From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 1 00:46:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:46:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <61D901A0-51C7-4588-8006-7DF586442FD4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Extract from the Committee Decision: >We further noted that West was entitled to know >the actual North-South agreement, since the >laws require it, and also that South thought 2D >was natural, since South told him so at the >table. Richard Hills: This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the misinformation Laws by Adam Wildavsky and the rest of the Committee. If West had been told by South the actual North- South agreement, as required by Law - that 2D showed hearts - then West would not have been told by South the misinformation that 2D showed diamonds. Ergo, there was no Lawful way that West could know that North-South were having a bidding misunderstanding, which seems to me to be a key factor in the ruling of an 800 penalty. Furthermore, it seems to me that Law 93B1 and Law 93B3 mean that the Committee exceeded its authority in deciding to issue this new interpretation of the misinformation Laws. Law 93B1: "The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law..." Law 93B3: "...the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law..." 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 henk at amsterdamned.org Wed Aug 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 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 Wed Aug 1 01:01:02 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:01:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for July 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 59 ehaa (at) starpower.net 45 hermandw (at) skynet.be 43 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 42 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 37 twm (at) cix.co.uk 31 svenpran (at) online.no 30 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 27 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 23 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 21 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 15 john (at) asimere.com 14 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 12 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 11 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 10 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 8 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 8 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 6 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 4 geller (at) nifty.com 3 sarahamos (at) onetel.net 3 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 mustikka (at) charter.net 2 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 2 cibor (at) poczta.fm 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 1 rui.mlmarques (at) netvisao.pt 1 ken.deri31 (at) ntlworld.com 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 1 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 1 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 1 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 1 adam (at) irvine.com From roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr Wed Aug 1 01:53:25 2007 From: roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 01:53:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] discriminations (wasTeam tactics) References: <46AF5926.2030107@NTLworld.com><46AF6674.00000A.47189@CERAP-MATSH1> <46AF6C8D.3070309@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004b01c7d3cd$fc957c40$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> On Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:08 PM, Nigel wrote : > 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. Roger Eymard : In mixed events, what is the basis for assigning to Ladies, for instance, the South and East seats ? If the purpose is to have better comparable results, does it mean that the SO bases some skill-assessment on sex ? In some local events, it happens that the SO adds in the "conditions of contest" : " for mixed pairs, women pairs admitted". Again, does it mean that the SO bases some skill-assessment on sex ? In such contexts (created by the SO), would it be legitimate to understand differently an undiscussed call, whether it is made after Ms call or after Mr call ? or depending on who will be at the wheel ? There is still a long way to go, before an effective boundary prevents any incursion of the real world, where human beings play together, into the "world of the game", where neutral players act according to and only to the rules... Beside, is that fully desirable for the game ? Best regards Roger _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Aug 1 02:38:47 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:38:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: <200707261733.l6QHXNuJ000181@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707261733.l6QHXNuJ000181@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46AFD617.3080008@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > After all, do you really > want to give a NOs 100% of the best thing they could have done with > better information? Not the best thing they could have done, but the best thing it's "likely" they would have done sounds fair to me. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Aug 1 02:49:43 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:49:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <200707302110.l6ULAVsN013266@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707302110.l6ULAVsN013266@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46AFD8A7.5040908@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" [Alain: could you please turn off HTML for your BLML messages? You make them very hard for some of us to read.] > 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."? Either "normally natural" or "frequently a psych" will be fine. No need to give a reason. > However, against players who > practise the same style, we tend to be more serious If such variation is allowed by your SO, all you have to do is give accurate explanations for the table where you are playing. No need to say what you might do at other tables. Herman's example, while not possible in most SO's, illustrates the point very well. Just say what your partner's bid means, including style and judgment if known, and never mind the reasons. From: Eric Landau > 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. Not at all. Style and judgment -- whether or not they are implicit agreements -- are fully disclosable, at least in response to questions and otherwise if the SO says so. See L40B, 40E1, and 75C. An implicit agreement, if conventional or a light initial action at the one level, may also be regulated, but that's a different matter. (One I hope to return to, but alas not before Thursday.) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 1 09:18:55 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:18:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B033DF.6090603@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Extract from the Committee Decision: > >> We further noted that West was entitled to know >> the actual North-South agreement, since the >> laws require it, and also that South thought 2D >> was natural, since South told him so at the >> table. > > Richard Hills: > > This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of > the misinformation Laws by Adam Wildavsky and > the rest of the Committee. > > If West had been told by South the actual North- > South agreement, as required by Law - that 2D > showed hearts - then West would not have been > told by South the misinformation that 2D showed > diamonds. i think it's only a slight inaccuracy in the wording. ac's intent may have been to say that west was entitled to know the actual agreement and that he happened to have accidentally got AI about what south thought of 2D. what your are entitled doesn't restrict what else you have got without any fault of your own. jpr > > Ergo, there was no Lawful way that West could > know that North-South were having a bidding > misunderstanding, which seems to me to be a key > factor in the ruling of an 800 penalty. > > Furthermore, it seems to me that Law 93B1 and > Law 93B3 mean that the Committee exceeded its > authority in deciding to issue this new > interpretation of the misinformation Laws. > > Law 93B1: > > "The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon > such part of the appeal as deals solely with > the Law..." > > Law 93B3: > > "...the committee may not overrule the Director > on a point of law..." > > > 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 > -- _______________________________________________ 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 cibor at poczta.fm Wed Aug 1 10:05:06 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:05:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 References: Message-ID: <005d01c7d412$acba7870$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: "Adam Wildavsky" Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Extract from the Committee Decision: > >>We further noted that West was entitled to know >>the actual North-South agreement, since the >>laws require it, and also that South thought 2D >>was natural, since South told him so at the >>table. > > Richard Hills: > > This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of > the misinformation Laws by Adam Wildavsky and > the rest of the Committee. Nope - there seems to be a misinterpretation of the ruling by Richard Hills. > > If West had been told by South the actual North- > South agreement, as required by Law - that 2D > showed hearts - then West would not have been > told by South the misinformation that 2D showed > diamonds. > > Ergo, there was no Lawful way that West could > know that North-South were having a bidding > misunderstanding, which seems to me to be a key > factor in the ruling of an 800 penalty. No, it isn't a factor at all. If West is told by South that 2D shows hearts then he has a clear-cut pass over 2D - why would he want to bid anything at this point with his hearts when partner can have 0 HCP? Then his partner doubles 2H - West assumes long hearts are on his right so he passes over 2H with his heart holding. West won't know about the misunderstanding until dummy comes down. > > Furthermore, it seems to me that Law 93B1 and > Law 93B3 mean that the Committee exceeded its > authority in deciding to issue this new > interpretation of the misinformation Laws. > > Law 93B1: > > "The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon > such part of the appeal as deals solely with > the Law..." > > Law 93B3: > > "...the committee may not overrule the Director > on a point of law..." No - the AC didn't overrule the TD at all. So what exactly are you talking about? Konrad Ciborowski Konrad, Poland PS - could you please stop adding this [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] piece to the subject line? In ruins the threading both in my mailer and on the BLML archives page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zmien konto na takie o nieograniczonej pojemnosci. Za darmo w INTERIA.PL >>>http://link.interia.pl/f1b0a From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 1 10:43:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:43:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <7F016C91-61A9-4D45-B3F7-1474149DABA9@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> <46AF441A.7000306@skynet.be> <7F016C91-61A9-4D45-B3F7-1474149DABA9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46B0479C.9060505@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > 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. > In don't see what the distinction has to do with it. Both implicit and explaicit agreements need to be disclosed. The question is not whether we only need to disclose the agreement, or also the "trigger". If I have a habit of psyching against LHOs who wear red shirts, then that is disclosable. Do we now also tell RHO (who may be blind or colourblind) what shirt his partner is wearing? I do believe we should, since it is important for his understanding of our system. But we've digressed into the realms of lunacy here! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 1 10:58:44 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:58:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> References: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <46B04B44.7050409@NTLworld.com> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] > 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. [nige1] Jean-Pierre Rocafort is right, IMO, the TD and AC performed well. The North-South methods seem unwieldy. For example, what would South do when weak with clubs. They also seem to wrong side contracts. IMO it would normally be better to declare with the 1N opener on lead. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 1 13:23:27 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:23:27 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__nashville_12?= References: <46B04B44.7050409@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46B06D2D.000001.95763@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- The North-South methods seem unwieldy. For example, what would South do when weak with clubs. They also seem to wrong side contracts. IMO it would normally be better to declare with the 1N opener on lead. AG : they would do the same as they do over an opening 1NT, most probably bid 2S. Anyway, this shouldn't be a factor in determining whether there was an infraction and how to correct it. See EBU appeal # 7 : the N/S methods seem strange (lebensohl after passing ?) but the methods they are. And the AC's comments about the opening are irrelevant (apart from being wrong). The only case where methods should be taken into account is to determine what should have happened, in order to assess a L12C score. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070801/e54d3397/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/20070801/e54d3397/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/20070801/e54d3397/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 1 15:32:26 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:32:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <46AFD8A7.5040908@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200707302110.l6ULAVsN013266@cfa.harvard.edu> <46AFD8A7.5040908@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <9ED6A35A-90E9-4101-8C74-E7C94E9C859E@starpower.net> On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > [Alain: could you please turn off HTML for your BLML messages? You > make > them very hard for some of us to read.] > >> 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."? > > Either "normally natural" or "frequently a psych" will be fine. No > need > to give a reason. Of course it will be fine, but that requires knowing which it is. What I've been talking about is undiscussed "implicit" knowledge derived solely from prior experience with this partner. The problem I set hypothesized that the quoted statement above represents the totality of such knowledge; you can't definitively resolve it to a simple statement, because you lack a sure knowledge of what partner thinks of these particular opponents. >> However, against players who >> practise the same style, we tend to be more serious > > If such variation is allowed by your SO, all you have to do is give > accurate explanations for the table where you are playing. No need to > say what you might do at other tables. > > Herman's example, while not possible in most SO's, illustrates the > point > very well. Just say what your partner's bid means, including style > and > judgment if known, and never mind the reasons. Herman's example, like Steve's answer above, misses the subject. In Herman's example, the pair in question had to have explicitly discussed, jointly held "opinions" of the opponents. As I have pointed out previously, and Steve has restated above, there is no problem in that case. > From: Eric Landau >> 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. > > Not at all. Style and judgment -- whether or not they are implicit > agreements -- are fully disclosable, at least in response to questions > and otherwise if the SO says so. See L40B, 40E1, and 75C. > > An implicit agreement, if conventional or a light initial action at > the > one level, may also be regulated, but that's a different matter. > (One I > hope to return to, but alas not before Thursday.) That's a purely semantic difference. I have been using the term "implicit agreement" to cover any knowledge you might have that (a) does not derive from an explicit agreement, and (b) is disclosable by law. If someone wants to offer a different term for the above along with a different definition for "implicit agreement", I would be willing to adopt their terminology. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 1 16:16:44 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:16:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] have we really ...... Message-ID: <004f01c7d447$928143a0$a8bb87d9@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 Eric Landau commented (July 30): < +=+ Eric must not be misled. The EBL position to be defended at the time was that score adjustments should return to each side its equity in the board. No punitive element was to be incorporated in an adjustment, this being a separate issue since the Law Book stated "The Laws are not designed to prevent dishonourable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done" and "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." That is the remit I was given and what you read in my letter was a negotiating statement seeking to achieve just that in the face of the wish to change the principle.emanating from a potent voice on the Laws Committee. When the committee met, of the seven members and six guests present eleven showed themselves in favour of accedence to the EBL's request, one was against and one did not raise a hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 1 20:06:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:06:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <46B033DF.6090603@meteo.fr> References: <46B033DF.6090603@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <62FC675E-4F41-422E-A5F3-51EADC98E98E@starpower.net> On Aug 1, 2007, at 3:18 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of >> the misinformation Laws by Adam Wildavsky and >> the rest of the Committee. >> >> If West had been told by South the actual North- >> South agreement, as required by Law - that 2D >> showed hearts - then West would not have been >> told by South the misinformation that 2D showed >> diamonds. > > i think it's only a slight inaccuracy in the wording. ac's intent may > have been to say that west was entitled to know the actual > agreement and > that he happened to have accidentally got AI about what south > thought of > 2D. what your are entitled doesn't restrict what else you have got > without any fault of your own. For that intent to be consistent with the law, the committee would have had to find that West could "have accidentally got AI about what South thought of 2D" even "had the irregularity not occurred". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 2 02:05:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:05:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005d01c7d412$acba7870$0a01a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 93B1: "The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law..." Law 93B3: "...the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law..." Konrad Ciborowski: >>No - the AC didn't overrule the TD at all. So >>what exactly are you talking about? Richard Hills: It is true the AC did not infract Law 93B3 by reversing the TD on a point of Law. But the AC infracted Law 93B1 by its creation of a new interpretation of Law, a prerogative restricted to the Chief Director or ACBL Laws Commission or WBF Laws Committee. Eric Landau: >For that intent to be consistent with the law, >the committee would have had to find that West >could "have accidentally got AI about what South >thought of 2D" even "had the irregularity not >occurred". WBF Laws Committee, 9th November 2003, item 3: "The committee considered the proposition that when there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive and adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed on the action likely to be taken by the non-offending side in the circumstances. It was observed that if given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Aug 2 15:21:18 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:21:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B1DA4E.5050006@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] > It is true the AC did not infract Law 93B3 by > reversing the TD on a point of Law. But the AC > infracted Law 93B1 by its creation of a new > interpretation of Law, a prerogative restricted to > the Chief Director or ACBL Laws Commission or WBF > Laws Committee. [nige1] In this instance, the committee may or may not have re-interpreted a law. But they do seem to have the right to do so, if they feel like it. There is the notorious precedent of an appeals committee inventing a horrendous new law at a World Championship... [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 twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 2 16:12:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46B1DA4E.5050006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > In this instance, the committee may or may not have re-interpreted > a law. But they do seem to have the right to do so, if they feel > like it. There is the notorious precedent of an appeals committee > inventing a horrendous new law at a World Championship... I really don't know why you bang on about this Nigel. The legal impact on rulings of the WBF AC making those arrangements was absolutely zilch. Since the introduction of L12c3 any TD has been able to recommend a L12c3 ruling to an AC of his own volition. If the TD says to the players "I will be recommending a score of X" and both pairs agree then actually convening the AC is just a waste of time. If either of the pairs disagrees a L12c2 ruling (and mooted L12c3 recommendation) go to an AC in the normal way. All the AC did was tinker with the admin procedures to make everybody's (including the players) lives easier. It didn't change the laws. Tim > [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. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 2 17:33:46 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:33:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46B1DA4E.5050006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c7d51a$88e0ac40$1e9887d9@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: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] >> It is true the AC did not infract Law 93B3 by >> reversing the TD on a point of Law. But the AC >> infracted Law 93B1 by its creation of a new >> interpretation of Law, a prerogative restricted to >> the Chief Director or ACBL Laws Commission or WBF >> Laws Committee. > > [nige1] > In this instance, the committee may or may not have re-interpreted a > law. But they do seem to have the right to do so, if they feel like > it. There is the notorious precedent of an appeals committee inventing > a horrendous new law at a World Championship... > > [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. > +=+ Law 80G does not specify what the arrangements for appeals are to be. The only requirement in law is that they be 'suitable'. The fact that an individual does not like a particular law is not a sound basis for denying its application as written. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 3 02:19:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:19:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A706EB.90707@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 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? Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >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. Richard Hills: In my opinion, those recent contributions were wrong (if they were interpreting current Law) or misconceived (if they were suggesting a change to Law). Suppose, in accordance with a personal esoteric theory of pard's, he believes it is a good strategy to not only open 1NT with balanced hands, but also to open 1NT with appropriate strength on semi-balanced hands with a singleton spade. You violently disagree with pard's theory, so to teach pard a lesson you always transfer to spades with five, even with an honourless five spades. Although _you_ ignore your "a posteriori mpu", the _opponents_ are entitled to know partner's habit, since that may affect a borderline decision by an opponent on whether or not to double your 2S contract for penalties. 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 Aug 3 04:17:33 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:17:33 +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." Tim West-Meads: >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. Richard Hills: Is Tim saying that hesitations without design, although not infractions, are still irregularities? If so, I disagree. I believe that an infraction should be defined as an irregularity committed by a player. And it is a player who hesitates without design. Ergo, if a hesitation without design is not an infraction, it cannot be an irregularity either. Therefore Tim's interpretation of "without undue" in Law 73A2 has been superseded by the WBF CoP interpretation, which has redefined "without undue" as meaning "without 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 3 05:55:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:55:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c7cfb4$81e85b60$749887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >...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... Richard Hills: Interesting. By this logic, it is irrelevant whether a hesitation without design is an irregularity. An AC can dial up any score adjustment it likes after an infraction of the Law 73C prohibition on use-of-UI, slap an "equity" sticker on that score adjustment, and the AC's ruling is automatically legal. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "equity, n. use of principles of justice to supplement law" Richard Hills: As was noted way back at the beginning of this thread, the reason that a Reveley Ruling is illegal in England is that a Reveley Ruling fails the test of a _dictionary definition_ of "equity". That is, a player who abides by Law 73C gets a worse score than a player who chooses to infract Law 73C, since the infractor gets part or all of their infraction included in the Reveley Ruling score adjustment. Grattan Endicott: >...It is neither the function nor the aim of the Law >Book to define 'equity'... Richard Hills: But the WBF LC has ruled that if a word in the Lawbook is not defined therein, such a word is to be interpreted in accordance with its dictionary meaning. Therefore if the WBF Appeals Committee was sued for damages in a real-world court of law, because it had arbitrarily redefined an inequitable Reveley Ruling as an "equity" score adjustment, it would have no credible defence in that real-world court of law. 