > application of the Law will still prove grossly inequitable at > times - there should be an escape clause for Appeals Committees to > apply in such circumstances. I make these points: > 1. It is not for our committee to seek to dictate the policy of > Organizations, as distinct from the framework of Laws within which > they operate. > 2. Still less is it right for our committee to enter into the > field of value judgements which are, in essence, matters for Appeal > Committees. To have a law which, as here, dictates a value > judgement is autocratic and inappropriate. > 3. I am convinced that some of the organizations will continue > to award what they consider to be equitable split results, not > conforming to the prescription in the laws, whilst the prestigious > W.B.F. Laws Committee sits like some latter-day Canute ordering the > flood to retreat. >> > (At a meeting on 18th October 1987 the WBFLC added a footnote to > Law 12 (in reference to 'Director') saying "An Appeals Committee > may vary an assigned score in order to do equity.") > ============================================= > So it was. I strongly suspect that there would be far less, if any, controversy over or objection to L12C3 today if it were used only as the above correspondence suggests it was intended to be: as an "escape clause" to be invoked when "a literal application of the Law [12C2] will... prove grossly inequitable", rather than, as seems to be the case, as ACs' "first tool out of the bag". Perhaps there's an compromise solution that can be implemented as AC procedure: Allow the use of L12C3 at committee discretion, but require a committee that chooses to apply it to state what their L12C2 ruling would have been and why they found it "grossly inequitable". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 30 15:30:01 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:30:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 29, 2007, at 6:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >>> From: Eric Landau >>>> I may have a "heightened >>>> awareness" that partner is psyching his call because I know that >>>> (a) >>>> he has psyched this particular call in the past, but only when >>>> he has >>>> been having a very bad game (clearly disclosable) *and* (b) I >>>> estimate that we are having a very bad game. I do not believe that >>>> that the latter is a disclosable "understanding", >>> Steve Willner: >>> Your knowledge comes from partnership experience, and I don't >>> see why it isn't disclosable. >> >> +=+ Concerning (b) I do not think one should disclose one's >> own belief that 'we are having a bad game'. It is more a case >> of "should partner think we are having a bad game". >> The underlying question is whether opponent has the >> same information as yourself to judge what that individual >> seated opposite you is doing. The test, I think, is whether >> you have information (other than information generally known >> to bridge players) that you have not disclosed and it turns out >> to be crucial for opponent's judgement of his (opponent's) >> action. > > I don't think that is a good criterion. > > Examples: > > - "That is 10-12 if we're non-vulnerable, 15-17 if we are vulnerable". > Surely the info if they are vul is crucial, but it is known. > > - "That shows 1 or 4 aces". > Surely the info if asker has 1 or 3 aces is crucial, but we all agree > that this need not be disclosed. > > - "That is certainly natural if we are having a good game, but very > frequently a psyche if we are not". > Surely the info if they are having a good game or not is crucial. Does > it have to be disclosed? > And the fact that partners might disagree as to what constitutes a bad > game does not alter the fact that in a majority of cases, both players > will have the same opinion - should that not be revealed? I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 30 15:36:30 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:36:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <002401c7d257$59dd1fc0$0701a8c0@john> References: <46ACF137.1010006@cfa.harvard.edu> <002401c7d257$59dd1fc0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On Jul 29, 2007, at 11:11 PM, John Probst wrote: > I've been asked by Hackett on a late round of an event "How are you > doing"; - he's not asking for me to dump, but he is telling me he > and his > punter are doing well. I answered honestly "Pretty good, need a top > off you" > and then we got down to the game, but all that needed to be said > had been > said. I didn't think Hackett had done anything wrong, and he knows I'm > pretty dangerous. I did get a top off his punter, cheered me up, > and he was > gracious to me, less so to the punter. I think he's entitled to > know how > I'm going to play, when he has an interest in the game. John JFTR, the ACBL takes an extremely hard line on "comparison of scores"; even that mild exchange, if overheard by a TD during an ACBL event, would get a full-board penalty for both parties. (I speak as one chastened by experience.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 30 18:05:36 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:05:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disclosure References: <46ACF137.1010006@cfa.harvard.edu><002401c7d257$59dd1fc0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <004601c7d2c3$773e3650$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure > On Jul 29, 2007, at 11:11 PM, John Probst wrote: > >> I've been asked by Hackett on a late round of an event "How are you >> doing"; - he's not asking for me to dump, but he is telling me he >> and his >> punter are doing well. I answered honestly "Pretty good, need a top >> off you" >> and then we got down to the game, but all that needed to be said >> had been >> said. I didn't think Hackett had done anything wrong, and he knows I'm >> pretty dangerous. I did get a top off his punter, cheered me up, >> and he was >> gracious to me, less so to the punter. I think he's entitled to >> know how >> I'm going to play, when he has an interest in the game. John > > JFTR, the ACBL takes an extremely hard line on "comparison of > scores"; even that mild exchange, if overheard by a TD during an ACBL > event, would get a full-board penalty for both parties. (I speak as > one chastened by experience.) > usual ACBL idiocy :) Edgar put that Law in to stop people comparing scorecards :) John > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 30 18:14:37 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:14:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <004601c7d2c3$773e3650$0701a8c0@john> References: <46ACF137.1010006@cfa.harvard.edu> <002401c7d257$59dd1fc0$0701a8c0@john> <004601c7d2c3$773e3650$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <0128DCDC-4B52-434A-82C2-D119B4E26F1E@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:05 PM, John Probst wrote: > usual ACBL idiocy :) Agreed. > Edgar put that Law in to stop people comparing > scorecards :) John Hm. Which law is it, I wonder? From adam at irvine.com Mon Jul 30 18:17:56 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:17:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:14:37 EDT." <0128DCDC-4B52-434A-82C2-D119B4E26F1E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200707301606.JAA29262@mailhub.irvine.com> > On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:05 PM, John Probst wrote: > > > usual ACBL idiocy :) > > Agreed. > > > Edgar put that Law in to stop people comparing > > scorecards :) John > > Hm. Which law is it, I wonder? 90B4 -- Adam From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 30 19:13:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:13:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46AE1C35.7020703@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally > natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing > against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? > Well, considering that that is an insult anyhow, how could revealing it be any worse than hiding it. Especially if both partners know what they think of a certain pair of opponents - that amounts to concealing an agreement to psyche! "Here come those two overraters again, let's teach them a lesson ...". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 30 19:54:47 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:54:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <200707301606.JAA29262@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200707301606.JAA29262@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <84711DC6-55F3-4BA8-877E-1136262DDCAC@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> Hm. Which law is it, I wonder? > > 90B4 Thanks, Adam. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 30 16:53:11 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:53:11 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Disclosure?= References: Message-ID: <46ADFB56.000004.00799@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > - "That is certainly natural if we are having a good game, but very > frequently a psyche if we are not". > Surely the info if they are having a good game or not is crucial. Does > it have to be disclosed? > And the fact that partners might disagree as to what constitutes a bad > game does not alter the fact that in a majority of cases, both players > will have the same opinion - should that not be revealed? I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? AG : it would indeed be one of the best reasons for psyching. I have a similar problem. When playing with Gilles, we know that, according to vulnerability and seat, some bids (labeled by an asterisk in the system notes) may be outrageously weak and/or off-shape. Of course, this is explicitly said on our CC, and explained when needed (e.g. "this 3D opening shows diamonds, yeah, but don't expect more than five, or any honor strength") However, against players who practise the same style, we tend to be more serious (we call this an overcast table" : stars are off ;-) Now, let's say partner opens 3D at green. I should say all that I know about our style ; it would take the following form : "in principle, this could be quite weak and/or short, but not against you - why ? - because you're even more crazy". Infraction to L74A ? And what about "my partner frequently opens light when he feels, from tension at the table, that his LHO holds a big hand" ? I do. I'm allowed to do so, at my own risk. Is partner requested to alert and say this ? He can't know whether my sixth sense is active. In a way, he isn't allowed to know it is. So, alert everytime ? And explain *what* ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070730/b3b9d370/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/20070730/b3b9d370/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/20070730/b3b9d370/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 30 18:50:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:50:47 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Disclosure?= References: <200707301606.JAA29262@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <46AE16E6.000007.00799@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Adam Beneschan Date : 30/07/2007 18:18:21 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc : adam at irvine.com Sujet : Re: [blml] Disclosure > Hm. Which law is it, I wonder? 90B4 AG : don't read more in an item of law that what it says. L90B4 disallow comparing scores, i.e. telling what happened on specific deals (to avoid seeing what happened on unplayed-yet deals, or telling about an unplayed-yet deal by error, I guess). Telling "we're well-placed" (or the contrary) isn't comparing anything, or I m mistaken about the meaning of the verb "comparing". Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070730/2b708310/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/20070730/2b708310/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/20070730/2b708310/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 30 22:17:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:17:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <004601c7d2c3$773e3650$0701a8c0@john> References: <46ACF137.1010006@cfa.harvard.edu><002401c7d257$59dd1fc0$0701a8c0@john> <004601c7d2c3$773e3650$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4628CF7B-1307-41D2-9780-FB5C32115003@starpower.net> On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:05 PM, John Probst wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Jul 29, 2007, at 11:11 PM, John Probst wrote: >> >>> I've been asked by Hackett on a late round of an event "How are you >>> doing"; - he's not asking for me to dump, but he is telling me he >>> and his >>> punter are doing well. I answered honestly "Pretty good, need a top >>> off you" >>> and then we got down to the game, but all that needed to be said >>> had been >>> said. I didn't think Hackett had done anything wrong, and he >>> knows I'm >>> pretty dangerous. I did get a top off his punter, cheered me up, >>> and he was >>> gracious to me, less so to the punter. I think he's entitled to >>> know how >>> I'm going to play, when he has an interest in the game. John >> >> JFTR, the ACBL takes an extremely hard line on "comparison of >> scores"; even that mild exchange, if overheard by a TD during an ACBL >> event, would get a full-board penalty for both parties. (I speak as >> one chastened by experience.) >> > usual ACBL idiocy :) Edgar put that Law in to stop people comparing > scorecards :) But one can understand their thinking. John seems to, as he bothers to tell us that "he's not asking for me to dump". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 30 23:39:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:39:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> <46AE1C35.7020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46AE5A86.5020900@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally >>> natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing >>> against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? >> >> Well, considering that that is an insult anyhow, how could revealing >> it be any worse than hiding it. > > Excuse me? I see nothing in L74 that would dissuade me from holding in > the sanctity of my own mind a highly insulting opinion of my opponents, > but I see a clear prohibition against expressing that opinion via "any > remark or action". My mother taught me to keep my negative opinions of > others to myself; it never occurred to me to think "how could revealing > it be any worse than hiding it". > I believe that playing differently against weaker opponents constitutes the first insult already. Especially if it's significantly different, like psyching. I think you would confound that insult by not revealing it. If you do decide to play differently against pair A, then please have the integrity to tell them. > Perhaps Herman has totally misunderstood the prior discussion. I was > suggesting offering the response above as disclosure of my > "understanding" based on prior "partnership experience", not as a > (self-serving) statement to be made to a committee after the fact in the > unlikely event that partner was actually psyching. > >> Especially if both partners know what they think of a certain pair of >> opponents - that amounts to concealing an agreement to psyche! >> "Here come those two overraters again, let's teach them a lesson ...". > > Well, I disagree; I don't think L75C requires me to divulge my opinion > of my opponents' ability (or my opinion of their opinion of their > ability). But if Herman wishes to argue that it does, I will be tempted > to use the "De Wael school" philosopy in rebuttal: He puts me in a > position where I must choose between violating L75C and violating L74A2, > and must, by his own arguments, allow me to determine which one I will > follow by my own free choice. I'm far from the only member of this > forum who has expressed the opinion that L74A2 is the most important law > in the book! > L74A2? words or actions! If itis know you only psyche against weak opponents, and then you psyche against me, then I'm feeling uncomfortable and I ask the TD to apply L74A2! So if you're going to use that law as an excuse, better not do it in the first place! If OTOH, you have a habit to never psyche against strong players, then I am entitled to know this, and also to know if you consider me a strong player (IMHO). If I were to ask in the middle of a hand you are declaring if you are a frequent psycher or not, then I believe dummy (or even you yourself) is obliged to answer me that, and if the answer is "yes, but never against strong players", then I want to know where you draw the line. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 31 04:30:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:30:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >Bridge is a game of regular tempo, the laws say so, WTP? Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, Dallas, April 1 2006, Exhibit 2: "i. In a UI case when one player makes UI available and his partner has chosen an illegal logical alternative, is the irregularity in the phrase "had the irregularity not occurred" the act which created the UI, the choosing of the illegal LA, or some combination? We are told that this ambiguity is one that only the ACBL seems to have trouble with, and that to the rest of the world it is clear that the irregularity in question is the act of choosing the illegal LA. If that is the case we would still appreciate a clarification, since we would prefer laws as little potential for misinterpretation as possible." 