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 Aug 3 09:43:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:43:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Four in One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: Nil You, South, hold: A62 T4 T98 AKJ83 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 3D ? What call do you make? The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 3D Pass Pass 3H Pass ? What call do you make? The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 3D Pass Pass 3H Pass 4C Pass 4D Pass ? What call do you make? The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 3D Pass Pass 3H Pass 4C Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass 5C Pass ? What call do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 3 10:53:45 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:53:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Four in One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070803105029.027fdbd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:43 3/08/2007 +1000, you wrote: >You, South, hold: > >A62 >T4 >T98 >AKJ83 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 3D ? > >What call do you make? Pass. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 3D Pass >Pass 3H Pass ? > >What call do you make? This is a difficult one.It might depend on the form of scoring and vulnerability, which you didn't mention. It's fairly close between pass, 4C and 4H. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 3D Pass >Pass 3H Pass 4C >Pass 4D Pass ? > >What call do you make? 4H is pretty obvious, isn't it ? As I said before, 4D in such a sequence is only a choice-of-games bid. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 3D Pass >Pass 3H Pass 4C >Pass 4D Pass 4S >Pass 5C Pass ? > >What call do you make? Abstain. 4S is grotesque. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 3 11:14:02 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:14:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] AI = UI, and influence Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070803105348.027fcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Here are two intricated cases from recent Belgian training sessions. Your advice will be heartily welcome. 1. West 1D p 1S p 2S p 3NT p 4NT Before bidding 4NT, West said "oops, I went wrong". This is UI, of course. There is also AI provided by the highly surprising 4NT bid. a) Do you judge UI to be equal to AI ? b) Do you accept that the sequence go on ? c) Does it make any sense to ask some good players what their guess is about what happened to poor West, in order to determine whether it could be read by East ? For the record, West had mispulled 2S in lieu of 2NT, and E/W went on to a mildly lucky 6NT (32 HCP total). 2. North and West are strong players, East is a client, South an intermediate level player with long experience. N E S W 1C p 1H 2H p 2S 3H X 3NT p p X East alerted South's bid. Assume that cue-bids are NOT self-alerting (they aren't in Belgium). a) which meaning of the cue would be non-alertable ? (in direct position, eg 1H 2H, it's the strong meaning) b) before passing, North enquired : "do you know what his second suit would be ?", obviously assuming the cue-bis was a two-suiter (wrong ! It was natural). Please comment this attitude. Now East answered "diamonds, I suppose". c) do you give any credit to East's potential claim that "I was wondering about the meaning of 2H, but the question convinced me that it should be two-suited" ? d) Is West's 3H bid, in the context of this MI, "failure to play bridge" ? His hand is xxx - AQxxx - AJxx - x e) The TD decided to let 3NT be the final contract (he judged 3H to be absurd) but canceled the double. Please comment. Thank you for the help. Best regards Alain From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Aug 3 12:48:14 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:48:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Four in One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000901c7d5bb$cb7bd740$0200a8c0@david> > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: Nil > > You, South, hold: > > A62 > T4 > T98 > AKJ83 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 3D ? > > What call do you make? Pass > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 3D Pass > Pass 3H Pass ? > > What call do you make? > 4H > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 3D Pass > Pass 3H Pass 4C > Pass 4D Pass ? > > What call do you make? 4S > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 3D Pass > Pass 3H Pass 4C > Pass 4D Pass 4S > Pass 5C Pass ? > > What call do you make? 6C I guess this is likely to be on a finesse into the pre-empter. Say Kx AQJxxx x Qxxx ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/933 - Release Date: 02/08/2007 14:22 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 3 14:48:47 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:48:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c7d51a$88e0ac40$1e9887d9@Hellen> References: <46B1DA4E.5050006@NTLworld.com> <000901c7d51a$88e0ac40$1e9887d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <46B3242F.8080301@NTLworld.com> [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. [tim West Meads] I really don't know why you bang on about this Nigel. The legal impact on rulings of the WBF AC making those arrangements was absolutely zilch. Since the introduction of L12c3 any TD has been able to recommend a L12c3 ruling to an AC of his own volition. If the TD says to the players "I will be recommending a score of X" and both pairs agree then actually convening the AC is just a waste of time. If either of the pairs disagrees a L12c2 ruling (and mooted L12c3 recommendation) go to an AC in the normal way. All the AC did was tinker with the admin procedures to make everybody's (including the players) lives easier. It didn't change the laws. {grattan Endicott] +=+ Law 80G does not specify what the arrangements for appeals are to be. The only requirement in law is that they be 'suitable'. The fact that an individual does not like a particular law is not a sound basis for denying its application as written. +=+ {nigel] L12C3 may be a player's nightmare but it is a director's wet dream, so BLMLers leap to its defence. IMO, the committee did not simply "reinterpret an old law". They invented a completely new one. [A] L12C3 only empowered *committees* to adjust scores to "achieve equity". Unfortunately, committees seem to have interpreted this as an instruction to reduce both the deterrent for law-breaking and the redress for damage. A bit of a stretch and a great pity; but "equity" is such a vague term that you can hardly blame committees for taking the most hassle-free interpretation. Grattan is right: a law may seem daft to players but that does not excuse us from complying with it. And, anyway this is irrelevant to the current discussion. [B] At the world championships, an appeals committee empowered itself to write a new law allowing the *chief tournament director* to award weighted scores. [C] The new law *required* the chief director to comply. Seemingly, had he been unwilling, then he would have had to undergo compulsory brainwashing. Weird! Luckily, a typical director would need no persuasion. [D] For previous laws, the criterion for most rulings is "balance of probability". Under their new law, the committee backed the judgement of the chief director to the extent that they promised not alter his rulings unless the appellants could prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a far stricter criterion and means that rulings under their new law are practically unappealable. IMO Tim deludes himself into thinking that the new law has no legal impact. He believes that the fall in appeals is because players are "grateful for easier lives" and "happy with the rulings". Admittedly, to some extent, Tim is right... (1) *directors and law-breakers have easier lives* and (2) *directors and law-breakers are happy with the rulings* but (3) *law-abiding players are often denied adequate redress* and now (4) *victims of infractions cannot even resort to a fair appeal* Thus the new law that the appeal committee invented has wider application and more teeth than any previous law. Its main effect is to reward law-breakers and reduce appeals. All this is water under the bridge. In the new laws, players hope that the WBFLC shows more sympathy for law-abiding players. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 3 15:06:34 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:06:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] AI = UI, and influence In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070803105348.027fcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070803105348.027fcec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1E51898E-87BD-41DA-92D4-3B68CD440C43@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 3, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > a) Do you judge UI to be equal to AI ? I don't know what this means, but when there is UI, the recipient thereof is constrained not to take advantage of it - the only way that AI would mitigate that is if the AI indicates there is no LA to the action chosen. > b) Do you accept that the sequence go on ? Of course. The auction isn't over yet. > c) Does it make any sense to ask some good players what their guess is > about what happened to poor West, in order to determine whether it > could be > read by East ? I don't think so. From jrmayne at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 18:23:38 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:23:38 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [blml] AI = UI, and influence Message-ID: <369488.1186158218433.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Sent: Aug 3, 2007 2:14 AM >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] AI = UI, and influence > >Dear blmlists, > >Here are two intricated cases from recent Belgian training sessions. >Your advice will be heartily welcome. > >1. > >West >1D p 1S p >2S p 3NT p >4NT > >Before bidding 4NT, West said "oops, I went wrong". >This is UI, of course. >There is also AI provided by the highly surprising 4NT bid. > >a) Do you judge UI to be equal to AI ? No. AI is that *something* went wrong. UI is that something *before 4N* went wrong. >b) Do you accept that the sequence go on ? Sure. Is there some other option? >c) Does it make any sense to ask some good players what their guess is >about what happened to poor West, in order to determine whether it could be >read by East ? No. Passing 4N is possible, and indicated by the comment. These are very bad facts for E-W. > >For the record, West had mispulled 2S in lieu of 2NT, and E/W went on to a >mildly lucky 6NT (32 HCP total). Roll back to 4N. 1/2 board PP in addition. No excuse for this at all. > >2. > >North and West are strong players, East is a client, South an intermediate >level player with long experience. > >N E S W >1C p 1H 2H >p 2S 3H X >3NT p p X > >East alerted South's bid. I'm going to read "South" as "West." Assume that cue-bids are NOT self-alerting (they >aren't in Belgium). >a) which meaning of the cue would be non-alertable ? I don't know. (in direct position, >eg 1H 2H, it's the strong meaning) >b) before passing, North enquired : "do you know what his second suit would >be ?", obviously assuming the cue-bis was a two-suiter (wrong ! It was >natural). Please comment this attitude. North's question is over-leading, but I don't see this as a major sin. >Now East answered "diamonds, I suppose". >c) do you give any credit to East's potential claim that "I was wondering >about the meaning of 2H, but the question convinced me that it should be >two-suited" ? Sure. I believe him. Still MI, though. Doesn't matter. >d) Is West's 3H bid, in the context of this MI, "failure to play bridge" ? >His hand is >xxx - AQxxx - AJxx - x I'll assume "West" means "South." I need more information, though. What were the agreements, *really*? We don't know. We don't know if there were agreements? There aren't enough facts to get this right. If 2H shows spades and diamonds, 3H is foolish - a penalty double is standout - but it looks like it was caused by the MI, assuming there was MI. When something is directly caused by the MI, whether it's something we wouldn't do or not, it's a problem. Assuming MI, 3H does not break causation. >e) The TD decided to let 3NT be the final contract (he judged 3H to be >absurd) but canceled the double. Please comment. I don't see a reason to cancel the double. --JRM From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Aug 3 18:49:58 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:49:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] AI = UI, and influence In-Reply-To: <369488.1186158218433.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <369488.1186158218433.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20070803124958.1daaf199@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:23:38 -0700 (GMT-07:00) "John R. Mayne" wrote: > >b) before passing, North enquired : "do you know what his second > >suit would be ?", obviously assuming the cue-bis was a two-suiter > >(wrong ! It was natural). Please comment this attitude. > > North's question is over-leading, but I don't see this as a major sin. > It damned well ought to be. Maybe it's been too long since you tried to teach anyone the game, John. I've been on the wrong end of leading questions that confuse a novice partner (and the opps knew it) and induce a misbid by suggesting some incorrect meaning for my bid that said partner would never have thought of left to his own devices. It's the bidding equivalent of an Alcatraz Coup, IMO. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGs1y3X39R2QaHMdMRArs1AJ9kVl/UWXVcRUfy06PlvgBAt5tMtgCdH2Eq hLvViBf3VVlw1+j5HRdbloo= =ZAzV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 4 07:08:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 15:08:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c7d102$97abffc0$f0aa87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >...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)... WBF Law Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 4: The Secretary undertook to seek publication of a disclaimer on the WBF web to the effect that no opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision of the committee, should be considered to have the authority of a committee decision. Directors seeking guidance should refer to their respective NCBOs. It was agreed that when subjects arise the committee could have its own internal exchange of opinions via the internet. Grattan Endicott: >...Still less is it right for our committee to enter into >the field of value judgements which are, in essence, matters >for Appeal Committees... WBF Law Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 1: Mr. Schoder asked that the Committee should attend to its own remit and not digress into areas that are the prerogative of other entities. Grattan Endicott: >...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 [in 1987] sits like some latter-day Canute ordering >the flood to retreat... WBF Law Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 12: The committee noted the final words of 'The Scope of the Laws'. It noted that score adjustment is for the purpose of redressing damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage from the offending side, not for punishment of offenders. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 4 07:30:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 15:30:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Former 1987 Duplicate Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c7d103$df4a3d00$1410a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Andre Steffens: >I found the historical comments of Grattan Endicott very insightful. It >gives a much better understanding of why the Laws are as they are today, >curious as they seem at times. > >I once read that records of all the Law books exist somewhere. I would >love to read them. Anyone who knows where to refer me to? >Appreciated! Richard Hills: Various versions of the 1987 Laws (and the current 1997 Laws) can be downloaded from this webpage: http://www.math.aau.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/ Hardcopy ACBL versions of the 1975 Laws and 1963 Laws can be found in the relevant old editions of the ACBL Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Aug 4 10:21:40 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:21:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c7d67e$ef9e97c0$fea487d9@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: To: Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, if a hesitation without design is not an infraction, it > cannot be an irregularity either. Therefore Tim's > interpretation of "without undue" in Law 73A2 has been > superseded by the WBF CoP interpretation, which has > redefined "without undue" as meaning "without design". > +=+ 'undue' is an equivocal word. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 6 05:43:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:43:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Four in One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: Nil You, South, hold: A62 T4 T98 AKJ83 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 3D Pass Pass 3H Pass 4C Pass 4D Pass ? What call do you make? Richard Hills asks: Is it a logical alternative for South to make the above-4H slam try of 4S and then, when North shows club support with 5C, bid slam in clubs? Alain Gottcheiner answers no: >4H is pretty obvious, isn't it ? As I >said before, 4D in such a sequence is >only a choice-of-games bid. David Barton answers yes: >4S [then] 6C >I guess this is likely to be on a >finesse into the pre-emptor. Say: > >Kx AQJxxx x Qxxx Richard Hills: What happened at the table was that North incorrectly alerted South's natural 4C bid. South then chose to sign off in 4H, for -50. The Appeals Committee ruled that 4H was demonstrably suggested by the alert, and that 4S then 6C was the only logical alternative not suggested by the alert. Furthermore, the Appeals Committee ruled that East, with a heart void, would Lightner Double 6C, so adjusted the score to 6Cx -300. The controversial issue is that the TD performed a double-blind (no alerts) poll of a number of players, all of whom chose to sign off in 4H. Did the TD fail to poll enough players, given that at least one blmler would bid 4S then 6C? Is it permitted for the three members of the AC to add their own bidding choices to the poll, given that they have some extraneous information, so that their bidding choices were not double-blind? 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 Mon Aug 6 07:38:38 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:38:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Encrypted psychs In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0707240529v46615d47yd4a63ba40b5c9247@mail.gmail.com> References: <46A59B34.2080703@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0707240529v46615d47yd4a63ba40b5c9247@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B6B3DE.8050606@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] 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. [nige1] A friend Stewart Murray, named 10 8 6 4 2 of different suits a *squeegee-beegee*. Whenever he held this hand, he would bluff, raising before the draw, standing pat, then making a maximum raise after the draw. In 1959, our Edinburgh draw poker school was quorate when, first to speak, Stewart picked up a squeegee-beegee and opened for 4/-. Unusually, all six of the others played but nobody raised. Stewart stood pat and the rest of us all drew one card. With so many players in the pot, however, Stewart lost his nerve. He made the minimum mandatory bet of 6d. As a bluff this worked like magic! All of us had better hands but folded one after the other. I was last in line and folded with two small pairs :( From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 6 09:54:28 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:54:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Four in One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070806095137.02802e60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:43 6/08/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >You, South, hold: > >A62 >T4 >T98 >AKJ83 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 3D Pass >Pass 3H Pass 4C >Pass 4D Pass ? > >What call do you make? > >Richard Hills asks: > >Is it a logical alternative for South to >make the above-4H slam try of 4S and >then, when North shows club support with >5C, bid slam in clubs? > >Alain Gottcheiner answers no: > >David Barton answers yes: This is because David is of the Old School, advocating that 4D is a slam try, while I'm a modernist, advocating that 4D is a mere choice of games. This means that, in assessing whether 4H was obvious or not (it is, according to the New School), they should have checked how the pair treats such cue-bids. Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Aug 6 13:41:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Is Tim saying that hesitations without design, although not > infractions, are still irregularities? It is not I who say it but the laws (definitions+L73a2). Design (or lack thereof) is irrelevant - hesitations must also be "due". > If so, I disagree. I believe that an infraction should be > defined as an irregularity committed by a player. I believe that infraction should be defined. I don't think "irregularity committed by a player" works. I think spectators can commit infractions. The context in which the word is used in the CoP is "an irregularity which gains advantage/damages opps". > Ergo, if a hesitation without design is not an infraction, it > cannot be an irregularity either. Therefore Tim's > interpretation of "without undue" in Law 73A2 has been > superseded by the WBF CoP interpretation, which has redefined > "without undue" as meaning "without design". Neither my interpretation nor that of any other TD *can* be superseded by the CoP. As a guiding document it applies solely to WBF competitions while as a source of official interpretation of law it has no standing whatsoever. As a player/TD I believe that bridge is *supposed to be played in tempo* and until the WBFLC explicitly state otherwise I will continue to rule on that basis. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Aug 6 13:41:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46B3242F.8080301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > L12C3 may be a player's nightmare but it is a director's wet dream, > so BLMLers leap to its defence. On about 260 days a year I'm a "player", on maybe 8 days I'm a TD. I assure you the 260 days dominate the 8 when determining what I "like". I really don't understand your dislike of L12c3 or argument that it makes players less likely to call the TD. A typical L12c3 application would be where a pair in 4S makes 11 tricks but there was some minor MI which might (with about a 1/6 to 1/5 chance have led to 12 tricks. The L12c2 ruling is NOS +450/OS-480. The L12c3 ruling for NOS would be 25% of 480 + 75% of 450. That gives them *more* incentive to seek a ruling - not less. The OS get a better score too but in this sort of MI cases (they forget to reveal some secondary inference) there is seldom any consideration of deliberate concealment. In rare instances where one considers the lack of disclosure wilful one can penalise the OS by a top or so as an incentive. > IMO, the committee did not simply "reinterpret an old law". They > invented a completely new one. Your opinion is incorrect. All the AC did was say that they didn't need to meet in order to condone a recommended L12c3 ruling accepted by all the players at the table. > [A] L12C3 only empowered *committees* to adjust scores to "achieve > equity". > [C] The new law *required* the chief director to comply. Seemingly, > had he been unwilling, then he would have had to undergo compulsory > brainwashing. Weird! Luckily, a typical director would need no > persuasion. Otherwise the TD (every time he thinks an equity ruling is needed) has to give an L12c2 ruling he believes to be unfair and refer the matter to an AC. Sure, most TDs are grateful that they avoid the hassle of convening, briefing, and administering an AC in such circumstances. > > [D] For previous laws, the criterion for most rulings is "balance > of probability". Under their new law, the committee backed the > judgement of the chief director to the extent that they promised > not alter his rulings unless the appellants could prove their case > "beyond reasonable doubt". They did no such thing. If a contestant believed that a L12c3 ruling was inappropriate (ie that L12c2 would suffice) then that issue would be considered on a "balance of probability basis" (just as any other would be). The advice on appealing was that if a pair believed that L12c3 should be used *but* that the percentages assigned by the TD were inappropriate there should bear in mind that the TD had consulted widely amongst their peers in coming to his decision and that there was thus a risk of an appeal being deemed "without merit" if they failed to produce some evidence (not proof) as to why different percentages should be used. > IMO Tim deludes himself into thinking that the new law has no legal > impact. He believes that the fall in appeals is because players are > "grateful for easier lives" and "happy with the rulings". I believe that because the friends (whom I know to be law-abiding players) I have who play in top level WBFLC competitions tell me that the quality of both TDs and decisions in such competitions is much better than it used to be. > Admittedly, to some extent, Tim is right... > (1) *directors and law-breakers have easier lives* and Directors might (they have fewer appeals to organise but OTOH they often need to put a little more work into their initial rulings). They won't win many popularity polls because a L12c3 ruling is something for which they must take a level of personal responsibility that L12c2 rulings somewhat allow them to avoid. Law-breakers have slightly harder lives - there's more incentive for NOS to call the TD in a marginal cases. > (2) *directors and law-breakers are happy with the rulings* but Directors are giving what they believe to be "fairer" rulings - why should they not be happier? I'm not convinced that law-breakers are ever "happy" with any adverse ruling. Certainly where the TD deems a additional penalty desirable they never seem happy. > (3) *law-abiding players are often denied adequate redress* and now I haven't seen any examples of this. By which I mean an example of where the redress given under L12c3 is inadequate compared to that which would have been given under L12c2 on the basis of similar judgements regarding the likely outcomes. (Obviously I have seen some rulings where an, IMO bad, judgement would have led to an inadequate adjustment under either law.) > (4) *victims of infractions cannot even resort to a fair appeal* They can, they do, and there are plenty of times where it has happened. > Thus the new law that the appeal committee invented has wider It was (still) a new procedure not a new law. If you wish you might also refer to it as a new regulation. The WBF (and an AC sub-committee for a WBF tournament) both have an absolute right to develop/implement regulations for the tournaments they promote. The only proviso is that those regulations not be "in conflict with the laws". Since the WBFLC has deemed the WBFAC reg not to be in conflict that isn't an issue. > application and more teeth than any previous law. Its main effect > is to reward law-breakers and reduce appeals. There are fewer appeals now. That's partly because the law-abiding players actually prefer (and readily relate to) good quality L12c3 rulings and partly because the quality of the normal L12c2 rulings has also improved. (Albeit the occasional shocker still gets made). I have spoken to several players (at various representative levels) about the issue and none of them share your concerns about what the WBF have done. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 7 01:33:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 09:33:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads asserted: >Neither my interpretation nor that of any other TD *can* be >superseded by the CoP. As a guiding document it applies solely >to WBF competitions while as a source of official interpretation >of law it has no standing whatsoever. Richard Hills corrects: If Tim should read the English Bridge Union "White Book", the EBU's official guide for EBU Tournament Directors, Tim will note that the EBU has adopted most of the clauses of the WBF Code of Practice, including this particular clause that we are debating. Therefore, if Tim should direct an EBU tournament, Tim cannot use his own interpretation of Law 73A2, but must instead abide by the CoP interpretation of Law 73A2, since that has the status of an EBU regulation. Law 81B2: "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." 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 Aug 7 05:32:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:32:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >I believe that infraction should be defined. Richard Hills: I agree that it is an obvious hole in the 1997 Lawbook's version of the Chapter 1 Definitions that "irregularity" is defined, but "infraction" is not defined. Tim West-Meads: >I don't think "irregularity committed by a >player" works. I think spectators can commit >infractions. Richard Hills: While it is obvious that a spectator can commit an "irregularity" contrary to Law 76, I do not think it would work stating a spectator can commit an "infraction", since it is impossible to adjust a spectator's score to rectify that so-called "infraction". To me it seems sensible that "irregularities" should be defined to include, but not be limited to, "infractions" committed by players. 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 Aug 7 06:41:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:41:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>...until the WBFLC explicitly state otherwise I will continue to >>rule on that basis. Richard Hills: You want "explicit" from the WBFLC ??? WBF Laws Committee minutes 27 August 2002, item 4(i): >4. (i) The Committee spent some time considering a summary of WBF >Laws Committee decisions 1997-2001, prepared at the Chairman's >invitation by Mr. D W Stevenson. The Committee had a difficulty >with certain of the statements and it was agreed that, whilst the >purpose of the exercise is a desirable one, the discussion of this >document should continue via the internet. Meanwhile any >publication of the document is not approved. It was noted that the >minutes of the Laws Committee remain the definitive source of >information as to its decisions. Richard Hills: When discussing the above minute, a colourful bridge administrator asserted: "But the reason the WBFLC did not approve them is well known: some of the Committee thought the actual minutes meant the exact opposite to what other members of the Committee thought!" :-) :-) :-) 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 Aug 7 07:22:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:22:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c7cfb4$81e85b60$749887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >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. Andrew Metcalfe: "We can have the most perfect systems and processes in place but they will not be effective unless we also have a strong set of values in place, which is consistent across an organisation's roles and locations." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 7 12:50:27 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:50:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? Message-ID: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. Has the lowest diamond been played or not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 7 13:05:27 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:05:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c7d8e2$dce80470$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's > playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to > "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. > Has the lowest diamond been played or not? Why would anybody even think the possibility that a Diamond has been called from dummy? "Ruff" refers to a non-existent denomination. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 7 13:17:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > If Tim should read the English Bridge Union "White Book", the > EBU's official guide for EBU Tournament Directors, Tim will note > that the EBU has adopted most of the clauses of the WBF Code of > Practice, including this particular clause that we are debating. > EBU regulation. > Therefore, if Tim should direct an EBU tournament, Tim cannot use > his own interpretation of Law 73A2, but must instead abide by the > CoP interpretation of Law 73A2, My own interpretation of L73a2 does not conflict with that given in the CoP. A hesitation which is "without design" may nevertheless be "undue" and the CoP says nothing to contradict that. I would enquire as to why there was a BiT and would accept answers such as "There was a stop bid", "The TD was picking up the table money", "The waitress was delivering sandwiches" when making a judgement as to the "dueness" of the hesitation. An answer such as "I had a difficult decision" will result in me telling the player "I'm afraid the difficulty of a problem does not relieve you of the obligation to bid in tempo." Thus I address the next bit on purely academic grounds in relation to this particular regulation. > since that has the status of Law 81B2: > > "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary > regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." Which is mitigated by L80F "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." As a TD I refuse to enforce regulations which are in conflict with the laws. Illegal regulations are not binding on TDs and "interpretations of law" by bodies other than the WBFLC have no legal standing. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 7 13:17:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > While it is obvious that a spectator can commit > an "irregularity" contrary to Law 76, I do not > think it would work stating a spectator can > commit an "infraction", since it is impossible > to adjust a spectator's score to rectify that > so-called "infraction". It is possible to adjust (or vary the normal adjustment of) the score of a contestant deemed responsible for the spectator. It is also possible to discipline the responsible party. If no contestant is responsible for the spectator then one can still fine/ban/suspend from future competition that spectator. > To me it seems sensible that "irregularities" > should be defined to include, Perhaps they should, perhaps in the next version of the laws they will be. But currently they *are* defined as "deviations from correct procedure" and that is the standard I will use. Tim but not be > limited to, "infractions" committed by players. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, > please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or > entities other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your > privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official > departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 7 13:17:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > >>...until the WBFLC explicitly state otherwise I will continue to > >>rule on that basis. > > Richard Hills: > > You want "explicit" from the WBFLC ??? Not particularly. They have the right to be explicit if they choose but if they choose otherwise it won't interfere with how I rule. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 7 17:23:39 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:23:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 7, 2007, at 7:17 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Illegal regulations are not binding on TDs and "interpretations of > law" by bodies other than the WBFLC have no legal standing. It has been a fundamental principle of military law since that subject was first discussed that a soldier is to obey the orders given to him. At Nuremburg, however, "I was only following orders" was thrown out, and now the principle is that one is not required (indeed must not, in practice) obey illegal orders. The problem, of course, is that what makes an order illegal is nowhere defined. So you disobey an order at your peril (one hopes the old practice of shooting out of hand a subordinate who refuses to obey an order is no longer extant, but who knows?) In parallel with this principle of modern military law one could argue that a TD should not be bound by "illegal" regulations, but who decides whether they are illegal? And does the parallel really make sense in the context of a game, anyway? In any case, such regulations and interpretations *are* binding and *do* have legal standing if the WBFLC says they do (I am not claiming the WBFLC has done so). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 7 17:43:38 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:43:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9576906D-0594-4AC5-AE33-AFBC50C2AB3A@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 7, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's > playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to > "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. > Has the lowest diamond been played or not? No. Law 46B4. "Ruff" designates a trump, but there are no trumps in dummy (or anywhere else, for that matter). From john at asimere.com Tue Aug 7 17:58:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:58:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003401c7d90b$c364a890$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] snip >> >> "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary >> regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." > > Which is mitigated by L80F "to publish or announce regulations > supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." > > As a TD I refuse to enforce regulations which are in conflict with the > laws. Illegal regulations are not binding on TDs and "interpretations of > law" by bodies other than the WBFLC have no legal standing. The TD's primary duities include running the game according to the laws. If, in the opinion of the TD a regulation is illegal, then he *should* disregard it as it is in conflict with the Laws. An interpretation handed down by the WBFLC, however, is an interpretation, and has the force of law. So Tim and I are in agreement, as is mostly the case. John > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 7 18:03:02 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:03:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Herman De Wael > /*Date :*/ 07/08/2007 12:51:01 > /*A :*/ blml > /*Sujet :*/ [blml] played or not? > > The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's > playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to > "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. > Has the lowest diamond been played or not? > > > We had a similar case two years ago (in 2NT vs spades). > Since there is no trump suit, there is no card designated by the words > "trump" or "ruff". Three answers, all the same. And all wrong, I think. The laws authorize a declarer to call the cards by whatever means. Calling for "the Beer card" is certainly a full indication of the diamond seven. So is the word "ruff". So saying that the word ruff does not refer to a card in dummy is, IMO, wrong. Consider what would happen if declarer, rather than saying "ruff", just points at the low diamond, or picks it up. All kinds of ways to indicate that the 2 of diamonds is the card he intends to play. > Come to think of it, if declarer doesn't say himself what suit he > believes to be trumps, how would you rule which suit he has in mind ? > That's the way Andr? Leplat ruled, and he was right IMHO. > I don't think a declarer can honestly claim to be confused about the trump suit in more than one of them. I think we can settle that problem easily if it ever came up. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Tue Aug 7 18:20:05 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Steffens?=) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:20:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <847EC2BC46C2413C970A6AC08DB43DD6@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. Has the lowest diamond been played or not? -- Herman DE WAEL ----------------------------- Law 46B: In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer?s different intention is incontrovertible) To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play a small diamond. Andr? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 7 18:46:30 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:46:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > So saying that the word ruff > does not refer to a card in dummy is, IMO, wrong. I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't say that. I said that "ruff" calls for a card not in dummy. Different thing altogether. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 7 18:59:39 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:59:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> References: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Andr? Steffens wrote: > To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to > play a > small diamond. That information was not given in the original post, save by inference from "he thought diamonds were trumps" (how did Herman know that?) The only way to know declarer's intention is to ask him. Edgar Kaplan is reported to have said "decide what ruling you wish to make, then find a law to support it". To me, that's a stupid way to rule a game. But perhaps we're stuck with it, at least for now. If you pick Law 46B4, then no card was played. If you pick Law 45C4(a), then dummy's lowest diamond was played. Take your pick. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 7 19:24:45 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:24:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003401c7d90b$c364a890$0701a8c0@john> References: <003401c7d90b$c364a890$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <46B8AADD.9060509@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads & John Probst] "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." Which is mitigated by L80F "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." [nige1] I hate the mess of local regulations. Nevertheless, the arbiter of whether a local regulation conflicts with the law is the the WBF or local legislature -- certainly *not* an individual director or player. [Tim West-Meads & John Probst] As a TD I refuse to enforce regulations which are in conflict with the laws. Illegal regulations are not binding on TDs and "interpretations of law" by bodies other than the WBFLC have no legal standing. [nigel] I think such official interpretations do have legal or regulatory standing. Although, we all agree that the laws and regulations, themselves, *should* be clear enough to stand on their own; and any corrections should be made *in place* rather than buried in some leopards loo. [Tim West-Meads & John Probst] The TD's primary duties include running the game according to the laws. If, in the opinion of the TD a regulation is illegal, then he *should* disregard it as it is in conflict with the Laws. An interpretation handed down by the WBFLC, however, is an interpretation, and has the force of law. So Tim and I are in agreement, as is mostly the case. [nige1] IMO, even if you think a rule is wrong then: as a player, you should abide by it; as a director you should enforce it. Of course you should protest vociferously. You should resign, if you are a director and feel strongly enough to do so. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 7 19:50:32 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:50:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? References: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <006e01c7d91b$7d2cc960$40b187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** " vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andr? Steffens" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. Has the lowest diamond been played or not? -- Herman DE WAEL ----------------------------- Law 46B: In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible) To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play a small diamond. Andr? +=+ Law 45 determines whether a card has been played. Which condition in Law 45 has been satisfied? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 20:23:17 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:23:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <006e01c7d91b$7d2cc960$40b187d9@Hellen> References: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> <006e01c7d91b$7d2cc960$40b187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708071123n36f846d9x9357f0cae6475133@mail.gmail.com> On 8/7/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > **************************** > " > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andr? Steffens" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 > diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the > table stops laughing, the director is called. > Has the lowest diamond been played or not? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > > ----------------------------- > > Law 46B: > In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be > played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's > different intention is incontrovertible) > > To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play a > small diamond. > > Andr? > > +=+ Law 45 determines whether a card has been played. Which > condition in Law 45 has been satisfied? > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ I'll bite. Sounds easy. The answer to Grattan's question is Law 45B: "Director plays a card from dummy by naming the card" If declarer's intention is incontrovertible from his attempt to name the card, then the intended card is deemed played by Law 46B0. The only remaining issue, it seems to me, is whether his intention to play a small diamond was incontrovertible. I think the information we have is not quite sufficient to be sure, though I suspect it was incontrovertible. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 7 20:36:11 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:36:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7d921$d44aab80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's > > playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to > > "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. > > Has the lowest diamond been played or not? > > > > > > We had a similar case two years ago (in 2NT vs spades). > > Since there is no trump suit, there is no card designated by the words > > "trump" or "ruff". > > Three answers, all the same. > And all wrong, I think. > The laws authorize a declarer to call the cards by whatever means. Herman is incredible! Law 46A prescribes the proper form for designating Dummy's card. Law 46B specifies the applicable restrictions on Declarer's play from Dummy when he has called a card from Dummy in a manner different from that prescribed in Law 46A, but Law 46B definitely does not authorize such manners. > Calling for "the Beer card" is certainly a full indication of the > diamond seven. I suppose this is true in the Low Countries; it is definitely not true in my part of the world. Incidentally, as for "the bear card" it might be relevant that there is an absolute ban on drinking any alcohol (and/or smoking) at all serious events (and also at most other events) in Norway. > So is the word "ruff". > So saying that the word ruff > does not refer to a card in dummy is, IMO, wrong. Excuse me? How can the word "ruff" be a full indication of any card when playing at No Trump? Even in a trump contract this would be an incomplete designation resulting in the application of Law 46B2. > Consider what would happen if declarer, rather than saying "ruff", > just points at the low diamond, or picks it up. All kinds of ways to > indicate that the 2 of diamonds is the card he intends to play. Please don't indicate that you do not know the difference between specifically designating a particular card by its rank and denomination or by touching it directly and using some more or less obscure alias for that card? > > Come to think of it, if declarer doesn't say himself what suit he > > believes to be trumps, how would you rule which suit he has in mind ? > > That's the way Andr? Leplat ruled, and he was right IMHO. > > > > I don't think a declarer can honestly claim to be confused about the > trump suit in more than one of them. I think we can settle that > problem easily if it ever came up. So you have not met boards where the declarers (all in the same position) split more or less evenly between those playing 3NT and game in at least two different denominations? I still remember a board from many years ago where I had the opening lead against a contract at 4 Hearts after dummy had shown a 4-4-4-1 distribution with a stiff Club. For various reasons I lead a Club to partner's Ace and he returned another club; neither of us wanted to open any of the other suits. I covered declarer's club and he told Dummy to discard [sic!] a Heart. Then declarer apparently considered the play of the board, and some ten minutes passed away before he suddenly looked surprised at the three of us and asked why we all had that last trick marked to him! He had not intentionally ruffed, but all the same that was what he did. He would of course have achieved exactly the same by calling a small trump or by calling for a ruff, but that is only because we were playing at trump. Had we been playing at No Trump his call in those cases would have been void under Law 46B4 regardless of which trump contract he had preferred. Sven PS. There will be no further comment from me on this matter. It is too stupid. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 7 20:50:34 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:50:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1><46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : played or not? > > On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> So saying that the word ruff >> does not refer to a card in dummy is, IMO, wrong. > > I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't say that. I said that > "ruff" calls for a card not in dummy. Different thing altogether. > +=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5. Declarer has indicated a 'play'. In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit. That seems to be what 46B5 says. The parenthesis has no part in the substance of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 21:20:08 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:20:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> <001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5. > Declarer has indicated a 'play'. > In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit. > That seems to be what 46B5 says. The parenthesis > has no part in the substance of the law. > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ Wold you please expand on your last sentence? Are you saying that parenthetical expressions have no legal force and can just as well be removed from the laws? I thought the parenthetical in the first sentence of Law 46B was clear and overriding. What it says to me is if someone uses the wrong name, such as "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" for example, it names the card just as clearly as stating "two of clubs"---provided declarer's meaning is incontrovertible. Otherwise, Grattan, what law makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear? Also, Law 46B5 seems to have no bearing on this case. Declarer did not say "play anything" or words of like import. The parenthetical phrase at the beginning of Law 46B seems to me to override the need to apply Law 46B5: If his intention is indeed incontrovertible that the suit he designated is diamonds even though he never said the word diamonds, then Law 46B2 applies and the card he is deemed to have played is the smallest diamond. I had never before heard this notion that parenthetical phrases have no part in the substance of the law. Has this been written before? -Jerry Fusselman From mustikka at charter.net Tue Aug 7 21:37:48 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:37:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] played or not? References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c7d92a$6fac11b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:50 AM Subject: [blml] played or not? > The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's > playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to > "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. > Has the lowest diamond been played or not? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium I think it should be established all that happened, like A. 1. Declarer's incontrovertible intention was to play a trump when he said "ruff", but there were no trumps in dummy - or anywhere else in this hand. 2. Then comes laughing. 3. Then declarer said "oh I thought diamonds were trump". 4. Then TD is called. 5. Then someone told declarer the contract is 3NT. 6. TD makes ruling on what card declarer must play. Or is it B. 1. Incontrovertible intention to play a trump. 2. Laughing. 3. TD called 4. Contract is 3NT 5. "I thought diamonds were trump" 6. TD ruling. If diamond is considered played, then: If declarer had just said "ooohhh" or "oops" , what Law would support the idea that _a diamond was played_ when nobody knows what declarer's mistaken thought was? Or is TD required to embarrass the declarer by making him fess'up what his muddled mistake was, and then make him play whatever he thought was trump, while there was no trump suit in this hand. Why? Just food for thought for the real law experts. IMO, obviously no card has been played. Raija From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 7 22:27:14 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:27:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1><46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be><7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com><001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "A man forever undone by the second p in problem," [Epitaph] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : played or not? >> +=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5. >> Declarer has indicated a 'play'. >> In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit. >> That seems to be what 46B5 says. The parenthesis >> has no part in the substance of the law. >> ~ Grattan ~ >> +=+ > > Wold you please expand on your last sentence? Are you saying that > parenthetical expressions have no legal force and can just as well be > removed from the laws? > > I thought the parenthetical in the first sentence of Law 46B was clear > and overriding. What it says to me is if someone uses the wrong name, > such as "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" for example, it names > the card just as clearly as stating "two of clubs"---provided > declarer's meaning is incontrovertible. Otherwise, Grattan, what law > makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear? > > Also, Law 46B5 seems to have no bearing on this case. Declarer did > not say "play anything" or words of like import. The parenthetical > phrase at the beginning of Law 46B seems to me to override the need to > apply Law 46B5: If his intention is indeed incontrovertible that the > suit he designated is diamonds even though he never said the word > diamonds, then Law 46B2 applies and the card he is deemed to have > played is the smallest diamond. > > I had never before heard this notion that parenthetical phrases have > no part in the substance of the law. Has this been written before? > > -Jerry Fusselman > +=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is Kaplanesque. ~ G ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 22:43:46 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:43:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> <001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com> <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708071343y75895753lb5c4feaa8d0523b8@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be > read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is Kaplanesque. > ~ G ~ +=+ But you are not saying the parenthetical inlay has no force, no meaning, or no purpose. This distinction between basic law and what's the other kind---less-basic law?---does it have any relevance to the original posting? What law makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear? It seems to me the parenthetical inlay is the only part of the law that makes it clear that "two of clubs" is what is deemed played. Whether the parenthetical inlay is called "basic law" or not seems rather moot. -Jerry Fusselman From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 8 01:18:58 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:18:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1><46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be><7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com><001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen><2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com><003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708071343y75895753lb5c4feaa8d0523b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002001c7d949$5a6d21d0$459e87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "A man forever undone by the second p in problem," [Epitaph] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : played or not? >> +=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be >> read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is >> Kaplanesque. >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > But you are not saying the parenthetical inlay has no force, no > meaning, or no purpose. This distinction between basic law and what's > the other kind---less-basic law?---does it have any relevance to the > original posting? > > What law makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear? It seems > to me the parenthetical inlay is the only part of the law that makes > it clear that "two of clubs" is what is deemed played. Whether the > parenthetical inlay is called "basic law" or not seems rather moot. > +=+ Your deuce nominates a card - by rank or suit or both. "Ruff " does not designate a card. It designates an intended play. Laws 45 and 46 are concerned with the designation of cards, except that 46B5 deals with plays where no card is designated. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 8 01:35:25 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:35:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1><46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be><7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com><001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen><2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com><003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708071343y75895753lb5c4feaa8d0523b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002f01c7d94b$bdc3d150$459e87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "A man forever undone by the second p in problem," [Epitaph] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : played or not? >> +=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be >> read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is >> Kaplanesque. >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > But you are not saying the parenthetical inlay has no force, no > meaning, or no purpose. This distinction between basic law and what's > the other kind---less-basic law?---does it have any relevance to the > original posting? > > What law makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear? It seems > to me the parenthetical inlay is the only part of the law that makes > it clear that "two of clubs" is what is deemed played. Whether the > parenthetical inlay is called "basic law" or not seems rather moot. > +=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an appeal committee, I would listen with care to any suggestion that declarer has not played any card because he has not given any instruction as to a play consistent with a No Trumps contract. ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 8 02:19:01 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:19:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> References: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <46B90BF5.9070105@NTLworld.com> [Herman de Wael] The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. Has the lowest diamond been played or not? [Sven Pram] Why would anybody even think the possibility that a Diamond has been called from dummy? "Ruff" refers to a non-existent denomination. [Andr? Steffens] To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play a small diamond. [nige1] I agree with Andr? Steffens. Assuming that diamonds is the most likely alternative contract, then declarer seems to have designated a diamond. [Ed Reppert] That information was not given in the original post, save by inference from "he thought diamonds were trumps" (how did Herman know that?) The only way to know declarer's intention is to ask him. [nigel] I feel it is a mistake to ask declarer if discarding a diamond would probably cost a trick. Some declarers may admit that they thought diamonds were trumps bit others may well rationalise some other possibility. IMO the director should not encourage a player to prevaricate, unnecessarily. [Jerry Fusselman] ...Law 45B: "Director plays a card from dummy by naming the card" If declarer's intention is incontrovertible from his attempt to name the card, then the intended card is deemed played by Law 46B0. The only remaining issue, it seems to me, is whether his intention to play a small diamond was incontrovertible. I think the information we have is not quite sufficient to be sure, though I suspect it was incontrovertible. [nige1] I agree with Jerry Fusselman. For example, suppose that the nine of diamonds is the only nine and the only diamond in dummy. If diamonds is the putative trump suit then declarer plays D9 when he nominates "nine" "diamond" "carrot" "ruff" "trump" or even "curse of Scotland. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Your deuce nominates a card - by rank or suit or both. "Ruff " does not designate a card. It designates an intended play. Laws 45 and 46 are concerned with the designation of cards,except that 46B5 deals with plays where no card is designated. +=+ [Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning Service] Sweeney shifts from ham to ham Stirring the water in his bath. The masters of the subtle schools Are controversial, polymath. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 8 03:15:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:15:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003401c7d90b$c364a890$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>..."interpretations of law" by bodies other than the WBFLC >>have no legal standing. John (MadDog) Probst: >The TD's primary duties include running the game according >to the laws. If, in the opinion of the TD a regulation is >illegal, then he *should* disregard it as it is in conflict >with the Laws. An interpretation handed down by the WBFLC, >however, is an interpretation, and has the force of law. So >Tim and I are in agreement, as is mostly the case. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 4: "The Secretary undertook to seek publication of a disclaimer on the WBF web to the effect that no opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision of the committee, should be considered to have the authority of a committee decision. "Directors seeking guidance should refer to their respective NCBOs." Richard Hills: 1. The WBF LC can interpret Law, and such an interpretation has the force of Law. 2. The WBF LC has interpreted Law to the effect that it can delegate its power of interpreting Law to the National Authorities of National Contract Bridge Organisations for situations where the WBF LC has not yet interpreted Law. 3. Ergo, an interpretation of Law by the English Bridge Union's National Authority, the Laws and Ethics Committee, has legal validity in the EBU unless and until such an EBU L&EC interpretation of Law happens to contradict a WBF LC interpretation of Law. 4. Therefore, the "mostly the case" agreement of MadDog and Tim is, in this particular case, an agreement on a fallacy. 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 Mon Aug 6 09:29:41 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:29:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? Message-ID: IMPs, Love all You hold: 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. Your lead? -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070806/ea7f3ecd/attachment-0001.htm From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Aug 7 13:03:41 2007 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:03:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72260160489A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> > The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. > He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". > When the table stops laughing, the director is called. > Has the lowest diamond been played or not? I think declarer has called for a that is not in dummy: he has called for a trump and dummy has none. So (L46B4) the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070807/1a667c80/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 7 16:33:56 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:33:56 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 07/08/2007 12:51:01 A : blml Sujet : [blml] played or not? The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. Has the lowest diamond been played or not? We had a similar case two years ago (in 2NT vs spades). Since there is no trump suit, there is no card designated by the words trump" or "ruff". Come to think of it, if declarer doesn't say himself what suit he believes to be trumps, how would you rule which suit he has in mind ? That's the way Andr? Leplat ruled, and he was right IMHO. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070807/442e4028/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/20070807/442e4028/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/20070807/442e4028/attachment-0001.gif From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 8 08:47:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:47:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert asks: [snip] >>>In parallel with this principle of modern military law >>>one could argue that a TD should not be bound by >>>"illegal" regulations, but who decides whether they are >>>illegal? [snip] John (MadDog) Probst answers: [snip] >>If, in the opinion of the TD a regulation is illegal, then >>he *should* disregard it as it is in conflict with the >>Laws. [snip] English Bridge Union "Orange Book" contradicts: >1 C Following published regulations > >1 C 1 Players entering events are expected to submit >themselves to the published regulations. > >1 C 2 Players are expected to comply with regulations even >though they may doubt the legality of the regulations >(under the Laws of Bridge). Players seeking to challenge >regulations should do so by approaching the Laws and Ethics >Committee via correspondence, rather than (say) via the >appeals process. See 1 B for how to contact the Committee. > >1 C 3 The Laws and Ethics Committee encourages such >approaches in cases of difficulty. Richard Hills quibbles: However, this "Orange Book" clause 1C is not relevant to John Probst's answer, since the clause applies to EBU *players*, but does not apply to a MadDog EBU *director*. :-) And, of course, even if clause 1C was revised so that "players" was amended to "players and directors", what if a MadDog director deemed that such a revised clause 1C was an illegal regulation? :-) 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 8 09:01:13 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:01:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Grattan: >> +=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5. >> Declarer has indicated a 'play'. >> In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit. >> That seems to be what 46B5 says. This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a clear answer. I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was indicated. When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the diamond suit. How can that be ignored? When declarer does play 4 hearts and asks to ruff will anybody ever ask him with what suit? But then he can't ruff so what gets priority? If you say he indicated the lowest diamond you know what to do. If you say he asked for a card which is not in dummy, one with trumping quality, so winning the trick that means, you also know what to do. In my opinion the laws do not tell which of those two is the right approach. And with my personal lenient approach to the game I would have chosen the second option. This seems something the laws committee should take a stand in. Unless it already has done so, or somebody comes up with a more convincing argument. I like it, it made my morning start enjoyable, hurray for Belgium. ton From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 8 09:27:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:27:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] [blml played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>>+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can >>>>be read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is >>>>Kaplanesque. >>>> ~ G ~ +=+ Jerry Fusselman: >>>But you are not saying the parenthetical inlay has no force, no >>>meaning, or no purpose. This distinction between basic law and >>>what's the other kind---less-basic law?---does it have any >>>relevance to the original posting? >>> >>>What law makes "deuce of clubs" or "deuce of clovers" clear? It >>>seems to me the parenthetical inlay is the only part of the law >>>that makes it clear that "two of clubs" is what is deemed played. >>> >>>Whether the parenthetical inlay is called "basic law" or not seems >>>rather moot. Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an appeal committee, I >>would listen with care to any suggestion that declarer has not >>played any card because he has not given any instruction as to a >>play consistent with a No Trumps contract. ~ G ~ +=+ Law 46B preamble: "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" Richard Hills: Perhaps I can translate the Grattanese / Kaplanese. The way that the Law 46B preamble should be parsed is that the parenthetical "(except when declarer's different intent is incontrovertible)" is a modifier to "an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card". If declarer calls "cup of tea please", that is not an erroneous call of a card, it is not any sort of call of a card, even if declarer only asks for a cup of tea when about to play a diamond, thus making declarer's intent incontrovertible. Likewise, declarer calling "ruff" in a notrump contract is not an erroneous call of a card, it is not any sort of call of a card. Nigel Guthrie, quoting Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning Service: >Sweeney shifts from ham to ham >Stirring the water in his bath. >The masters of the subtle schools >Are controversial, polymath. Richard Hills, quoting Mr. Gilbert's Iolanthe: The Law is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, And I, my Lords, embody the Law. :-) 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 sater at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 8 09:08:33 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:08:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00d701c7d98a$eec79540$9d00000a@bridge.corp> Although I am averse to these sort of leads I might well lead a spade in this sequence. Now of course I get to go to the appeal committee :-( Hans _____ Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens Harald Skj?ran Verzonden: maandag 6 augustus 2007 9:30 Aan: BLML Onderwerp: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? IMPs, Love all You hold: 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. Your lead? -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070808/b12b0a23/attachment.htm From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Aug 8 10:12:31 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:12:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? References: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> <46B90BF5.9070105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <005101c7d994$02cd61b0$3c493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> > [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Your deuce nominates a card - by rank or suit or both. "Ruff " does not designate a card. It designates an intended play. Laws 45 and 46 are concerned with the designation of cards,except that 46B5 deals with plays where no card is designated. +=+ > Suppose that the contract is in diamonds and declarer orders "ruff". What will happen? There is no card designated. It seems that declarer's intention is incontrovertible to play a small diamond. Has the lowest diamond been played or not? Ben _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 8 11:09:44 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:09:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <010f01c7d99d$0956ba00$159187d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "A man forever undone by the second p in problem," [Epitaph] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: blml ; Herman De Wael Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:33 PM Subject: [blml] R?f. : played or not? -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 07/08/2007 12:51:01 A : blml Sujet : [blml] played or not? The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. Has the lowest diamond been played or not? We had a similar case two years ago (in 2NT vs spades). Since there is no trump suit, there is no card designated by the words "trump" or "ruff".Come to think of it, if declarer doesn't say himself what suit he believes to be trumps, how would you rule which suit he has in mind ? That's the way Andr? Leplat ruled, and he was right IMHO. Best regards Alain ----------------------------------------------------------- Grattan (repeated): +=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an appeal committee, I would listen with care to any suggestion that declarer has not played any card because he has not given any instruction as to a play consistent with a No Trumps contract. ~ G ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 8 10:40:20 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:40:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c7d997$c12c8d40$6400a8c0@WINXP> 8S (partner?s suit?) Regards Sven -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Sent: 6. august 2007 09:30 To: BLML Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? IMPs, Love all You hold: 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. Your lead? -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070808/991a1f2f/attachment-0001.htm From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 8 13:25:20 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:25:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Réf. : played or not? References: Message-ID: <001401c7d9ae$cddf2a40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : played or not? > Grattan: > >>> +=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5. >>> Declarer has indicated a 'play'. >>> In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit. >>> That seems to be what 46B5 says. > > This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a clear > answer. > I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was > indicated. > When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the > diamond suit. How can that be ignored? > > When declarer does play 4 hearts and asks to ruff will anybody ever ask > him > with what suit? > > But then he can't ruff so what gets priority? If you say he indicated the > lowest diamond you know what to do. If you say he asked for a card which > is > not in dummy, one with trumping quality, so winning the trick that means, > you also know what to do. > In my opinion the laws do not tell which of those two is the right > approach. > And with my personal lenient approach to the game I would have chosen the > second option. This seems something the laws committee should take a stand > in. Unless it already has done so, or somebody comes up with a more > convincing argument. Mm. I think we have a lot of law where we don't care what the intent was, we just accept what the player did. I think that this is one such case. As ever I don't want to give the Probst cheat the opportunity to wriggle out and the honest but naive player the penalty. So, to me, it is clear that "ruff" is unambiguous. There is no card in dummy that one can ruff with and that is THE END of the matter. Intent is not relevant. john > > I like it, it made my morning start enjoyable, hurray for Belgium. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 8 13:29:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:29:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? References: <000f01c7d997$c12c8d40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003801c7d9af$6cc14c60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? 8S (partner's suit?) Regards Sven S8, what else? small heart 2nd choice but not close. John snip IMPs, Love all You hold: 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. Your lead? -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 13:53:23 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:53:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> References: <847EC2BC46C2413C970A6AC08DB43DD6@FK27.local> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135208.02a426a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:20 7/08/2007 +0200, Andr? Steffens wrote: >Law 46B: >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be >played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer?s >different intention is incontrovertible) > >To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play a >small diamond. And how do you assess that it was a diamond that he intended as trump ? If you ask him what he intended to be trumps, he would be too ashamed to answer. (Herman's second example, where declarer points to a specific card, is of course different) From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 8 13:42:44 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:42:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005401c7d9b1$3c0137a0$0701a8c0@john> >>approaches in cases of difficulty. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > However, this "Orange Book" clause 1C is not relevant to > John Probst's answer, since the clause applies to EBU > *players*, but does not apply to a MadDog EBU *director*. > > :-) > > And, of course, even if clause 1C was revised so that > "players" was amended to "players and directors", what if a > MadDog director deemed that such a revised clause 1C was an > illegal regulation? > > :-) Aw come on. 91B2 is entirely clear. I am bound by the Laws, and if a regulatoion is illegal I can't apply it. It is so obvious. "You can't open NT on Thursdays" is an illegal regulation in contradiction to Law 40A for example. I am not allowed to apply it. The EBU's "Partner sometimes forgets" regulation is illegal, to take a case in point. Every now and then we get test cases where the Law itself is tested. either in Bridge or in given Law. Sometimes these test cases demonstrate that a Law or regulation is illegal as it is in contradiction with some higher held interpretation. Such is the case for Bridge illegal regulations. John From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 13:55:53 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:55:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> References: <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135347.02a41130@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:46 7/08/2007 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > So saying that the word ruff > > does not refer to a card in dummy is, IMO, wrong. > >I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't say that. I said that >"ruff" calls for a card not in dummy. Different thing altogether. Yes, this is about the same as calling for the six of bells from dummy. Declarer is under no obligation to play some specific card in lieu of it. Although L74 could apply, of course. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 14:08:54 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:08:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> <001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135817.02a40c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:27 7/08/2007 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be >read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is Kaplanesque. It is more general : it is grammatical. "Parentheses introduce a comment, an information, a reflexion, an explanation, necessary or not, to help understand the remainider of the text" (translated from "proto typo", M. Bourdain / M. Burny) - inference : it is not part of the main text. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Aug 8 14:05:40 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:05:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= Message-ID: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> Hi all, ton schrieb: > > This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a clear answer. > neither do I... :-) But to quote another BLML member: how do we want the game to be played? > I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was indicated. > When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the > diamond suit. How can that be ignored? > There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who doesn`t know what the contract is to pay for that, as every director is also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something stupid and gets away with it. The problem is that we cannot do it consistently, as some declarers will tell us what they intended and others will not (or lie about it). We would scare off the naive ones, and send the wrong message to the honest ones. Seems wrong to me. We can be consistent, but that lets declarer get away from a stupid error. So how should the next laws read? Option A: Find a way to define the card that is deemed to have been called for. Suit to dummy`s right, first suit named by declarer, dummy`s longest suit, whatever. Consistent, but quite random, not always looking very fair to the players. Yesterday evening declarer thought he was playing hearts, which lay on the wrong side of dummy to be trumps. NT contract, of course. This only came up when the score was to be determined (and after defenders accepted a claim....). This would be teriibly unwieldy or rerribly random or both. Option B: Leave it to the TD`s judgement to determine whether a card can be identified as the one declarer wanted to be played, and rule that card played, or - if unable to do so - rule no card to have been played and let declarer name whatever he wants. This is more likely to let the players feel that "justice" has been done, but will sometimes be controversial. Some clause should define the room for judgement (not easy to do), but clearly empower the TD to use judgement. Option C: Rule call of card not in dummy in all cases. This has the big advantage of being consistent, but lets declarer off some hooks. > When declarer does play 4 hearts and asks to ruff will anybody ever ask him > with what suit? > > But then he can't ruff so what gets priority? If you say he indicated the > lowest diamond you know what to do. If you say he asked for a card which is > not in dummy, one with trumping quality, so winning the trick that means, > you also know what to do. > Looks like Ton would vote for option B here. So would I. But hundreds of less experienced (or self-assured) directors would want either A or C, because it lets the director off the hook. Personally I could live with C (Consistency!), but A looks completely unworkable to me. A very cursory draft of such a rule left me with several ifs, buts and whereases, leading to confusion and much waste of paper. For what it`s worth I think the current rules say C, but I could be convinced otherwise, maybe because I want to be talked into B. Regards Matthias From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Aug 8 14:27:58 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:27:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be><46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1><46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be><7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com><001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen><2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com> <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <013401c7d9b7$a7b46b10$3c493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : played or not? >> +=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5. >> Declarer has indicated a 'play'. >> In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit. >> That seems to be what 46B5 says. The parenthesis >> has no part in the substance of the law. >> ~ Grattan ~ >> +=+ > Does that mean that in case Law 46B5 applies, that either defender may designate the play from dummy? F.i. the lowest diamond? Ben From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 14:30:37 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:30:37 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__=2E=2E=2Ehave_we_really?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_come_to_this=3F=3F=3F____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <005401c7d9b1$3c0137a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <46B9B76C.000001.59505@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : John Probst Date : 08/08/2007 13:42:46 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Aw come on. 91B2 is entirely clear. I am bound by the Laws, and if a regulatoion is illegal I can't apply it. It is so obvious. "You can't open NT on Thursdays" is an illegal regulation in contradiction to Law 40A for example. I am not allowed to apply it. AG : Alas, it doesn't work like this. Take R18, for example. TFLB allows organizing bodies to legislate in such a way as to disallow an one-bid if it is made with about a king below an average hand (ie 7 HCP and not-very-unbalanced pattern). If they took steps to say it that way, it is obvious that they didn't want to allow disallowing it on more than this. However, R18 disallows us to open 1H (or 1 plum) on xxx-AKQ10x-xxx-xx, which is obviously not "a king below average". Whence R18 goes farther than TFLB, hence is in contradiction to L40, yet TDs are there to apply it. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070808/86ea6aae/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/20070808/86ea6aae/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/20070808/86ea6aae/attachment-0001.gif From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 8 15:03:28 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:03:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> <001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135817.02a40c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001e01c7d9bc$8adf2f70$d3c887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] **************************** "A man forever undone by the second p in problem," [Epitaph] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : played or not? > At 21:27 7/08/2007 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The >> basic law can be read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is Kaplanesque.+=+ > > It is more general : it is grammatical. > +=+ Edgar was nothing if not grammatical - at times to the point of obscurity for all but the recondite apostles. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 8 15:11:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:11:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: <005401c7d9b1$3c0137a0$0701a8c0@john> References: <005401c7d9b1$3c0137a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <46C21BF1-AFCB-43B6-9D36-85419D9304B8@starpower.net> On Aug 8, 2007, at 7:42 AM, John Probst wrote: > Aw come on. 91B2 is entirely clear. I am bound by the Laws, and if a > regulatoion is illegal I can't apply it. It is so obvious. "You > can't open > NT on Thursdays" is an illegal regulation in contradiction to Law > 40A for > example. I am not allowed to apply it. Previous communications to this forum have made it pretty clear that the WBF would take the position that such a regulation would be legal, based on the power granted to SOs by L80F. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 8 15:18:33 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:18:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135208.02a426a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <847EC2BC46C2413C970A6AC08DB43DD6@FK27.local> <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135208.02a426a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 8, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 18:20 7/08/2007 +0200, Andr? Steffens wrote: > >> Law 46B: >> In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card >> to be >> played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when >> declarer?s >> different intention is incontrovertible) >> >> To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to >> play a >> small diamond. > > And how do you assess that it was a diamond that he intended as > trump ? If > you ask him what he intended to be trumps, he would be too ashamed > to answer. And rulings shouldn't depend on the degree of shame involved, should they? Do we really want to constrain the honest novice who gets flustered into answering, but not the more sophisticated player who knows to say, "Gosh, I don't know what I was thinking"? Where's Nigel when we need him? > (Herman's second example, where declarer points to a specific card, > is of > course different) When declarer points to a specific card that is a legal designation of that card. When there is a trump in the dummy, "ruff" incontrovertably calls for a small trump. When the contract is in notrump, "ruff" is just a dog noise. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 8 15:33:41 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:33:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> References: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hi all, > > ton schrieb: >> >> This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a >> clear answer. >> > > neither do I... :-) > But to quote another BLML member: how do we want the game to be > played? > >> I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was >> indicated. >> When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he >> indicates the >> diamond suit. How can that be ignored? >> > > There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who > doesn`t know what the contract is to pay for that, as every > director is > also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something > stupid > and gets away with it. The problem is that we cannot do it > consistently, > as some declarers will tell us what they intended and others will not > (or lie about it). We would scare off the naive ones, and send the > wrong > message to the honest ones. Seems wrong to me. We can be > consistent, but > that lets declarer get away from a stupid error. > > So how should the next laws read? > > Option A: Find a way to define the card that is deemed to have been > called for. Suit to dummy`s right, first suit named by declarer, > dummy`s > longest suit, whatever. Consistent, but quite random, not always > looking > very fair to the players. Yesterday evening declarer thought he was > playing hearts, which lay on the wrong side of dummy to be trumps. NT > contract, of course. This only came up when the score was to be > determined (and after defenders accepted a claim....). This would be > teriibly unwieldy or rerribly random or both. > > Option B: Leave it to the TD`s judgement to determine whether a > card can > be identified as the one declarer wanted to be played, and rule that > card played, or - if unable to do so - rule no card to have been > played > and let declarer name whatever he wants. > This is more likely to let the players feel that "justice" has been > done, but will sometimes be controversial. Some clause should > define the > room for judgement (not easy to do), but clearly empower the TD to use > judgement. > > Option C: Rule call of card not in dummy in all cases. This has the > big > advantage of being consistent, but lets declarer off some hooks. > >> When declarer does play 4 hearts and asks to ruff will anybody >> ever ask him >> with what suit? >> >> But then he can't ruff so what gets priority? If you say he >> indicated the >> lowest diamond you know what to do. If you say he asked for a card >> which is >> not in dummy, one with trumping quality, so winning the trick that >> means, >> you also know what to do. >> > Looks like Ton would vote for option B here. So would I. But > hundreds of > less experienced (or self-assured) directors would want either A or C, > because it lets the director off the hook. Personally I could live > with > C (Consistency!), but A looks completely unworkable to me. A very > cursory draft of such a rule left me with several ifs, buts and > whereases, leading to confusion and much waste of paper. > > For what it`s worth I think the current rules say C, but I could be > convinced otherwise, maybe because I want to be talked into B. What is this "hook" Matthias refers to? If declarer has reached this point thinking he is playing in some other denomination than the contracted one, that will almost always be to the defenders' benefit, and can never help declarer. Are the defenders entitled to more than that, to the equivalent of declarer "playing out" the entire remainder of the hand not knowing the contract? That's what's suggested by "letting declarer off the hook". If declarer calls for a club when there is no club in dummy, we know what to do. If declarer calls for a trump when there is no trump in dummy, why should we handle it completely differently? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 14:46:35 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:46:35 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?not=3F?= References: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> Message-ID: <46B9BB2B.000004.59505@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Matthias Berghaus Date : 08/08/2007 14:06:15 A : 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sujet : Re: [blml] Rif. : played or not? There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who doesn`t know what the contract is to pay for that, as every director is also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something stupid and gets away with it. The problem is that we cannot do it consistently, as some declarers will tell us what they intended and others will not (or lie about it). We would scare off the naive ones, and send the wrong message to the honest ones. Seems wrong to me. We can be consistent, but that lets declarer get away from a stupid error. Option C: Rule call of card not in dummy in all cases. This has the big advantage of being consistent, but lets declarer off some hooks. AG : the spirit of TFLB, more specifically the explanation of verbs in the introduction ; is that there are two kinds of infractions : a) those that could modify the result of the deal, e.g. LOOT, MI, mannerisms revokes ... When they happen, if the case is difficult, decide against the wrongdoer (L12), if only as a deterrent. b) those which are only deviations from procedure, without influence on the deal, e.g. incorrect calling, wrong use of the BB cards ... When they happen if the case is difficult, just say "the case is difficult" and go on (possibly with a PP according to L74). Of course, incorrect calling could be of type a) if it creates an Alcatraz coup, for example. But I feel "letting declarer off some hooks" logical, because TFLB doesn't say we have to hang him. When a player shows his AQ over dummy's KJ to shorten declarer's agony, without stating how many tricks he intends to take, which constitutes an infraction of type b), you "let him off the hook" by stating he won't play irrationally, and you don't compel him to play the Queen on the King, as could be the case with infractions of type a). So he doesn't get penalized. So what ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070808/7debe632/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/20070808/7debe632/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/20070808/7debe632/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 15:35:44 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:35:44 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__=2E=2E=2Ehave_we_really?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_come_to_this=3F=3F=3F?= References: <46C21BF1-AFCB-43B6-9D36-85419D9304B8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46B9C6AF.00000A.59505@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Eric Landau Date : 08/08/2007 15:11:31 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? > Aw come on. 91B2 is entirely clear. I am bound by the Laws, and if a > regulatoion is illegal I can't apply it. It is so obvious. "You > can't open > NT on Thursdays" is an illegal regulation in contradiction to Law > 40A for > example. I am not allowed to apply it. Previous communications to this forum have made it pretty clear that the WBF would take the position that such a regulation would be legal, based on the power granted to SOs by L80F. AG : IBTD. L80F explicitly states that SOs' power to regulate is limited by the Laws, and L40A is no less of a law than any other. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070808/6b2eecfd/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/20070808/6b2eecfd/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/20070808/6b2eecfd/attachment-0001.gif From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed Aug 8 21:23:59 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:23:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BA184F.7000903@cs.elte.hu> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > IMPs, Love all > You hold: > 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx > > Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. > > Your lead? > 8 of spades!!! If I played for swing I would chose a small diamond. Consider no other idea. cheers Laci From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 8 19:27:14 2007 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:27:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Harald Skj?ran writes >IMPs, Love all >You hold: >8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx >? >Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. >? >Your lead? > >-- >Kind regards, >Harald Skj?ran >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Lets find partner's suit. Either S8 or Dx. They didn't bid Stayman so the major looks better than the minor. On the other hand if partner hasn't overcalled. Diamonds stands a better chance of find the suit breaking 4333 as opposed to a spade finding it breaking 5332. A 4432 break isn't likely to help partner. So which one? Let's apply rule of thumb - which card is nearest my thumb? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Wed Aug 8 19:52:28 2007 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:52:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <46B90BF5.9070105@NTLworld.com> References: <200708071620.l77GK5ZQ010340@smtp50.hccnet.nl> <46B90BF5.9070105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: In message <46B90BF5.9070105 at NTLworld.com>, Nigel writes >[Herman de Wael] >The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's >playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to >"ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. >Has the lowest diamond been played or not? > >[Sven Pram] >Why would anybody even think the possibility that a Diamond has been >called from dummy? "Ruff" refers to a non-existent denomination. > A convincing argument >[Andr? Steffens] >To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play >a small diamond. > Another convincing argument Now what do I do? > >[Grattan Endicott] >+=+ Your deuce nominates a card - by rank or suit or both. "Ruff " >does not designate a card. It designates an intended play. Laws 45 and >46 are concerned with the designation of cards,except that 46B5 deals >with plays where no card is designated. +=+ > Aha - Something I can disagree with. So if in a trump contract, if declarer says "ruff", then according to Gratten, this does not designate a card and so Law 46B5 applies. This means that as a defender I can name a non-trump in the dummy to be played. That can't be right! Still not sure which of the two convincing arguments convince me more though. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 8 22:05:05 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:05:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BA21F1.4050008@NTLworld.com> [Harald Skj?ran] > IMPs, Love all > You hold: > 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. Your lead? [nige1] Do we play Bridge or not? Good question. I'll take the Fifth. Next question... IMO: Heart = 10, Spade = 5, Club = 2, Diamond = 1. In this auction, LHO may suppress a six or seven card minor but never a five card major and rarely a four card major. Hence a major is the normal lead. Some recommend that you lead your *shorter* major in such auctions because partner is likley to be *longer* in that suit. But the same argument makes it more likely that opener will also have length there. Hence, in my experience, the longer major is the better bet. It requires fewer specific cards in partner's hand to be a winner. For example, suppose that partner has A K x x x in a major and little else. Obviously he is more likely to hold five spades than five hearts but is that really relevant? From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 23:32:49 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:32:49 +1200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560708081432k45e271ebhcb8d5bba7e6388ff@mail.gmail.com> On 06/08/07, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > IMPs, Love all > You hold: > 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx > > Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. > > Your lead? > > -- A low heart looks normal to me. In my simulations (not of this exact hand but of the auction 1NT 3NT) xx, Txxx and xxxx were all good leads. And xxxx was the best of the three and Txxx the worst but I probably haven't done enough simulations to determine this ordering accurately. There is however a premium for leading a major here as the 3NT bidder is more likely to have minor length than major length. I wouldn't mind whichever suit partner lead. If this is a matter of logical alternatives then I think all leads have logical alternatives so would disallow any of them if there was UI demonstably suggesting one (over another). Wayne From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 9 00:27:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 00:27:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c7da0b$3e1c5c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Wright ......... > >You hold: > >8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx > > > >Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. > > > >Your lead? ......... > Lets find partner's suit. > > Either S8 or Dx. > > They didn't bid Stayman so the major looks better than the minor. > > On the other hand if partner hasn't overcalled. Diamonds stands a better > chance of find the suit breaking 4333 as opposed to a spade finding it > breaking 5332. A 4432 break isn't likely to help partner. > > So which one? Let's apply rule of thumb - which card is nearest my > thumb? Are you left-handed or right-handed Steve? 8-) Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 9 03:43:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:43:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46B9B194.302@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus asserted: >There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who >doesn't know what the contract is to pay for that, as every director is >also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something >stupid and gets away with it. Richard Hills refutes: An assertion that "every director wants" can be refuted by a single counter-example. I am a director, and I see no need to create any new punishment of a player for any stupidity which does not cause any damage to the opponents. Matthias Berghaus asserted: >Option A: Find a way to define the card that is deemed to have been >called for. [snip] >Option B: Leave it to the TD's judgement to determine whether a card >can be identified as the one declarer wanted to be played [snip] Option C: Rule call of card not in dummy in all cases. [snip] >Looks like Ton would vote for option B here. So would I. But hundreds >of less experienced (or self-assured) directors would want either A or >C, because it lets the director off the hook. Personally I could live >with C (Consistency!), but A looks completely unworkable to me. A very >cursory draft of such a rule left me with several ifs, buts and >whereases, leading to confusion and much waste of paper. > >For what it's worth I think the current rules say C, but I could be >convinced otherwise, maybe because I want to be talked into B. Richard Hills refutes: For what it is worth, I (and Grattan Endicott also, assuming that my Grattanese to English translation is correct) believe that the current rules say option D: "If declarer calls for dummy to fetch a cup of tea, or if declarer calls for dummy to ruff during play of a notrump contract, there has not been any call for a card. Law 90B2, 'unduly slow play by a contestant', may apply." The difference between Option D and Option C is that Option C states that Law 46B4 applies. The preamble to Law 46B is part of Law 46B4, so the statement in Law 46B4 that "the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card" might be over-ruled by the preamble's caveat "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". 