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 31 05:01:51 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:01:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F186F01-080E-443C-A347-709B98F425AB@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Tim West-Meads: > >> Bridge is a game of regular tempo, the laws say so, WTP? > > Law 73D1: > > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to > maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players > should be particularly careful in positions in which > variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, > inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or > play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of > propriety, but inferences from such variation may > appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own > risk." > > ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, Dallas, April 1 2006, Exhibit 2: > > "i. In a UI case when one player makes UI available and his > partner has chosen an illegal logical alternative, is the > irregularity in the phrase "had the irregularity not > occurred" the act which created the UI, the choosing of the > illegal LA, or some combination? We are told that this > ambiguity is one that only the ACBL seems to have trouble > with, and that to the rest of the world it is clear that the > irregularity in question is the act of choosing the illegal > LA. If that is the case we would still appreciate a > clarification, since we would prefer laws as little potential > for misinterpretation as possible." Perhaps someone should tell the ACBLLC to carefully read Laws 16A and 73C. Seems pretty clear to me that it's choosing a demonstrably suggested LA (or the equivalent failing to make every effort to avoid taking advantage) that results in a score adjustment (the law on score adjustment - Law 12 - being where the phrase quoted in the LC minute appears). From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 31 07:05:35 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:05:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Team tactics Message-ID: <46AEC31F.9090109@NTLworld.com> In a team-of-four match, you are 50 imps down with 16 boards left to play. (1) In such circumstances, may the captain instruct one pair to underbid and the other overbid? (2) If (1), then must these tactics be declared to opponents? (3) If (2), then may the opposing team discuss counter-tactics? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 31 07:44:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:44:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F186F01-080E-443C-A347-709B98F425AB@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, Dallas, April 1 2006, Exhibit 2: >>i. In a UI case when one player makes UI available and his >>partner has chosen an illegal logical alternative, is the >>irregularity in the phrase "had the irregularity not >>occurred" the act which created the UI, the choosing of the >>illegal LA, or some combination? We are told that this >>ambiguity is one that only the ACBL seems to have trouble >>with, and that to the rest of the world it is clear that the >>irregularity in question is the act of choosing the illegal >>LA. If that is the case we would still appreciate a >>clarification, since we would prefer laws as little potential >>for misinterpretation as possible." Ed Reppert: >Perhaps someone should tell the ACBLLC to carefully read Laws >16A and 73C. Seems pretty clear to me that it's choosing a >demonstrably suggested LA (or the equivalent failing to make >every effort to avoid taking advantage) that results in a >score adjustment (the law on score adjustment - Law 12 - being >where the phrase quoted in the LC minute appears). Richard Hills: What is the prime cause of divorce? Marriage! What is the prime cause of use of UI? Creation of UI! It is a given that use of UI ("divorce") is an infraction which may require a score adjustment. But is creation of UI ("marriage") also an infraction? If both "marriage" and "divorce" are infractions, then a Reveley Ruling - as permitted by the WBF Appeals Committee - is a legal way of rectifying those two infractions. For newbies to blml unacquainted with the Reveley Ruling concept, attached is Clause 16.3 from the EBU White Book. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * 16.3 Weighting when a call (or play) is disallowed. If a call (or play) is disallowed because the TD judges that an illegal alternative was chosen when unauthorised information was present then this call or play may not be used in any calculations of weighting. Note that it is possible for the result to be included when it might have been reached in another way. Suppose that there were other possible calls (or plays) that would also have been disallowed if chosen. Then they may not be included in any calculations of weighting either. Examples (a) East doubles 4H slowly, and West pulls it to 4S making exactly. The TD decides the 4S bid was illegal, but decides to give a weighted adjustment because it is not clear how many tricks 4H doubled might make, and it might be taken out to 5C, which he might decide would be doubled and made. He might rule: 20% of NS+750 (5CX=) plus 40% of NS-200 (4HX-1) plus 40% of NS-500 (4HX-2) However, he is not allowed to rule: 20% of NS+750 (5CX=) plus 30% of NS-200 (4HX-1) plus 30% of NS-500 (4HX-2) plus 20% of NS-620 (4S=) because he may not include the disallowed call 4S as part of the weighting. This is affectionately called a "Reveley ruling" because of a decision some years ago which brought this problem to the L&EC's notice. Some authorities in other countries permit Reveley rulings. (b) In a competitive auction East bids 3H, which makes, but this is deemed illegal and disallowed. However, the TD judges that when the auction reaches his partner he would bid 3H much of the time. It is legal to include a percentage of 3H making as an adjustment since it is not via the disallowed call. (c) East pauses over 1NT and asks questions, then passes. West doubles with a spade suit and only 12 points, getting 800. The TD decides the double was illegal, but considers a weighted adjustment because West might have bid 2S. There are now two possibilities. If the TD judges that 2S was a legal action, ie that he would not have disallowed it if asked to rule on a 2S bid in the same circumstances, then he may give a weighting based on 1NT undoubled, and on 2S being bid. If the TD judges that 2S was not a legal action, ie that he would have disallowed it if asked to rule on a 2S bid in the same circumstances, then he may not give any weighting based on 2S being bid. In the example given that means he is going to rule 1NT undoubled minus three. Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 31 09:23:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:23:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Team tactics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46AEC31F.9090109@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >In a team-of-four match, you are 50 imps down with 16 boards left >to play. >(1) In such circumstances, may the captain instruct one pair to >underbid and the other overbid? >(2) If (1), then must these tactics be declared to opponents? >(3) If (2), then may the opposing team discuss counter-tactics? Richard Hills: Not only has this topic been discussed on blml before, but it was also discussed by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial many years before blml existed. Edgar's view was that Law merely required you to disclose your own partnership's methods to your immediate opponents. You are not required by Law to disclose your team-mates' methods. The secondary issue of opponent-dependent agreements has also been discussed on blml before. The classic merry-go-round is -> Pair A: We play ultra-aggressive pre-empts, except against those opponents who play penalty doubles. Pair B: We play takeout doubles, except against those opponents who play ultra-aggressive pre-empts. The simple solution to the merry-go-round is that time-travel is not allowed; you are not permitted to change your methods merely because your opponents' subsequent actions will render them ineffective. In the example above, Pair A would be required to play ultra-aggressive pre-empts all the time (and score -800 to -1400 most of the time after Pair B's penalty doubles). :-) 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jul 31 09:53:21 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:53:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 Message-ID: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> we are often critical about ac decisions. i would like to signal case 12 at nashville nabc: it was not obvious to ajudicate and i was ready to disagree with the decision but after reading the report, it was so clear, didactic and precise that i remained speechless. a great job imo. url below. http://www.acbl.org/nabc/Nashville2007/bulletins/db10.pdf -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 31 10:31:32 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:31:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Team tactics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46AEC31F.9090109@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070731102047.027f4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:23 31/07/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Edgar's view was that Law merely required you to disclose your >own partnership's methods to your immediate opponents. You are >not required by Law to disclose your team-mates' methods. BTA this was before the times of advance communication ; nowadays, you might be required to give all your CCs to all opponents. >Pair A: We play ultra-aggressive pre-empts, except against those >opponents who play penalty doubles. > >Pair B: We play takeout doubles, except against those opponents >who play ultra-aggressive pre-empts. > >The simple solution to the merry-go-round is that time-travel is >not allowed; you are not permitted to change your methods merely >because your opponents' subsequent actions will render them >ineffective. In the example above, Pair A would be required to >play ultra-aggressive pre-empts all the time (and score -800 to >-1400 most of the time after Pair B's penalty doubles). It doesn't work, because most pairs who une aggressive preempts do so optionally. It has been told by several theoreticians that the best side of those tactics is their imprevisibility. It once happened that I opened 3C on king-ten sixth and quacks (not the best hand for doing so, to be sure) and partner, a bit later, said "we should throw this deal in, guys, it is from last week's match", then remarked "I needed some time to realize, because last time, you didn't open". I wonder how you could avoid the aggressive-but-not-this-time guy telling "I didn't feel like it". Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jul 31 10:42:09 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 31 Jul 2007 10:42:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Team tactics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20070731084209.6904E14829A@poczta.interia.pl> > Nigel Guthrie: > > >In a team-of-four match, you are 50 imps down with 16 boards left > >to play. > >(1) In such circumstances, may the captain instruct one pair to > >underbid and the other overbid? > >(2) If (1), then must these tactics be declared to opponents? > >(3) If (2), then may the opposing team discuss counter-tactics? > > Richard Hills: > > Not only has this topic been discussed on blml before, but it was > also discussed by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial many > years before blml existed. > > Edgar's view was that Law merely required you to disclose your > own partnership's methods to your immediate opponents. You are > not required by Law to disclose your team-mates' methods. > > The secondary issue of opponent-dependent agreements has also > been discussed on blml before. The classic merry-go-round is -> > > Pair A: We play ultra-aggressive pre-empts, except against those > opponents who play penalty doubles. > > Pair B: We play takeout doubles, except against those opponents > who play ultra-aggressive pre-empts. > > The simple solution to the merry-go-round is that time-travel is > not allowed; you are not permitted to change your methods merely > because your opponents' subsequent actions will render them > ineffective. In the example above, Pair A would be required to > play ultra-aggressive pre-empts all the time Not true. Pair A would open say, 3C, and now the opponents may simply ask about the meaning of the 3C bid. And act accordingly to the explanation (ie. double for T/O or for penalties). If Pair A decides to play sound pre-empts - why would they be disallowed to? So I may come to the table announcing that I play superaggressive pre-empts and then switch to Culbertson style when I learn that my opponents play penalty doubles. The opponents will then simply switch to T/O doubles then. My bid will first hit the table so I have to explain my methods first but I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to change them on every board. There is nothing in TFLB that makes it illegal. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko czego potrzebujesz latem: kremy do opalania, stroje kapielowe, maly romans >>>http://link.interia.pl/f1b15 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 31 15:03:29 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:03:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <46AE5A86.5020900@skynet.be> References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> <46AE1C35.7020703@skynet.be> <46AE5A86.5020900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3366C10A-5F06-45CA-AE6E-F12CF6FB4112@starpower.net> On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is >>>> normally >>>> natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing >>>> against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? >>> >>> Well, considering that that is an insult anyhow, how could revealing >>> it be any worse than hiding it. >> >> Excuse me? I see nothing in L74 that would dissuade me from >> holding in >> the sanctity of my own mind a highly insulting opinion of my >> opponents, >> but I see a clear prohibition against expressing that opinion via >> "any >> remark or action". My mother taught me to keep my negative >> opinions of >> others to myself; it never occurred to me to think "how could >> revealing >> it be any worse than hiding it". > > I believe that playing differently against weaker opponents > constitutes the first insult already. Especially if it's significantly > different, like psyching. I think you would confound that insult by > not revealing it. If you do decide to play differently against pair A, > then please have the integrity to tell them. > >> Perhaps Herman has totally misunderstood the prior discussion. I was >> suggesting offering the response above as disclosure of my >> "understanding" based on prior "partnership experience", not as a >> (self-serving) statement to be made to a committee after the fact >> in the >> unlikely event that partner was actually psyching. >> >>> Especially if both partners know what they think of a certain >>> pair of >>> opponents - that amounts to concealing an agreement to psyche! >>> "Here come those two overraters again, let's teach them a >>> lesson ...". >> >> Well, I disagree; I don't think L75C requires me to divulge my >> opinion >> of my opponents' ability (or my opinion of their opinion of their >> ability). But if Herman wishes to argue that it does, I will be >> tempted >> to use the "De Wael school" philosopy in rebuttal: He puts me in a >> position where I must choose between violating L75C and violating >> L74A2, >> and must, by his own arguments, allow me to determine which one I >> will >> follow by my own free choice. I'm far from the only member of this >> forum who has expressed the opinion that L74A2 is the most >> important law >> in the book! > > L74A2? words or actions! If itis know you only psyche against weak > opponents, and then you psyche against me, then I'm feeling > uncomfortable and I ask the TD to apply L74A2! > So if you're going to use that law as an excuse, better not do it in > the first place! > > If OTOH, you have a habit to never psyche against strong players, then > I am entitled to know this, and also to know if you consider me a > strong player (IMHO). > > If I were to ask in the middle of a hand you are declaring if you are > a frequent psycher or not, then I believe dummy (or even you yourself) > is obliged to answer me that, and if the answer is "yes, but never > against strong players", then I want to know where you draw the line. This is why we have a serious problem with the insidious concepts of "partnership understanding", "implicit agreement" and the like -- they lead to conclusions like the one above. Somewhere in TFLB, Herman has found a legal justification for a player having the legal right to require that another player openly reveal his personal opinion of the inquirer's bridge ability (not to mention his ego). Can this really be right (I don't mean true; I mean right)? Surely there is a line beyond which laws pertinent to "partnership understanding" do not extend, and surely this is beyond it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 31 15:11:53 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:11:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Team tactics In-Reply-To: <46AEC31F.9090109@NTLworld.com> References: <46AEC31F.9090109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jul 31, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Nigel wrote: > In a team-of-four match, you are 50 imps down with 16 boards left to > play. > (1) In such circumstances, may the captain instruct one pair to > underbid and the other overbid? > (2) If (1), then must these tactics be declared to opponents? > (3) If (2), then may the opposing team discuss counter-tactics? I believe the ACBL's position is that you, as a pair, must reveal at the table that you have agreed to underbid or overbid, and the opposing pair may adjust their methods accordingly, but you are not required to reveal your knowledge of how your teammates have agreed to play at the other table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 31 16:15:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:15:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <3366C10A-5F06-45CA-AE6E-F12CF6FB4112@starpower.net> References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> <46AE1C35.7020703@skynet.be> <46AE5A86.5020900@skynet.be> <3366C10A-5F06-45CA-AE6E-F12CF6FB4112@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46AF441A.7000306@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>>> I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is >>>>> normally >>>>> natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing >>>>> against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? >>>> Well, considering that that is an insult anyhow, how could revealing >>>> it be any worse than hiding it. >>> Excuse me? I see nothing in L74 that would dissuade me from >>> holding in >>> the sanctity of my own mind a highly insulting opinion of my >>> opponents, >>> but I see a clear prohibition against expressing that opinion via >>> "any >>> remark or action". My mother taught me to keep my negative >>> opinions of >>> others to myself; it never occurred to me to think "how could >>> revealing >>> it be any worse than hiding it". >> I believe that playing differently against weaker opponents >> constitutes the first insult already. Especially if it's significantly >> different, like psyching. I think you would confound that insult by >> not revealing it. If you do decide to play differently against pair A, >> then please have the integrity to tell them. >> >>> Perhaps Herman has totally misunderstood the prior discussion. I was >>> suggesting offering the response above as disclosure of my >>> "understanding" based on prior "partnership experience", not as a >>> (self-serving) statement to be made to a committee after the fact >>> in the >>> unlikely event that partner was actually psyching. >>> >>>> Especially if both partners know what they think of a certain >>>> pair of >>>> opponents - that amounts to concealing an agreement to psyche! >>>> "Here come those two overraters again, let's teach them a >>>> lesson ...". >>> Well, I disagree; I don't think L75C requires me to divulge my >>> opinion >>> of my opponents' ability (or my opinion of their opinion of their >>> ability). But if Herman wishes to argue that it does, I will be >>> tempted >>> to use the "De Wael school" philosopy in rebuttal: He puts me in a >>> position where I must choose between violating L75C and violating >>> L74A2, >>> and must, by his own arguments, allow me to determine which one I >>> will >>> follow by my own free choice. I'm far from the only member of this >>> forum who has expressed the opinion that L74A2 is the most >>> important law >>> in the book! >> L74A2? words or actions! If itis know you only psyche against weak >> opponents, and then you psyche against me, then I'm feeling >> uncomfortable and I ask the TD to apply L74A2! >> So if you're going to use that law as an excuse, better not do it in >> the first place! >> >> If OTOH, you have a habit to never psyche against strong players, then >> I am entitled to know this, and also to know if you consider me a >> strong player (IMHO). >> >> If I were to ask in the middle of a hand you are declaring if you are >> a frequent psycher or not, then I believe dummy (or even you yourself) >> is obliged to answer me that, and if the answer is "yes, but never >> against strong players", then I want to know where you draw the line. > > This is why we have a serious problem with the insidious concepts of > "partnership understanding", "implicit agreement" and the like -- > they lead to conclusions like the one above. > > Somewhere in TFLB, Herman has found a legal justification for a > player having the legal right to require that another player openly > reveal his personal opinion of the inquirer's bridge ability (not to > mention his ego). Can this really be right (I don't mean true; I > mean right)? > > Surely there is a line beyond which laws pertinent to "partnership > understanding" do not extend, and surely this is beyond it. > So, to give a ridiculous example: "2He" - "yes please?" "we play transfers against people we find obnoxious, but natural against people we like". "So, does he have hearts or spades" "I don't have to tell you, since that would be breaking L74A2 and I don't want to insult you". Do you really think you could get away with that? Other than this, of course I do not believe a player should be forced to reveal what he thinks of his opponents. But to hide behind such a thing in order to conceal (yes I do use the word) partnership understandings !! > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 31 17:31:23 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:31:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Team tactics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46AF55CB.3080302@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] >> In a team-of-four match, you are 50 imps down with 16 boards left >> to play. >> (1) In such circumstances, may the captain instruct one pair to >> underbid and the other overbid? >> (2) If (1), then must these tactics be declared to opponents? >> (3) If (2), then may the opposing team discuss counter-tactics? [Richard Hills] > Not only has this topic been discussed on blml before, but it was > also discussed by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial many > years before blml existed. > > Edgar's view was that Law merely required you to disclose your > own partnership's methods to your immediate opponents. You are > not required by Law to disclose your team-mates' methods. > > The secondary issue of opponent-dependent agreements has also > been discussed on blml before. The classic merry-go-round is -> > > Pair A: We play ultra-aggressive pre-empts, except against those > opponents who play penalty doubles. > > Pair B: We play takeout doubles, except against those opponents > who play ultra-aggressive pre-empts. > > The simple solution to the merry-go-round is that time-travel is > not allowed; you are not permitted to change your methods merely > because your opponents' subsequent actions will render them > ineffective. In the example above, Pair A would be required to > play ultra-aggressive pre-empts all the time (and score -800 to > -1400 most of the time after Pair B's penalty doubles). [nige2] I agree with Richard Hills that his hen-egg example is easily and fairly handled by insisting that pair S, who call first must specify their agreement before pair R who call subsequently. As Konrad Ciborowski explains, even if pair S alter their agreement about pre-empts prior to every board, they must disclose this change to pair R, who can simply adjust their agreed defence. The Team tactics example, where pair-O overbid and pair-P underbid has been discussed before. It is similar to an implicit tactical agreement to increase "Psych" frequency in such circumstances. Eric Landau suggests the ACBL solution, that you disclose only your own agreements to current opponents). That may seem reasonable but I agree with Alain Gottcheiner that if, prior to play, each team must show their convention cards to the opposing team, that would remove the problem. In the new edition of the laws, I hope the WBFLC ensures that partnership agreements are defined to include all the following... [A] Team "tactics". [B] Pair "tactics". [C] Implicit agreements. [D] Understandings. [E] Partnership experience. [F] "Psyching" habits. [G] "Tactical" bids (false cues, trials etc). [H] "Treatments". [I} "General" knowledge. And anything else it judges relevant. BLML amply illustrates the ingenuity of truth economists in rationalising concealed partnership understandings. The alternative is to allow CPUs, provided partner *never* acts in a way that might mitigate partnership-damage. I feel that this is especially important when a pair employ some kind of psychic control (e.g. Drury) which can limit the damage from "friendly fire". From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 31 17:40:24 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:40:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> References: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <61D901A0-51C7-4588-8006-7DF586442FD4@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 31, 2007, at 3:53 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > we are often critical about ac decisions. i would like to signal > case 12 > at nashville nabc: it was not obvious to ajudicate and i was ready to > disagree with the decision but after reading the report, it was so > clear, didactic and precise that i remained speechless. a great job > imo. Adam was on the AC. :-) One small nit: "Director?s Ruling: In accordance with the footnote to Law 75, the director is to assume mistaken explanation." While it is true that in this case the ruling that South's explanation was MI is correct, that quote above is not exactly what the law says. The director is to assume mistaken explanation *in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. There doesn't seem to have been any such evidence here, but I think the quoted statement is misleading, and we should avoid that. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 31 17:45:42 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:45:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Team tactics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070731102047.027f4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <46AEC31F.9090109@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070731102047.027f4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] > I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally > natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing > against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? [nigel] BLMLers love defending the patently indefensible. First L12C3. Now truth economy again. IMO, a pair who share similar views about opponents must not employ Alan Gottcheiner's psych criteria. If that were OK, then we could agree "psych" protocols, which depend on other characteristics of opponents (sex, age, height, hair-color, eye-color, grooming, clothing, smell and so on). Almost every bid could be subject to a partnership understanding, which we righteously conceal because it might entail personal remarks. Only in the surreal troposphere of BLML could secretary birds get away with such poison gas experiments. Ordinary players would regard such understandings as illegal because you must (a) disclose your methods (B) be considerate to opponents. From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 18:03:02 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Team tactics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com> References: <46AEC31F.9090109@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070731102047.027f4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0707310903y52f7d59ak3b655625ad932a86@mail.gmail.com> > If that were OK, then we could agree "psych" protocols, which depend > on other characteristics of opponents (sex, age, height, hair-color, > eye-color, grooming, clothing, smell and so on). Almost every bid > could be subject to a partnership understanding, which we righteously > conceal because it might entail personal remarks. As I recall, the Laws have something to say about the use of outside aids for computation. This regulation severely curtails many obvious mechanisms to create randomness. I would argue that using the "round clock" to judge whether or not to psyche is barred by this regulation. Personal characteristics such as the sex / age of the opponents seem equivalent. It gets a little more complicated when we consider characteristics that are (in some way) linked to bridge performance. For example, assumptions regarding the skill level of the opponents would seem to be a legitimate consideration. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 31 18:46:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:46:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <46AF441A.7000306@skynet.be> References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> <46AE1C35.7020703@skynet.be> <46AE5A86.5020900@skynet.be> <3366C10A-5F06-45CA-AE6E-F12CF6FB4112@starpower.net> <46AF441A.7000306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7F016C91-61A9-4D45-B3F7-1474149DABA9@starpower.net> On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> L74A2? words or actions! If itis know you only psyche against weak >>> opponents, and then you psyche against me, then I'm feeling >>> uncomfortable and I ask the TD to apply L74A2! >>> So if you're going to use that law as an excuse, better not do it in >>> the first place! >>> >>> If OTOH, you have a habit to never psyche against strong players, >>> then >>> I am entitled to know this, and also to know if you consider me a >>> strong player (IMHO). >>> >>> If I were to ask in the middle of a hand you are declaring if you >>> are >>> a frequent psycher or not, then I believe dummy (or even you >>> yourself) >>> is obliged to answer me that, and if the answer is "yes, but never >>> against strong players", then I want to know where you draw the >>> line. >> >> This is why we have a serious problem with the insidious concepts of >> "partnership understanding", "implicit agreement" and the like -- >> they lead to conclusions like the one above. >> >> Somewhere in TFLB, Herman has found a legal justification for a >> player having the legal right to require that another player openly >> reveal his personal opinion of the inquirer's bridge ability (not to >> mention his ego). Can this really be right (I don't mean true; I >> mean right)? >> >> Surely there is a line beyond which laws pertinent to "partnership >> understanding" do not extend, and surely this is beyond it. > > So, to give a ridiculous example: > > "2He" - "yes please?" > "we play transfers against people we find obnoxious, but natural > against people we like". > "So, does he have hearts or spades" > "I don't have to tell you, since that would be breaking L74A2 and I > don't want to insult you". > > Do you really think you could get away with that? > > Other than this, of course I do not believe a player should be forced > to reveal what he thinks of his opponents. > > But to hide behind such a thing in order to conceal (yes I do use the > word) partnership understandings !! Herman's example falls well outside our universe of discourse. We started this discussion with disclosure of our experience of partner's tendency to psych under particular conditions, and have expanded it to the subject of disclosure of implicit agreements in general. We are trying to draw the line (if it exists, which might itself be subject to debate) through the universe of "partnership experience" to demarcate between those types of "experience" which may become disclosable implicit agreements and those which do not. In Herman's example, there can be no need to even concern ourselves with the criterion by which we vary our methods or whether the opposing pair satisfies it. We know these not from experience, but from discussion. We have an *explicit* agreement by which 2H is either natural or a transfer against *this pair*, and we must disclose that explicit agreement. There is, however, no possible need or reason to disclose the reasoning behind our making that agreement. Herman's example is "ridiculous" only insofar as it makes an argument about explicit agreements in the context of a discussion about implicit agreements. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 31 17:28:59 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:28:59 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Disclosure?= References: <46AF441A.7000306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46AF5535.000007.47189@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- If itis know you only psyche against weak >> opponents, and then you psyche against me, then I'm feeling >> uncomfortable and I ask the TD to apply L74A2! >> So if you're going to use that law as an excuse, better not do it in >> the first place! AG : to speak about something less drastic, I see nothing that disallows me to shade my 1NT openings against players who will often misdefend against that contract. Especially if only LHO will. It is probable that this wil soon "create a partnership understanding". Or is it "common bridge knowledge" ? I'd say the latter. Every offbeat action you take is subject to many circumstances, and this isn't to be disclosed, because the fact that "you'll chose the action that is bound to work" is simply playing bridge, not an agreement. The same way as you'll sometimes shade your NT bids when you know opponents' strength is concentrated in one hand. When chosing seats at teams, you will do the same ; when Gilles and YT play against an uneven pair, we put him before the most aggressive player, or before the lesser player. This tactics has worked before. No need to insult one of them by telling them your reasons. Now, to the matter of changing systems or conventions altogether accoding to who they are, as in Herman's voluntarily overdone example. I think this is simply not allowed, which solves the problem. It's written that you may not change systems during a session, except to revert to plain natural once and for all. Of course, playing different overcalls against different 1C openers is part of the system, i.e. you don't change the system by using a new convention against a new style of opening. But, apart from this, you have to stick to your declared system. (yes, there is that problem when it's the last round and you decide to revert to natural) This difference between playing against Tom or against Joe is similar to the difference between partners : style may vary, the meaning of the bids may not. Now there are of course those marginal cases, as in : "partner often makes something strange when he just took a bottom, if only to abjure the black eye". I think that this is very similar to a psyche, i.e. you should be very careful to avoid using this knowledge. As to whether it should be disclosed, since you "aren't knowing it", they aren't either. (note that I have nothing against Herman's 1H as causing disclosure problems, only as painting the system yellow). To cut it short, opponents should be given the knowledge of anything you know and you'll possibly use, and that's my understanding of "understanding" Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070731/c8f71eda/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/20070731/c8f71eda/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/20070731/c8f71eda/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 31 18:42:29 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:42:29 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Team_tactics____=5BSEC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46AF6674.00000A.47189@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Nigel Date : 31/07/2007 17:45:57 A : BLML Sujet : Re: [blml] Team tactics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Alain Gottcheiner] > I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally > natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing > against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? [nigel] BLMLers love defending the patently indefensible. First L12C3. Now truth economy again. IMO, a pair who share similar views about opponents must not employ Alan Gottcheiner's psych criteria. AG : am not responsible for this example. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070731/1e4b47f0/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/20070731/1e4b47f0/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/20070731/1e4b47f0/attachment-0001.gif From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 31 19:08:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:08:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Team tactics In-Reply-To: <46AF6674.00000A.47189@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com> <46AF6674.00000A.47189@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46AF6C8D.3070309@NTLworld.com> > [Alain Gottcheiner] >> I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally >> natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing >> against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? > [nigel] > BLMLers love defending the patently indefensible. First L12C3. Now > truth economy again. IMO, a pair who share similar views about opponents > must not employ Alan Gottcheiner's psych criteria. [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : am not responsible for this example. [Richard Willey] As I recall, the Laws have something to say about the use of outside aids for computation. This regulation severely curtails many obvious mechanisms to create randomness. I would argue that using the "round clock" to judge whether or not to psyche is barred by this regulation. Personal characteristics such as the sex / age of the opponents seem equivalent. It gets a little more complicated when we consider characteristics that are (in some way) linked to bridge performance. For example, assumptions regarding the skill level of the opponents would seem to be a legitimate consideration. [nige1] Sorry Alain: Anyway, although from the point of view of those Bridge players who want to increase fairness and enjoyment, I may be right; nevertheless, I am often wrong in my optimistic interpretation of current laws. For example; I agree with Richard Willey about *outside aids for computation*; but I hope that he is wrong in implying that our opinion of the skill level of an opponent is a legitimate base for a concealed understanding. Worse: a glance at RGB indicates that many players partially base skill-assessment on age, sex, race, religion and so on. Admitting to such prejudices may be illegal in some places. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 31 19:16:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:16:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Team tactics In-Reply-To: <46AF55CB.3080302@NTLworld.com> References: <46AF55CB.3080302@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <97DF5AF8-581F-4EB4-A558-C04B49CA29A5@starpower.net> On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Nigel wrote: > [Nige1] >>> In a team-of-four match, you are 50 imps down with 16 boards left >>> to play. >>> (1) In such circumstances, may the captain instruct one pair to >>> underbid and the other overbid? >>> (2) If (1), then must these tactics be declared to opponents? >>> (3) If (2), then may the opposing team discuss counter-tactics? > > [Richard Hills] >> Not only has this topic been discussed on blml before, but it was >> also discussed by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial many >> years before blml existed. >> >> Edgar's view was that Law merely required you to disclose your >> own partnership's methods to your immediate opponents. You are >> not required by Law to disclose your team-mates' methods. >> >> The secondary issue of opponent-dependent agreements has also >> been discussed on blml before. The classic merry-go-round is -> >> >> Pair A: We play ultra-aggressive pre-empts, except against those >> opponents who play penalty doubles. >> >> Pair B: We play takeout doubles, except against those opponents >> who play ultra-aggressive pre-empts. >> >> The simple solution to the merry-go-round is that time-travel is >> not allowed; you are not permitted to change your methods merely >> because your opponents' subsequent actions will render them >> ineffective. In the example above, Pair A would be required to >> play ultra-aggressive pre-empts all the time (and score -800 to >> -1400 most of the time after Pair B's penalty doubles). > > [nige2] > I agree with Richard Hills that his hen-egg example is easily and > fairly handled by insisting that pair S, who call first must specify > their agreement before pair R who call subsequently. As Konrad > Ciborowski explains, even if pair S alter their agreement about > pre-empts prior to every board, they must disclose this change to pair > R, who can simply adjust their agreed defence. > > The Team tactics example, where pair-O overbid and pair-P underbid > has been discussed before. It is similar to an implicit tactical > agreement to increase "Psych" frequency in such circumstances. > > Eric Landau suggests the ACBL solution, that you disclose only your > own agreements to current opponents). That may seem reasonable but I > agree with Alain Gottcheiner that if, prior to play, each team must > show their convention cards to the opposing team, that would remove > the problem. Nigel appears to have misread his own example. If a team has agreed on a general strategy for an event in which one pair will play consistently agressively and the other consistently conservatively, then that is part of the team's "general approach", and is indisputably disclosable all around, i.e. to all members of the opposing team. A pre-event exchange of CCs affects only the mechanism for disclosure, not the inherent "disclosability" of such a strategy. Neither I nor the ACBL suggests that such disclosure is limited in any way. But Nigel's original question was about a purely tactical decision made by the team on the spot only after finding themselves 50 IMPs down with 16 boards left -- long after CCs, and any other required disclosures, will have been exchanged. That has nothing to do with the team's "general approach" or their agreed methods; it is simply a tactic for getting themselves back into this particular match, and will affect only the next 16 boards. I don't offer an answer to the original question beyond what I believe to be ACBL policy, and I'm not prepared to argue that this difference -- between a strategic element of one's general approach and a spur-of-the-moment "state of the match" tactical decision concerning only the next segment -- should necessarily make a difference to how we handle such disclosure. But in attempting to find the right answer, we must not assume from the outset that it should not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 31 20:22:13 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:22:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Disclosure?= In-Reply-To: <46AF5535.000007.47189@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46AF441A.7000306@skynet.be> <46AF5535.000007.47189@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > -------Message original------- > > If itis know you only psyche against weak > >> opponents, and then you psyche against me, then I'm feeling > >> uncomfortable and I ask the TD to apply L74A2! > >> So if you're going to use that law as an excuse, better not do > it in > >> the first place! > > AG : to speak about something less drastic, I see nothing that > disallows me to shade my 1NT openings against players who will > often misdefend against that contract. Especially if only LHO will. > It is probable that this wil soon "create a partnership > understanding". Or is it "common bridge knowledge" ? > > I'd say the latter. Every offbeat action you take is subject to > many circumstances, and this isn't to be disclosed, because the > fact that "you'll chose the action that is bound to work" is simply > playing bridge, not an agreement. The same way as you'll sometimes > shade your NT bids when you know opponents' strength is > concentrated in one hand. > > When chosing seats at teams, you will do the same ; when Gilles and > YT play against an uneven pair, we put him before the most > aggressive player, or before the lesser player. This tactics has > worked before. No need to insult one of them by telling them your > reasons. > > Now, to the matter of changing systems or conventions altogether > accoding to who they are, as in Herman's voluntarily overdone example. > I think this is simply not allowed, which solves the problem. > It's written that you may not change systems during a session, > except to revert to plain natural once and for all. Of course, > playing different overcalls against different 1C openers is part of > the system, i.e. you don't change the system by using a new > convention against a new style of opening. But, apart from this, > you have to stick to your declared system. (yes, there is that > problem when it's the last round and you decide to revert to natural) > > This difference between playing against Tom or against Joe is > similar to the difference between partners : style may vary, the > meaning of the bids may not. In an ideal world, we could go a long way to solving the problem with "partnership experience" becoming "implicit agreement" by acknowledging as "general bridge knowledge" that within the parameters of one's methods one may bid more or less agressively against some pairs than against others, regardless of the reason for doing so. Those reasons are myriad to the point where we can assume them to be infinite, and are artifacts of human psychology, not bidding methods. Then we could get on with the game. Unfortunately, that's in an ideal world, where everyone plays for fun or the love of the game, and everyone does their best to be proactively ethical. I do understand, sympathize with, and to a large extent agree with, those who will argue that such a broad view will inevitably make loopholes readily available to those who would find legal justification for being less then fully forthcoming about their actual bidding methods. Because of them, we may find ourselves forced to go on at length about assorted individual bits of "partnership experience", examining each individual potential loophole. But it would surely be nice if we didn't have to. > > > Aside to Alain: Please continue sending us your thoughtful and valuable contributions, but please, please, please stop sending us animated elephants! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 31 20:39:43 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:39:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Team tactics In-Reply-To: <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com> References: <46AEC31F.9090109@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20070731102047.027f4ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <9F18946A-655F-4BAA-AB2F-E16D5767C827@starpower.net> On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Nigel wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] >> I certainly hope not, because how about this one: "That is normally >> natural, but is frequently a psych if partner thinks he's playing >> against opponents who seriously overrate their own abilities."? FTR, that remark was mine, not Alain's. > [nigel] > BLMLers love defending the patently indefensible. First L12C3. Now > truth economy again. > > IMO, a pair who share similar views about opponents must not employ > Alan Gottcheiner's psych criteria. > > If that were OK, then we could agree "psych" protocols, which depend > on other characteristics of opponents (sex, age, height, hair-color, > eye-color, grooming, clothing, smell and so on). Almost every bid > could be subject to a partnership understanding, which we righteously > conceal because it might entail personal remarks. > > Only in the surreal troposphere of BLML could secretary birds get away > with such poison gas experiments. > > Ordinary players would regard such understandings as illegal because > you must (a) disclose your methods (B) be considerate to opponents. My remark was posted to a discussion of implicit understandings derived from partnership experience. It has neither anything to do with nor any bearing whatsoever on partnerships that "share similar views about opponents' or "agree 'psych' [or any other kind of] protocols", regardless of what they depend on. Can we not at least recognize the difference in a player's bidding tendencies between (a) those that have been observed over time by a particular partner to the point where he may well have sufficient "partnership experience" to be deemed to have an "implicit agreement", and (b) those that have been explicitly discussed and agreed upon? And keep the latter out of our attempts to define the former? If we cannot, this thread has very little future. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jul 31 21:27:07 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:27:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Disclosure References: <200707261605.l6QG5LJK010123@cfa.harvard.edu> <46ABBC5A.1090904@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c7d1be$a2aee1f0$b89587d9@Hellen> <46AC71FA.3010707@skynet.be> <46AE1C35.7020703@skynet.be> <46AE5A86.5020900@skynet.be><3366C10A-5F06-45CA-AE6E-F12CF6FB4112@starpower.net> <46AF441A.7000306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007701c7d3a8$c91fcf20$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Disclosure (snipped) >> > > So, to give a ridiculous example: > > "2He" - "yes please?" > "we play transfers against people we find obnoxious, but natural > against people we like". > "So, does he have hearts or spades" > "I don't have to tell you, since that would be breaking L74A2 and I > don't want to insult you". > > Do you really think you could get away with that? > Of course not. That is why you said the example was ridiculous... ACBL regulations say: please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call Nothing is of course said about "level of obnoxiusness" but that is a subjective reason. Perhaps other SO's allow Herman's hypothetical tactics but I doubt it :)