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 Aug 9 04:12:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:12:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c7d994$02cd61b0$3c493dd4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>"Ruff" does not designate a card. It designates an intended play. >>Laws 45 and 46 are concerned with the designation of cards,except >>that 46B5 deals with plays where no card is designated. +=+ Ben Schelen: >Suppose that the contract is in diamonds and declarer orders >"ruff". > >What will happen? > >There is no card designated. > >It seems that declarer's intention is incontrovertible to play >a small diamond. > >Has the lowest diamond been played or not? Richard Hills: It seems to me that Grattan's statement above was meant to apply only to notrump contracts; it is obviously incorrect when applied to suit contracts. In a suit contract, "ruff" is an incomplete designation which designates "play a card of the trump suit". If dummy has two or more trumps, Law 46B2 in conjunction with the Law 46B says that the lowest trump should be played unless declarer's different intention is incontrovertible. For example, if declarer is in the middle of a high cross-ruff, but has neglected to claim because a claim would upset bunny opponents, then declarer's different intention to ruff high would be incontrovertible. 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 mustikka at charter.net Thu Aug 9 08:47:57 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:47:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? References: <2a1c3a560708081432k45e271ebhcb8d5bba7e6388ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000d01c7da51$388b5510$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? On 06/08/07, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > IMPs, Love all > You hold: > 8x Txxx Jxx 9xxx > > Opponents bid 1NT - 3NT. > > Your lead? > > -- A low heart looks normal to me. In my simulations (not of this exact hand but of the auction 1NT 3NT) xx, Txxx and xxxx were all good leads. And xxxx was the best of the three and Txxx the worst but I probably haven't done enough simulations to determine this ordering accurately. There is however a premium for leading a major here as the 3NT bidder is more likely to have minor length than major length. I wouldn't mind whichever suit partner lead. If this is a matter of logical alternatives then I think all leads have logical alternatives so would disallow any of them if there was UI demonstably suggesting one (over another). Wayne I too would lead S8 which seems supported by logic (mine, at least). Out of curiosity, did you really mean that if there was UI (break in tempo) you would disallow whatever lead was was made, or did you mean _allow_? TIA From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Aug 9 09:08:20 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:08:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: <000d01c7da51$388b5510$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <2a1c3a560708081432k45e271ebhcb8d5bba7e6388ff@mail.gmail.com> <000d01c7da51$388b5510$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000801c7da54$116f3fc0$9d00000a@bridge.corp> There is not a lot of thought expressed about the total lack of entries of the hand. With any potential entry the heart lead is more or less obvious, but in this specific hand if a heart lead beats the contract it can almost only be because partner has five. If we need three heart tricks and two others partner can still lead the suit after the first entry. However, if spades is the lethal suit it has to be led now, for example if we can get three spade tricks and two others. This is the only reason why on this hand I would lead spades. Now if partner has only hesitated after 3NT as a director my guess is I would let the lead pass(first consulting players of course to check my hunch). Of course if partner has asked a question about spades specifically that changes things, but just hesitating might also point to a solid other suit(diamonds perhaps). Of course given my shortness the hesitation is most likely about spades, but then again my reasoning was that spades is the preferred lead anyhow. There are players that specifically agree that a double after 1 NT-3 NT asks for spades. If this partnership plays that, the hesitation might well suggest a partner thinking specifically about double but chickening out. In that case I would not allow the spade lead. After all this we probably get to hear a story where the whole hand has nothing to do with hesitations, spade leads, and screams for a director...... Hans From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Aug 9 09:29:23 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:29:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> Message-ID: <46BAC253.8070407@t-online.de> Eric Landau schrieb: > On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > >> Looks like Ton would vote for option B here. So would I. But >> hundreds of >> less experienced (or self-assured) directors would want either A or C, >> because it lets the director off the hook. Personally I could live >> with >> C (Consistency!), but A looks completely unworkable to me. A very >> cursory draft of such a rule left me with several ifs, buts and >> whereases, leading to confusion and much waste of paper. >> >> For what it`s worth I think the current rules say C, but I could be >> convinced otherwise, maybe because I want to be talked into B. >> > > What is this "hook" Matthias refers to? If declarer has reached this > point thinking he is playing in some other denomination than the > contracted one, that will almost always be to the defenders' benefit, > and can never help declarer. Are the defenders entitled to more than > that, to the equivalent of declarer "playing out" the entire > remainder of the hand not knowing the contract? That's what's > suggested by "letting declarer off the hook". > > If declarer calls for a club when there is no club in dummy, we know > what to do. If declarer calls for a trump when there is no trump in > dummy, why should we handle it completely differently? > Because we favor the lazy guy who just says "ruff", while a declarer who correctly names a card is fixed. Both want to play the same card at that moment, both will be informed that they are playing NT (the second guy when he tries to lead from dummy to the next trick), so they are esssentially in the same position, except that the player who calls his cards correctly has to play the card the named, while the other one does not (under option C). This is the "hook": Two players want the same card, one as to play it, the other doesn`t. So we would indeed handle it differently when both want to play identical cards. This may also be the case under option B, where we would take into account what declarer actually said or did. We still have a problem when he didn`t say anything. The bottom line is this: two players want to play the same card. How can we make sure that both actually have to play it? Since the answer is probably "we can`t", how do we go about finding the nearest approximation? Regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 9 10:58:35 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:58:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: <000d01c7da51$388b5510$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <2a1c3a560708081432k45e271ebhcb8d5bba7e6388ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070809105551.02803410@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:47 8/08/2007 -0700, raija wrote: >I too would lead S8 which seems supported by logic (mine, at least). > >Out of curiosity, did you really mean that if there was UI (break in tempo) >you would disallow whatever lead was was made, or did you mean _allow_? >TIA I don't think so. I think that, because many play that a double demands a spade lead, a break in tempo suggests it, ergo the TD should disallow a spade lead, provided some other lead is pretty possible. A Heart cetainly is, according to our comments (I would choose a Heart myself) . Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 9 11:19:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46B9B76C.000001.59505@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > However, R18 disallows us to open 1H (or 1 plum) on > xxx-AKQ10x-xxx-xx, which > is obviously not "a king below average". > > Whence R18 goes farther than TFLB, hence is in contradiction to > L40, yet TDs are there to apply it. Um, no. TDs are there to tell everybody that the hand is a legal 1S/1H/1D/1N opener (by agreement) or that a 1C opening on the hand may be psyched. If TDs can't be bothered to uphold the laws then we can restrict our concerns to how to bet AK suited as small blind when 3rd hand (smallest chip-pile) went all-in. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 9 11:54:55 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:54:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] RXf. : Re: ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46B9B76C.000001.59505@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070809115048.027f5070@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:19 9/08/2007 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Um, no. TDs are there to tell everybody that the hand is a legal >1S/1H/1D/1N opener (by agreement) or that a 1C opening on the hand may be >psyched. > >If TDs can't be bothered to uphold the laws then we can restrict our >concerns to how to bet AK suited as small blind when 3rd hand (smallest >chip-pile) went all-in. I guess we didn't understand eachother. To those who say TDs will never uphold a regulation that contradicts some Law, I offered this counterexample, where they do. So, it looks like you do agree. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 9 12:45:19 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:45:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c7da72$6160cfd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Alain wrote: > > > However, R18 disallows us to open 1H (or 1 plum) on > > xxx-AKQ10x-xxx-xx, which > > is obviously not "a king below average". > > > > Whence R18 goes farther than TFLB, hence is in contradiction to > > L40, yet TDs are there to apply it. > > Um, no. TDs are there to tell everybody that the hand is a legal > 1S/1H/1D/1N opener (by agreement) or that a 1C opening on the hand may be > psyched. If you are saying what I believe you are saying then my comment is just this: Any Director who inspects a hand and then "rules" that a particular call is legal for that hand should have his director's license revoked immediately. By giving away information about that hand to the other three players he has made it impossible to obtain any score on that board. Of course if your intention was to state that the Director should inspect the hand and make his ruling after the play was completed (as bid) then that is a different piece of cake. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 9 13:08:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > In parallel with this principle of modern military law one could > argue that a TD should not be bound by "illegal" regulations, but > who decides whether they are illegal? And does the parallel really > make sense in the context of a game, anyway? It's a game which sometimes involves a fair amount of money and pride. As a TD I accept that any ruling I make *could* end up in an expensive law-suit. I believe that my personal liability for costs would be greatly increased were I found to have made a ruling "knowing" it to be illegal. Even were the SO to provide me with full liability cover and waivers etc I am unconvinced that my duty of care to the SO allows me to expose them to the possible costs of an illegal action on my part. As with the military, it is the TD alone who can make a decision as to whether a specific "order" is legal. If he genuinely believes it is not I think "disobey and pray one is later found in the right" is the correct course. Similar cases arise in civil/company law (following a company regulation which one knows breaches the law of the land is still an offence). NB, most regulations are worded as poorly as the laws and it will often be possible to "interpret" the context such that a specific ruling complies with both. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 9 14:28:45 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:28:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070809105551.02803410@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560708081432k45e271ebhcb8d5bba7e6388ff@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070809105551.02803410@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I think that, because many play that a double demands a > spade lead, a break in tempo suggests it, ergo the TD should > disallow a > spade lead, provided some other lead is pretty possible. A Heart > cetainly > is, according to our comments (I would choose a Heart myself) . If you're going to use this logic, then the question is not "what do many play", but "what does *this* pair play" a double to mean. If everybody and his brother plays it to demand a spade lead, but this pair do not, then the conclusion that the hesitation suggests leading spades is wrong. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 9 14:33:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Rif. : Re: ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7da72$6160cfd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Any Director who inspects a hand and then "rules" that a particular > call is legal for that hand should have his director's license > revoked immediately. Really? I'd expect that any TD called by opps at the end of the hand and asked about the legality of opening such a hand would do exactly that. > By giving away information about that hand to the other three > players he has made it impossible to obtain any score on that board. Why? Given that I have been called to the table and asked about the legality of the opening call then (in 99.99% of cases) either the hand in question is dummy or the play is already over. There does arise the interesting question of whether, if the hand *is* dummy, the opps are entitled to be told whether it is/isn't legal for such a hand to be opened by agreement. > Of course if your intention was to state that the Director should > inspect the hand and make his ruling after the play was completed > (as bid) then that is a different piece of cake. I'm sorry, it just didn't occur to me that anybody would think we were discussing ruling on a concealed hand. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 9 15:26:12 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:26:12 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Do_we_play_bridge_or_no?= =?iso-8859-1?q?t=3F?= References: Message-ID: <46BB15F2.000001.98537@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Ed Reppert Date : 09/08/2007 14:29:11 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? >(AG) I think that, because many play that a double demands a > spade lead, a break in tempo suggests it, ergo the TD should > disallow a > spade lead, provided some other lead is pretty possible. A Heart > cetainly > is, according to our comments (I would choose a Heart myself) . If you're going to use this logic, then the question is not "what do many play", but "what does *this* pair play" a double to mean. If everybody and his brother plays it to demand a spade lead, but this pair do not, then the conclusion that the hesitation suggests leading spades is wrong. AG : not necessarily. It might well be the case that the player knew most played "double = spades", and took some time to decide whether partner would understand it as such. In that case, the suggestion is indeed there, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement. _______________________________________________ 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/20070809/7e863522/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/20070809/7e863522/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/20070809/7e863522/attachment-0001.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 9 16:03:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:03:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B3CF856-755D-4429-ADED-1EBAF8F79A5B@starpower.net> n Aug 8, 2007, at 9:43 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matthias Berghaus asserted: > >> There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who >> doesn't know what the contract is to pay for that, as every >> director is >> also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something >> stupid and gets away with it. > > Richard Hills refutes: > > An assertion that "every director wants" can be refuted by a single > counter-example. I am a director, and I see no need to create any new > punishment of a player for any stupidity which does not cause any > damage > to the opponents. Those who think declarer should "pay" for his stupidity can take consolation from the fact that he almost certainly will. He will have (mis-)played the hand up to the point of the attempted ruff under the misimpression that he is playing a trump contract rather than notrump. That will work to the benefit of the defenders 90+% of the time, to the declarer's benefit maybe once in a lifetime. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 9 16:48:29 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:48:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? References: <2a1c3a560708081432k45e271ebhcb8d5bba7e6388ff@mail.gmail.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070809105551.02803410@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002c01c7da94$8d3627a0$e2a887d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? > > On Aug 9, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> I think that, because many play that a double demands a >> spade lead, a break in tempo suggests it, ergo the TD should >> disallow a >> spade lead, provided some other lead is pretty possible. A Heart >> cetainly >> is, according to our comments (I would choose a Heart myself) . > > If you're going to use this logic, then the question is not "what do > many play", but "what does *this* pair play" a double to mean. If > everybody and his brother plays it to demand a spade lead, but this > pair do not, then the conclusion that the hesitation suggests leading > spades is wrong. > +=+ Hmmm..... The pause suggests the player is considering action. It is highly likely the action under consideration is 'double'. An out-of-the-blue 'Double' commonly suggests an unusual lead. The player on lead should not make an unusual lead. Leading a short suit may be deemed to have been suggested by the hesitation. In my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 9 16:57:14 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:57:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46BAC253.8070407@t-online.de> References: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> <46BAC253.8070407@t-online.de> Message-ID: <0723420C-8456-4637-AC3E-7071797AE5DD@starpower.net> On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Eric Landau schrieb: >> >> What is this "hook" Matthias refers to? If declarer has reached this >> point thinking he is playing in some other denomination than the >> contracted one, that will almost always be to the defenders' benefit, >> and can never help declarer. Are the defenders entitled to more than >> that, to the equivalent of declarer "playing out" the entire >> remainder of the hand not knowing the contract? That's what's >> suggested by "letting declarer off the hook". >> >> If declarer calls for a club when there is no club in dummy, we know >> what to do. If declarer calls for a trump when there is no trump in >> dummy, why should we handle it completely differently? > > Because we favor the lazy guy who just says "ruff", while a > declarer who > correctly names a card is fixed. Both want to play the same card at > that > moment, both will be informed that they are playing NT (the second guy > when he tries to lead from dummy to the next trick), so they are > esssentially in the same position, except that the player who calls > his > cards correctly has to play the card the named, while the other one > does > not (under option C). This is the "hook": Two players want the same > card, one as to play it, the other doesn`t. This is a very strong argument. Everywhere I play, TDs universally follow Richard's approach -- treating "ruff" as synonymous with "small trump". But everywhere I play, Matthias' argument can be discounted, because the common language of bridge players here dictates that in 3NT the four suits are called spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs, whereas in 5D they are called spades, hearts, trumps and clubs. I can't say for certain that I've ever heard anyone call for, e.g., "five of diamonds" from dummy, intending to take a ruff in a diamond contract, rather than "five of trumps". I take it that this is not universal to the bridge world (or at least the English-speaking bridge world)? > So we would indeed handle it differently when both want to play > identical cards. This may also be the case under option B, where we > would take into account what declarer actually said or did. We still > have a problem when he didn`t say anything. > > The bottom line is this: two players want to play the same card. > How can > we make sure that both actually have to play it? Since the answer is > probably "we can`t", how do we go about finding the nearest > approximation? That's easy. We ask declarer what card he thought he was playing, and leave it to Nigel to fret about the fact that an unethical declarer might lie. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 9 18:42:07 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:42:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <0723420C-8456-4637-AC3E-7071797AE5DD@starpower.net> References: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> <46BAC253.8070407@t-online.de> <0723420C-8456-4637-AC3E-7071797AE5DD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <312E2D51-7B94-49D7-97BC-E532CE7CA972@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 9, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I can't say for certain > that I've ever heard anyone call for, e.g., "five of diamonds" from > dummy, intending to take a ruff in a diamond contract, rather than > "five of trumps". I do it - but then I make an effort to always follow Law 45B. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Aug 9 22:17:13 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:17:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <0723420C-8456-4637-AC3E-7071797AE5DD@starpower.net> References: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> <46BAC253.8070407@t-online.de> <0723420C-8456-4637-AC3E-7071797AE5DD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46BB7649.4090909@t-online.de> Eric Landau schrieb: > > Everywhere I play, TDs universally follow Richard's approach -- > treating "ruff" as synonymous with "small trump". But everywhere I > play, Matthias' argument can be discounted, because the common > language of bridge players here dictates that in 3NT the four suits > are called spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs, whereas in 5D they are > called spades, hearts, trumps and clubs. I can't say for certain > that I've ever heard anyone call for, e.g., "five of diamonds" from > dummy, intending to take a ruff in a diamond contract, rather than > "five of trumps". > > I take it that this is not universal to the bridge world (or at least > the English-speaking bridge world)? > I cannot speak for the English-speaking bridge world (while Ed spoke for himself), but it is true that it is the exception rather than the rule for German players to call for the 2 of diamonds when diamonds are trump (and even if not, usually it will be "small diamond"). Less than 10 percent for sure, might well be less than 5 percent. > >> So we would indeed handle it differently when both want to play >> identical cards. This may also be the case under option B, where we >> would take into account what declarer actually said or did. We still >> have a problem when he didn`t say anything. >> >> The bottom line is this: two players want to play the same card. >> How can >> we make sure that both actually have to play it? Since the answer is >> probably "we can`t", how do we go about finding the nearest >> approximation? >> > > That's easy. We ask declarer what card he thought he was playing, > and leave it to Nigel to fret about the fact that an unethical > declarer might lie. > :-) I know at least one player who would never stoop so low as to lie to a creature as inferior as a TD... I am not so sure with others. But my concern is not so much for my ability or inability to find out, it is for the inability of some players to perceive a good decision when it hits them on the knee with a hammer. Many players (especially the less experienced ones, or the ones who are less experienced since 1960) do not trust judgement decisions. So if no option has advantages over the other, I would go with the mechanistic approach. Here, though, I already voted for the judgement approach, as it feels "right" when we get a statement from declarer, and is no worse when we don`t. Regards Matthias From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 10 01:11:52 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:11:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <46BB7649.4090909@t-online.de> References: <46B9B194.302@t-online.de> <46BAC253.8070407@t-online.de> <0723420C-8456-4637-AC3E-7071797AE5DD@starpower.net> <46BB7649.4090909@t-online.de> Message-ID: <46BB9F38.5020503@NTLworld.com> Especially given that Herman specified that declarer thought diamonds were trumps, I am surprised by the almost unanimous judgement that declarer designated no card when he saiid "ruff". Whereas, had he said, for example, "beer card" or "diamond" or "seven", or "anything" he might have been judged to have played a card! Two interesting follow-up questions ... [A] If he had instead said "any card but a ruff" then can defenders make declarer discard a diamond? [B] Anyway, suppose the stupid ignorant players insist in calling the director, willy nilly. Suppose further, that declarer is a simple honest man, who has completely lost touch with current legal trends in Bridge: He naively *volunteers* that when he said "ruff" he meant "play a low diamond". Should the director ignore his self-incriminating remark? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 08:32:30 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:32:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070809105551.02803410@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560708081432k45e271ebhcb8d5bba7e6388ff@mail.gmail.com> <000d01c7da51$388b5510$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <5.1.0.14.0.20070809105551.02803410@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 09/08/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 23:47 8/08/2007 -0700, raija wrote: > > >I too would lead S8 which seems supported by logic (mine, at least). > > > >Out of curiosity, did you really mean that if there was UI (break in > tempo) > >you would disallow whatever lead was was made, or did you mean _allow_? > >TIA > > I don't think so. I think that, because many play that a double demands a > spade lead, a break in tempo suggests it, ergo the TD should disallow a > spade lead, provided some other lead is pretty possible. A Heart cetainly > is, according to our comments (I would choose a Heart myself) . > > Best regards > > Alain This board happened to me a couple of years ago in a teams tournament. I'd decided on a spade lead vs 3NT even before LHO bid 3NT. If screens had been used I'd probably have made a face down lead prior to pushing the tray through the screen after the 3NT bid. But screens were not in use. Of course partner had a long tank before passing 3NT. We play a double in this sequence to ask for a major suit lead - normally leaders shortest major. I don't think it's absolutely clear at the table that partner's alternative action is a double (as it happened he though about both double and saving). But you "know" partner's got a long major suit now. I lead the S8 - how would you rule as TD? ac AC? -- 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/20070810/6a4c78dc/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 10 09:46:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:46:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >xxx-AKQ10x-xxx-xx, which is obviously not "a >king below average". > >Whence R18 goes farther than TFLB, hence is >in contradiction to L40, yet TDs are there >to apply it. Richard Hills: (R18 = Rule of 18, used by several NBOs to define the legality of a one-level opening. Number of cards in longest suit, plus number of cards in second-longest suit, plus number of Milton Work points must equal 18 or more.) In the recent past the ABF revised its system regulations. Because it had qualms about the legality of using the Rule of 18 to define a Yellow (HUM) system, it abolished R18 and now uses the Law 40D criterion "a King or more below average strength" to define a Yellow system. Another reason the ABF abolished R18 was that the Rule of 18 was infracted so frequently that it became an unenforced dead-letter law, due to the Aussie style of mad overbidding. :-) 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 Aug 10 10:36:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:36:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Do_we_play_bridge_or_no?= =?iso-8859-1?q?t=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46BB15F2.000001.98537@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46BB15F2.000001.98537@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46BC2396.7060300@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : not necessarily. It might well be the case that the player knew > most played "double = spades", and took some time to decide whether > partner would understand it as such. In that case, the suggestion is > indeed there, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement. > OTOH, maybe partner has five tricks but he doesn't want to double because that would ask for a spade lead. Or maybe partner is a cheat, and he wants a heart lead to beat the contract, and is hesitating because he knows you'll be steered off a spade lead that way. This gets us nowhere. Do we play bridge or not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 10 10:41:22 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:41:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Do we play bridge or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c7db2a$3b1eeba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran ............. This board happened to me a couple of years ago in a teams tournament. I'd decided on a spade lead vs 3NT even before LHO bid 3NT. If screens had been used I'd probably have made a face down lead prior to pushing the tray through the screen after the 3NT bid. But screens were not in use. Of course partner had a long tank before passing 3NT. We play a double in this sequence to ask for a major suit lead - normally leaders shortest major. I don't think it's absolutely clear at the table that partner's alternative action is a double (as it happened he though about both double and saving). But you "know" partner's got a long major suit now. ? I lead the S8 - how would you rule as TD? ac AC? ................. Many years ago I read a book by Belladonna where he tells the logic behind his famous killing leads (H from Hx in a major suit) against 3NT contracts: When opponents have reached 3NT in what appears to be a controlled auction then assume they have 25 HCP between them. So if you have less than about 7 HCP and no obvious opening lead to establish (and eventually collect) your own suit then look for your partner's 5-card major suit. This calls for a lead from your doubleton in a major suit if opponents have indicated little or no interest in finding a fit there. With this logic I see no LA to leading the 8S regardless of partner's BIT after 3NT. How did your TD and AC rule? Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 10 14:34:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:34:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> xxx-AKQ10x-xxx-xx, which is obviously not "a >> king below average". >> >> Whence R18 goes farther than TFLB, hence is >> in contradiction to L40, yet TDs are there >> to apply it. > > Richard Hills: > > (R18 = Rule of 18, used by several NBOs to > define the legality of a one-level opening. > Number of cards in longest suit, plus number > of cards in second-longest suit, plus number > of Milton Work points must equal 18 or more.) > I have often defended the R18. Yes, in principle, it is illegal. But in practice, it is the only rule that can be applied and from which you can say - it's easy to check if you are allowed to open on this hand or not. > In the recent past the ABF revised its system > regulations. Because it had qualms about the > legality of using the Rule of 18 to define a > Yellow (HUM) system, it abolished R18 and now > uses the Law 40D criterion "a King or more > below average strength" to define a Yellow > system. > And how do you define "average strength"? > Another reason the ABF abolished R18 was that > the Rule of 18 was infracted so frequently that > it became an unenforced dead-letter law, due to > the Aussie style of mad overbidding. > That is a better reason to change the regulation. But then change it to R17, why don't you? > :-) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 16:18:03 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:18:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 10/08/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > >> xxx-AKQ10x-xxx-xx, which is obviously not "a > >> king below average". > >> > >> Whence R18 goes farther than TFLB, hence is > >> in contradiction to L40, yet TDs are there > >> to apply it. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > (R18 = Rule of 18, used by several NBOs to > > define the legality of a one-level opening. > > Number of cards in longest suit, plus number > > of cards in second-longest suit, plus number > > of Milton Work points must equal 18 or more.) > > > > I have often defended the R18. Yes, in principle, it is illegal. But > in practice, it is the only rule that can be applied and from which > you can say - it's easy to check if you are allowed to open on this > hand or not. > > > In the recent past the ABF revised its system > > regulations. Because it had qualms about the > > legality of using the Rule of 18 to define a > > Yellow (HUM) system, it abolished R18 and now > > uses the Law 40D criterion "a King or more > > below average strength" to define a Yellow > > system. > > > > And how do you define "average strength"? Average Hand is defined by the WBF in it's "System Policy" as a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values. Not long ago it was defined as a hand with an honour of each rank (or something with the same meaning). I don't know why and when this was changed. The definition without regard to any specific hand evaluation method is strongly preferrable. The Milton Work count (or any other evaluation method) should have nothing whatsoever to do with laws and regulations, one should be free to use whatever hand evaluation method one likes and be able to comply with system regulations without translation. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Another reason the ABF abolished R18 was that > > the Rule of 18 was infracted so frequently that > > it became an unenforced dead-letter law, due to > > the Aussie style of mad overbidding. > > > > That is a better reason to change the regulation. But then change it > to R17, why don't you? > > > :-) > > > > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070810/8b9ae82d/attachment.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 10 22:41:01 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:41:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <88BF352E-DB24-420D-A87C-C5E49F9DDBFE@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Average Hand is defined by the WBF in it's "System Policy" as a > hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no > distributional values. S AKQJ H xxx D xxx C xxx S Axxx H Kxx D QJx C xxx S Axxx H Kxx D Qxx C Jxx All these hands fit the above WBF definition. Do they all have the same strength? If not, the WBF definition is flawed. As it must be, I think, particularly if it relies on the Work Count. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 11 03:22:43 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:22:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BC5B3F.7010509@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I have often defended the R18. Yes, in principle, >it is illegal. [snip] Richard Hills: It seems Herman is consistent in his philosophy, given that the De Wael School policy on creation of UI versus creation of MI defends the idea of illegally creating MI. On the other hand, at least the De Wael School has the meretricious excuse that under its idiosyncratic interpretation of Law the creation of UI is always illegal, thus looping a Gordian knot defining every action being illegal in many routine bridge circumstances. Furthermore, while a straightforward Rule of 18 regulation is an unLawful regulation, it is possible that a subtle Rule of 18 regulation may be a Lawful regulation. The devil is in the detail in the English Bridge Union's Rule of 18 regulation. EBU Orange Book, clauses 10E1 and 10E4(a): >>In general the Laws only permit the regulation >>of conventional bids. The WBF Laws Committee has >>interpreted the powers in Law 40D so that >>sponsoring organisations can make certain non- >>conventional bids nearly unplayable by >>regulating artificial calls in the subsequent >>auction. >>..... >>A partnership may agree to open in 1st or 2nd >>seat a natural one of a suit that may be weaker >>than Rule of 18 by agreement, but only if it >>does not agree to play ANY artificial calls in >>the subsequent auction after an opening made >>with such an agreement. Furthermore, no such >>opening is allowed by agreement on 7 HCP or >>fewer. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 11 04:11:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:11:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BB9F38.5020503@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: >>Because we favor the lazy guy who just says "ruff", while a declarer >>who correctly names a card is fixed. Both want to play the same card >>at that moment, both will be informed that they are playing NT (the >>second guy when he tries to lead from dummy to the next trick), so >>they are essentially in the same position, except that the player >>who calls his cards correctly has to play the card the named, while >>the other one does not (under option C). This is the "hook": Two >>players want the same card, one has to play it, the other doesn't. Nigel Guthrie: >He naively *volunteers* that when he said "ruff" he meant "play a >low diamond". Should the director ignore his self-incriminating >remark? Richard Hills: Yes, ignore. Under Law the incontrovertible intent of a player to play a card has relevance only if that player previously *called* for a card. Mister Smug likes dummy to fetch a cup of tea for him whenever he is declarer. Indeed, Mister Smug's one regret in life is that he never shared a cup of tea with Marilyn Monroe, since Mister Smug was very impressed with Marilyn Monroe singing, "Diamonds are a girl's best friend". Because Mister Smug has this mental association of cups of tea with diamonds, Mister Smug only remembers to call, "Dummy, please fetch a cup of tea" when Mister Smug is about to play a diamond from dummy. Mister Smug's incontrovertible intent is to play a diamond from dummy, but he has not yet actually called for a diamond, so Mister Smug's self-incriminating *remark* must be ignored by the director. Meanwhile, unlucky expert Matthias Berghaus calls, "Five of diamonds, and also please fetch a cup of tea". The director does not ignore the self-incriminating *call* by unlucky expert Matthias Berghaus. Matthias Berghaus's point that an unlucky expert can be unlucky is true, but so what? C'est la vie. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 11 04:31:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:31:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135347.02a41130@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >Yes, this is about the same as calling for the >six of bells from dummy. > >Declarer is under no obligation to play some >specific card in lieu of it. > >Although L74 could apply, of course. Richard Hills quibbles: If, in a 3NT contract, declarer asks dummy to play "the green suit" or to "ruff", then that is not a call of a card. But I agree with Alain that Law 74 could apply if declarer is deliberately attempting to annoy the opponents by wasting time with bad jokes. However, asking dummy to play "the six of bells" is, in my opinion, a much riskier attempt at a bad joke, since a Director might rule that it is a partial designation of "the six", so apply Law 46B3. 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 Sat Aug 11 11:47:36 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:47:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> <88BF352E-DB24-420D-A87C-C5E49F9DDBFE@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005a01c7dbfc$a8fef070$b99487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Average Hand is defined by the WBF in it's "System Policy" as a > hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no > distributional values. S AKQJ H xxx D xxx C xxx S Axxx H Kxx D QJx C xxx S Axxx H Kxx D Qxx C Jxx All these hands fit the above WBF definition. Do they all have the same strength? If not, the WBF definition is flawed. As it must be, I think, particularly if it relies on the Work Count. < +=+ The definition within the Systems Policy is given in relation to the interpretation of the term for the purposes of the Systems Policy. The definition is not flawed for that purpose since it is merely a tool for the understanding of the regulations. The WBF is entitled to rely on Work Count in establishing regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Aug 11 12:46:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:46:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BD9373.3060508@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner asserted: > >> Yes, this is about the same as calling for the >> six of bells from dummy. >> >> Declarer is under no obligation to play some >> specific card in lieu of it. >> >> Although L74 could apply, of course. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > If, in a 3NT contract, declarer asks dummy to > play "the green suit" or to "ruff", then that > is not a call of a card. But I agree with > Alain that Law 74 could apply if declarer is > deliberately attempting to annoy the opponents > by wasting time with bad jokes. > If however, by some secret code "the green suit" means "diamonds" (like we have in flemish: "koekes") then a player cannot use L1 to say that he has not designated diamonds. Similarly, a player who says "trumps" cannot say he has not indicated diamonds. This player intends to play the D2, and whether he touches it, or says "the two", or "diamond", or "koekes", or "trumps", or "ruff" should make no difference. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Aug 11 15:36:23 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:36:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005a01c7dbfc$a8fef070$b99487d9@Hellen> References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> <88BF352E-DB24-420D-A87C-C5E49F9DDBFE@rochester.rr.com> <005a01c7dbfc$a8fef070$b99487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <874D3A32-ECCD-41D4-9897-5DC451B0599A@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 11, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > S AKQJ > H xxx > D xxx > C xxx > > S Axxx > H Kxx > D QJx > C xxx > > S Axxx > H Kxx > D Qxx > C Jxx > > All these hands fit the above WBF definition. Do they all have the > same strength? If not, the WBF definition is flawed. As it must be, > I think, particularly if it relies on the Work Count. > < > +=+ The definition within the Systems Policy is given in relation > to the interpretation of the term for the purposes of the Systems > Policy. The definition is not flawed for that purpose since it is > merely a tool for the understanding of the regulations. The WBF > is entitled to rely on Work Count in establishing regulations. If this regulation is in force in a particular contest, the TD has to understand it, in order to apply it correctly. So I ask again, do these hands all have the same strength? Put it another way - on the assumption they do not have the same strength, which one is "average"? From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 18:32:50 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:32:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BD9373.3060508@skynet.be> References: <46BD9373.3060508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708110932m2a09b8b7nf5972a00f62ec920@mail.gmail.com> On 8/11/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > > If however, by some secret code "the green suit" means "diamonds" > (like we have in flemish: "koekes") then a player cannot use L1 to say > that he has not designated diamonds. Similarly, a player who says > "trumps" cannot say he has not indicated diamonds. This player intends > to play the D2, and whether he touches it, or says "the two", or > "diamond", or "koekes", or "trumps", or "ruff" should make no difference. > It is plain to me that Herman is right. Can anyone on the other side explain which action from this list (assuming declarer's intention is incontrovertible for each) is inadequate to rule the card played---and why? The point, it seems to me, is if intention is incontrovertible, the law calls the card played just as surely as if he pulled the card from dummy himself. If he clearly and incontrovertibly meant to play the D2, whether he pulls the card himself or calls for it in a less-than-perfect manner, that is the card he played under the laws. Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, for that doesn't incontrovertibly name a card. Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Aug 11 19:46:02 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:46:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708110932m2a09b8b7nf5972a00f62ec920@mail.gmail.com> References: <46BD9373.3060508@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0708110932m2a09b8b7nf5972a00f62ec920@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, for that > doesn't incontrovertibly name a card. Neither does "ruff" when the contract is NT. From mustikka at charter.net Sat Aug 11 20:37:38 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:37:38 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <000f01c7dc46$b18344e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Sorry, intended for the group. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Jerry Fusselman" Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On 8/11/07, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> If however, by some secret code "the green suit" means "diamonds" >>> (like we have in flemish: "koekes") then a player cannot use L1 to say >>> that he has not designated diamonds. Similarly, a player who says >>> "trumps" cannot say he has not indicated diamonds. This player intends >>> to play the D2, and whether he touches it, or says "the two", or >>> "diamond", or "koekes", or "trumps", or "ruff" should make no >>> difference. >>> >> >> It is plain to me that Herman is right. Can anyone on the other side >> explain which action from this list (assuming declarer's intention is >> incontrovertible for each) is inadequate to rule the card played---and >> why? The point, it seems to me, is if intention is incontrovertible, >> the law calls the card played just as surely as if he pulled the card >> from dummy himself. If he clearly and incontrovertibly meant to play >> the D2, whether he pulls the card himself or calls for it in a >> less-than-perfect manner, that is the card he played under the laws. >> >> Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, for that >> doesn't incontrovertibly name a card. >> >> Jerry Fusselman > > At the time declarer called for *ruff*, from the original posting, I > conclude declarer did not point to the diamond suit. If he had pointed to > a diamond, I also would think he needs to play a diamond. Otherwise no > card has been named when there is no trump suit to ruff with. > > Let us assume that instead of saying "I thought diamonds were trump", > declarer laughingly says "Oooops!" which he very well might have said. > What suit would TD rule as "trump" now? Will TD now go into Alice in > Wonderland mode and commit the silliness of finding out "What is trump?" > when the contract is 3NT... Absurd. > > Cheers, > Raija > > > From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Aug 11 21:22:22 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:22:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c7dc46$b18344e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <000f01c7dc46$b18344e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46BE0C6E.4050207@skynet.be> raija wrote: > Sorry, intended for the group. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "raija" > To: "Jerry Fusselman" > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:36 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jerry Fusselman" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 9:32 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> On 8/11/07, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> If however, by some secret code "the green suit" means "diamonds" >>>> (like we have in flemish: "koekes") then a player cannot use L1 to say >>>> that he has not designated diamonds. Similarly, a player who says >>>> "trumps" cannot say he has not indicated diamonds. This player intends >>>> to play the D2, and whether he touches it, or says "the two", or >>>> "diamond", or "koekes", or "trumps", or "ruff" should make no >>>> difference. >>>> >>> It is plain to me that Herman is right. Can anyone on the other side >>> explain which action from this list (assuming declarer's intention is >>> incontrovertible for each) is inadequate to rule the card played---and >>> why? The point, it seems to me, is if intention is incontrovertible, >>> the law calls the card played just as surely as if he pulled the card >>> from dummy himself. If he clearly and incontrovertibly meant to play >>> the D2, whether he pulls the card himself or calls for it in a >>> less-than-perfect manner, that is the card he played under the laws. >>> >>> Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, for that >>> doesn't incontrovertibly name a card. >>> >>> Jerry Fusselman >> At the time declarer called for *ruff*, from the original posting, I >> conclude declarer did not point to the diamond suit. If he had pointed to >> a diamond, I also would think he needs to play a diamond. Otherwise no >> card has been named when there is no trump suit to ruff with. >> >> Let us assume that instead of saying "I thought diamonds were trump", >> declarer laughingly says "Oooops!" which he very well might have said. >> What suit would TD rule as "trump" now? Will TD now go into Alice in >> Wonderland mode and commit the silliness of finding out "What is trump?" >> when the contract is 3NT... Absurd. >> Why would that be absurd? Because you believe it cannot be solved every single time? Let's see: A) a majority of players (in this situation) will simply say "I thought I was playing 5D". B) a majority the others might answer when you ask them, a minority might want to know if they need to answer C) when you tell them they need to answer, a majority will answer truthfully D) a majority of the rest will be unable to quickly find which other suit might benefit them, and they'll mumble out the right answer E) a majority of those that find another suit, will tell you that suit in a way that you won't believe them (people are not good actors) F) a majority of those remaining will speak of a suit never mentioned in the bidding, and the opponents will help you in finding out that the player is lying after all G) what are we now left with? 1 in 1,000,000 players will get away with designating a suit he did not intend in the first place. Really, I don't believe that this argument should turn us awy from the fact that the layer that says "ruff" has uniquely designated the card he intended to play, and that this card should be considered played. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Aug 11 21:25:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:25:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46BD9373.3060508@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0708110932m2a09b8b7nf5972a00f62ec920@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46BE0D0D.4050809@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Aug 11, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, for that >> doesn't incontrovertibly name a card. > > Neither does "ruff" when the contract is NT. Yes it does. "ruff", to a declarer who believes to be in 5Di, incontrovertibly designates the D2. Just as "koekes" to a person from West Flanders does, or "curse" for a scotsman, or "beer card" to a Junior. Neither of those is explicitely named in L46, yet you would not think of ruling any other way than "card named is card played". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Aug 12 00:01:30 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:01:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BE0C6E.4050207@skynet.be> References: <000f01c7dc46$b18344e0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46BE0C6E.4050207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46BE31BA.1000007@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > Really, I don't believe that this argument should turn us awy from the > fact that the layer that says "ruff" has uniquely designated the card > he intended to play, and that this card should be considered played. > > I do not think that many of us have a problem with making declarer play a card he has designated when we know what that was. I, for one, have a problem with making declarer play a card he did not intend to play because a) he lies or b) refuses to say what he wanted to play. What are you going to do when declarer says "ruff", and answers your question about the perceived contract with "3NT". Hang him? I agree that most declarers will tell the truth when asked, but some will lie. Now what? The problem with those few cases will be that the opps will feel cheated quite often. If we rule no card designated in all cases we treat them all alike. Not the best possible result, but rather the best result possible, I think. I would love to make declarer play the card he intended, but there is danger that way. Ask me no wpestions, and I will tell you no lies.... Regards Matthias From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Aug 12 05:22:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:22:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BE0D0D.4050809@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >>>>Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, >>>>for that doesn't incontrovertibly name a card. Ed Reppert: >>>Neither does "ruff" when the contract is NT. Herman De Wael: >>Yes it does. "ruff", to a declarer who believes to be in >>5Di, incontrovertibly designates the D5. Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The fallacy >of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be >proved as the conclusion itself. > >*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other >(not circular) examples are that capital punishment is >necessary because without it murders would increase, and >that democracy must be the best form of government because >the majority are always right. Richard Hills: Ed, Jerry and I are willing to admit that "cup of tea" is a statement which shows that declarer _incontrovertibly intends_ to play the five of diamonds, but Herman, Jerry and I agree that declarer has not yet _designated_ a card by asking for "cup of tea, please". Herman, by using the phrase "incontrovertibly designates", is begging the question by mixing the two issues under debate. The primary issue is whether calling "ruff" in a 3NT contract is either: (a) a Landauesque dog noise (Law 90B2 applies), or (b) a designation of a card not in dummy (Law 46B4 applies, as modified by the Law 46B preamble's statement "declarer's different intent is incontrovertible". That is, Herman has misread Law 46 by arguing that "intent" determines *whether* there has been a designation of a card. Rather, Law 46 merely states that *after* a determination has been made that a card has been designated, an incontrovertible "intent" modifies the subsequent determination of *which* card has been designated. 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 Aug 12 05:52:15 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:52:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Andrew Metcalfe: >>>We can have the most perfect systems and processes >>>in place but they will not be effective unless we >>>also have a strong set of values in place, which is >>>consistent across an organisation's roles and >>>locations. Richard Hills: I have no problem in Appeals Committees differing in their judgements about facts, causing one AC to weight the score 50/50 while another AC would instead choose to weight the score 60/40. I have major qualms about Appeals Committees and/or Directors having *inconsistent* judgements about the *values* of Duplicate Bridge, with those TDs and ACs disagreeing on whether a particular ruling is Lawful or unLawful. Ed Reppert: >>one could argue that a TD should not be bound by >>"illegal" regulations, but who decides whether they >>are illegal? Richard Hills: In one case in Australia the Queensland Supreme Court was involved in deciding whether a Queensland Bridge Association regulation was consistent with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, after the QBA was sued by an idiosyncratic sea-lawyer (and former Tournament Director). On that occasion the Supreme Court ruled that the QBA regulation was legal. Tim West-Meads: >Similar cases arise in civil/company law (following a >company regulation which one knows breaches the law >of the land is still an offence). 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 mustikka at charter.net Sun Aug 12 08:36:52 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:36:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <001101c7dcab$2b602cb0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:22 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Jerry wrote] >>>>> It is plain to me that Herman is right. Can anyone on the other side >>>>> explain which action from this list (assuming declarer's intention is >>>>> incontrovertible for each) is inadequate to rule the card played---and >>>>> why? The point, it seems to me, is if intention is incontrovertible, >>>>> the law calls the card played just as surely as if he pulled the card >>>>> from dummy himself. If he clearly and incontrovertibly meant to play >>>>> the D2, whether he pulls the card himself or calls for it in a >>>>> less-than-perfect manner, that is the card he played under the laws. >>>>> >>>>> Asking for a cup of tea is not what we are talking about, for that >>>>> doesn't incontrovertibly name a card. >>>>> >>>>> Jerry Fusselman [Raija wrote] >>>> At the time declarer called for *ruff*, from the original posting, I >>>> conclude declarer did not point to the diamond suit. If he had pointed >>>> to >>>> a diamond, I also would think he needs to play a diamond. Otherwise no >>>> card has been named when there is no trump suit to ruff with. >>>> >>>> Let us assume that instead of saying "I thought diamonds were trump", >>>> declarer laughingly says "Oooops!" which he very well might have said. >>>> What suit would TD rule as "trump" now? Will TD now go into Alice in >>>> Wonderland mode and commit the silliness of finding out "What is >>>> trump?" >>>> when the contract is 3NT... Absurd. >>>> [Herman wrote] >> Why would that be absurd? Because you believe it cannot be solved >> every single time? Let's see: [Raija] > I did not say what I believe or what I do not not believe, and it also > does not matter so there is no need to bring my beliefs into the > discussion. > > The point is that it is absurd for TD to ask "What suit is trump" when the > contract is 3NT. > > (snipped rest) From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 09:24:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:24:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46BE0D0D.4050809@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708120024l1de057b0kc829c2032f87b257@mail.gmail.com> On 8/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Ed, Jerry and I are willing to admit that "cup of tea" is a > statement which shows that declarer _incontrovertibly intends_ > to play the five of diamonds, ... No, not me. > > The primary issue is whether calling "ruff" in a 3NT contract > is either: > > (a) a Landauesque dog noise (Law 90B2 applies), or > > (b) a designation of a card not in dummy (Law 46B4 applies, as > modified by the Law 46B preamble's statement "declarer's > different intent is incontrovertible". > or (c) an incontrovertible designation of a specific card in dummy. The original poster gives us the fact that declarer thinks he is playing a diamond contract, so (c) looks right. > That is, Herman has misread Law 46 by arguing that "intent" > determines *whether* there has been a designation of a card. > As I have in vain asked twice before in this thread, what other way is there to read the laws so that the director can take proper action when declarer calls for a deuce instead of a two? I.e., if the parenthetical at the beginning of Law 46B does not help resolve that case, what part of the law does? > Rather, Law 46 merely states that *after* a determination has > been made that a card has been designated, an incontrovertible > "intent" modifies the subsequent determination of *which* card > has been designated. Again^3, which law allows a director to rule that deuce means two if he must ignore the parenthetical at the beginning of Law 46B? -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 09:31:08 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:31:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> > Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... > Not entirely your fault. When replying to a post, can we please have the software put blml at rtflb.org in the To field and the name of the poster in the Cc field? Then Reply would work the way most of us generally wish it would. -Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 22:16:46 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:16:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <874D3A32-ECCD-41D4-9897-5DC451B0599A@rochester.rr.com> References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> <88BF352E-DB24-420D-A87C-C5E49F9DDBFE@rochester.rr.com> <005a01c7dbfc$a8fef070$b99487d9@Hellen> <874D3A32-ECCD-41D4-9897-5DC451B0599A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On 11/08/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > S AKQJ > > H xxx > > D xxx > > C xxx > > > > S Axxx > > H Kxx > > D QJx > > C xxx > > > > S Axxx > > H Kxx > > D Qxx > > C Jxx > > > > All these hands fit the above WBF definition. Do they all have the > > same strength? If not, the WBF definition is flawed. As it must be, > > I think, particularly if it relies on the Work Count. > > < > > +=+ The definition within the Systems Policy is given in relation > > to the interpretation of the term for the purposes of the Systems > > Policy. The definition is not flawed for that purpose since it is > > merely a tool for the understanding of the regulations. The WBF > > is entitled to rely on Work Count in establishing regulations. I didn't question the legality of the WBF Systems Committee (I presume) using the Milton Work Point Count in their regulations. The fact that it's flawed and not useful for the purpose doesn't render it illegal. But I still maintain that it would be better with a regulation that didn't use any spesific hand evaluation method in determining the policy, If this regulation is in force in a particular contest, the TD has to > understand it, in order to apply it correctly. So I ask again, do > these hands all have the same strength? Put it another way - on the > assumption they do not have the same strength, which one is "average"? According to the definition they're all "average", since they all contain 10 hcp. Of course we all know that the playing strenght is far from equal, but that's another kettle of fish. :-( -- 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/20070811/a8c16297/attachment.htm From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sun Aug 12 11:08:15 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Steffens?=) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:08:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200708120908.l7C9851H003192@smtp50.hccnet.nl> [Matthias Berghaus:] I do not think that many of us have a problAndr?em with making declarer play a card he has designated when we know what that was. I, for one, have a problem with making declarer play a card he did not intend to play because a) he lies or b) refuses to say what he wanted to play. [Andr? Steffens] I think that the way declarer played the hand will make clear whether he thought to be playing in NT or in a trump contract: -He will have drawn diamonds just long enough to remove the diamonds from the opponents. -The fact alone that he plays for a ruff will seem very odd in NT, because usually he will play a suit in which he is wide open. -The presumed trump suit will be on declarer's left in dummy I thought that as TDs we generally assume that the players tell us the truth and that we should know (and dare) how to deal with players of whom we subsequently find out that they did not... I have read (and support) the wish to rule consistently. Then tell me: how do you rule: -On internet bridge declarer clicks on a small diamond and cries out that there must be a system malfunction when the program gives the lead to the defenders ;-) -Dummy is off to get some drinks and declarer plays a small diamond from dummy himself... -Declarer calls for a trump, it can be 99% sure established that he meant a small diamond (presuming he is not lying), but as it happens the contract is in NT? From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 12 11:37:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:37:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Fw: played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c7dcab$2b602cb0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <001101c7dcab$2b602cb0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46BED4E7.9040708@skynet.be> raija wrote: >> >> The point is that it is absurd for TD to ask "What suit is trump" when the >> contract is 3NT. >> Of course that is absurd, but that is not the question the TD is going to ask. He is going to ask: "what diD you think was trump when you said ruff?". That question is not absurd at all, and it will be answered (or the answer will be extracted), and only in a very small fraction of cases will the declarer be able to get away with naming a different trump than the one he intended. My point is that there should be no difference between the following gases - declarer saying: - two of diamonds, please - little diamond, please - diamond, please - ruff with a diamond, please - ruff - what with? - a diamond of course - ruff - you're in NT - oops, I thought I was in 5D - ruff - no - TD, I don't want to reveal what suit I thought I was in The first declarer does what the laws tell him to do, and so does the second (and even the third); all the others are lazy bastards, and they would get away with something the first three do not? That is what is absurd. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 12 11:49:11 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:49:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> Richard uses his well-know tactic of obfuscation. Beneath a stack of drivvle is usually buried a pearl of wisdom. Let's snip the former and get to the latter: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > That is, Herman has misread Law 46 by arguing that "intent" > determines *whether* there has been a designation of a card. > > Rather, Law 46 merely states that *after* a determination has > been made that a card has been designated, an incontrovertible > "intent" modifies the subsequent determination of *which* card > has been designated. > You should go a little further back, Richard, to L45B. This states that there is at least one other ways of playing a card from dummy, namely touching it. Only then do we get to L46A, which tells us how a card should be named. L46A does not point us back to L1, and this means that in stead of "diamonds" we are allowed to say "ruiten", "carreaux", "koekes", "beer card", and "trump". All of these mean that a suit is "designated" and (with the exception of beer card) L46B2 (note that this law uses designates) tells us which rank is to be assumed. L46B4 does not enter the game at all. That would be when declarer calls for the beer card when the D7 is not in dummy. It does not say that dummy cannot play a diamond if declarer says "ruff with a diamond please". "ruff" is not an instruction, it is (or at the very least can be) interpreted as "play the lowest card of the suit which I thought was trumps". It is as clear an indication of one intended card as touching it, pointing to it, or even nodding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 12 13:02:32 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:02:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be><88BF352E-DB24-420D-A87C-C5E49F9DDBFE@rochester.rr.com><005a01c7dbfc$a8fef070$b99487d9@Hellen><874D3A32-ECCD-41D4-9897-5DC451B0599A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003501c7dcd2$bfc3c6b0$b7a487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: Harald Skj?ran To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' According to the definition they're all "average", since they all contain 10 hcp. Of course we all know that the playing strength is far from equal, but that's another kettle of fish. :-( < +=+ Just so. The regulation is based on HCP not on playing strength. On the other hand there is a Systems Committee decision, which I have just confirmed for Shanghai, that xx/xx/AKQxxxx/xx is 'an average hand' for the purposes of the WBF Systems Policy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Aug 12 13:43:08 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:43:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003e01c7dcd6$25ad1280$b7a487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard uses his well-know tactic of obfuscation. > Beneath a stack of drivel is usually buried a pearl > of wisdom. Let's snip the former and get to the latter: > +=+ I am inclined to ask myself a question or two.... 1. Has the player named or otherwise designated a card? [45C4(a)] 2. Has he stated both the rank and the suit of a card? [46A] 3. Has he indicated a play without designating either a suit or rank? [46B5] ............................................................................., Somewhere among these questions the answer must lie. If he is deemed to have 'indicated a play' he has certainly not designated rank and suit. (This question of fact arises before the Director asks him any question and his subsequent response to a question does not change the facts as to whether he did designate a card as the laws specify.) The unanswered question, as to the law, is whether 'indicates a play' is to be construed as 'a legal play', whether reference to a ruff when there is no trump suit has any meaning. This is a matter of interpretation. I do not know of any interpretation of this law by the WBFLC. Unless someone can point to one, the question of an interim interpretation devolves upon the Director in the absence of a recorded interim interpretation by the NBO or the Zonal Authority. The Director will determine accordingly whether to rule that Law 45B5 applies or whether to rule that no (legal) play has been indicated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Aug 12 13:51:36 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:51:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:31:08 -0500 "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > > Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... > > > > Not entirely your fault. When replying to a post, can we please have > the software put blml at rtflb.org in the To field and the name of the > poster in the Cc field? Then Reply would work the way most of us > generally wish it would. > Well, I'd like to challenge the "most of us". When I click "Reply", my mailer puts the **list name** in the "To:" field (though it actually uses blml at amsterdamned.org, not blml at rtflb.org). It doesn't put the original poster in the "CC:" field, but I, for one, am glad that it doesn't. The idea of a public mailing list, or even a Usenet news group for that matter, is that those people who are subscribed **read the damn list**. What *is* the point of sending a second copy of a reply personally to the previous poster? It's a nuisance, because if you happen to be looking at your inbox rather than your BLML folder (assuming you use folders) then it looks for all the world like someone sent you a private reply, but then you find out it's only a nonsense copy of a public posting. And yes, before anyone else who's been on the net for a while reminds me, I know there were some near-religious wars back in the early days about "courtesy copies" of postings to newsgroups. I thought that one had been settled some years ago. So please, Henk, play around with the list headers to try to get everyone defaulting to 'reply to list' by all means, but (IMO, at least) please **DON'T** encourage the sending of an extra copy to the previous poster. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGvvRIX39R2QaHMdMRAvZOAJ9BcVOQKYmIa/9pA4tNq9KvrKWGdwCgmZfJ 2CWlxvcjWz+aOZJg9w74HRU= =0a4v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Aug 12 16:52:50 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:52:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> References: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> Message-ID: <63274BF31C844F32B03B28CAFE1F9595@erdos> "Brian" writes: > > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:31:08 -0500 > "Jerry Fusselman" wrote: > >> > Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... >> > >> >> Not entirely your fault. When replying to a post, can we please have >> the software put blml at rtflb.org in the To field and the name of the >> poster in the Cc field? Then Reply would work the way most of us >> generally wish it would. >> > > Well, I'd like to challenge the "most of us". > > When I click "Reply", my mailer puts the **list name** in the "To:" > field (though it actually uses blml at amsterdamned.org, not > blml at rtflb.org). It doesn't put the original poster in the "CC:" field, > but I, for one, am glad that it doesn't. And I would like to challenge the other part of the request (which I believe has been discussed several times already). My mailer has options "Reply" and "Reply to All". On this and many other lists, I sometimes want to send a private reply, and at other times want to reply to the list; having "Reply" go to the originator makes it easy to do whichever I want. On lists in which "Reply" goes to the whole list, it's easy to send private replies to the whole list accidentally (likely more serious than sending courtesy copies by accident on a "Reply to All"), and you have to do some cut-and-paste work to send a reply only to the originator. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 12 17:05:43 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:05:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003e01c7dcd6$25ad1280$b7a487d9@Hellen> References: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> <003e01c7dcd6$25ad1280$b7a487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > This is a matter of interpretation. I do > not know of any interpretation of this law by the WBFLC. > Unless someone can point to one, the question of an > interim interpretation devolves upon the Director in the > absence of a recorded interim interpretation by the NBO > or the Zonal Authority. The Director will determine > accordingly whether to rule that Law 45B5 applies or > whether to rule that no (legal) play has been indicated. Pretty much what I said earlier. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 12 17:13:11 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:13:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003501c7dcd2$bfc3c6b0$b7a487d9@Hellen> References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> <88BF352E-DB24-420D-A87C-C5E49F9DDBFE@rochester.rr.com> <005a01c7dbfc$a8fef070$b99487d9@Hellen> <874D3A32-ECCD-41D4-9897-5DC451B0599A@rochester.rr.com> <003501c7dcd2$bfc3c6b0$b7a487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <588C383F-50AF-4AFF-AE78-9AA53553F35E@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Just so. The regulation is based on HCP not > on playing strength. Yet the law is based on playing strength. Might this difference make the regulation illegal? (CF Law 80F). > On the other hand there is a Systems Committee > decision, which I have just confirmed for Shanghai, > that xx/xx/AKQxxxx/xx is 'an average hand' for the > purposes of the WBF Systems Policy. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This "average hand" is about three tricks better than the three discussed upthread. So I think the Systems Committee is in error. Seems to me that, since there are thirteen playing tricks and four hands, a hand of "average playing strength" ought to expect to take some three or four tricks, certainly not seven. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 12 18:07:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:07:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003e01c7dcd6$25ad1280$b7a487d9@Hellen> References: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> <003e01c7dcd6$25ad1280$b7a487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <46BF3050.9040504@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "Progress is not an accident but > a necessity." > {Herbert Spencer} > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard uses his well-know tactic of obfuscation. >> Beneath a stack of drivel is usually buried a pearl >> of wisdom. Let's snip the former and get to the latter: >> > +=+ I am inclined to ask myself a question or two.... > 1. Has the player named or otherwise designated > a card? [45C4(a)] > 2. Has he stated both the rank and the suit of a card? > [46A] > 3. Has he indicated a play without designating either > a suit or rank? [46B5] > ............................................................................., > Somewhere among these questions the answer must > lie. If he is deemed to have 'indicated a play' he has > certainly not designated rank and suit. (This question > of fact arises before the Director asks him any question > and his subsequent response to a question does not > change the facts as to whether he did designate a card > as the laws specify.) > The unanswered question, as to the law, is whether > 'indicates a play' is to be construed as 'a legal play', > whether reference to a ruff when there is no trump suit > has any meaning. This is a matter of interpretation. I do > not know of any interpretation of this law by the WBFLC. > Unless someone can point to one, the question of an > interim interpretation devolves upon the Director in the > absence of a recorded interim interpretation by the NBO > or the Zonal Authority. The Director will determine > accordingly whether to rule that Law 45B5 applies or > whether to rule that no (legal) play has been indicated. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Grattan, how can one "indicate a play" - no such thing exists in the laws. One can only "indicate a card". "ruff" does not mean anything in the laws except "play a card of the trump suit". Suppose a player were claiming, and he would say "and I ruff those 2 spades". It turns out he's in 3NT. Would you not rule that in judging his claim he is going to play one diamond on a spade? After which his claim resorts to on without any stated line? Why should it be any different in the play of a single card? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Aug 13 00:14:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:14:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c7dd2e$18f03ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > > Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... > Not entirely your fault. When replying to a post, can we please have > the software put blml at rtflb.org in the To field and the name of the > poster in the Cc field? Then Reply would work the way most of us > generally wish it would. OH NO - Please! My reply to this post will tell Jerry why because he will now receive this answer both directly and via blml. Maybe he doesn't mind, but I shall prefer just one answer to my posts, so reply to blml (only) is quite sufficient. Adding me as CC just fills my mailbox with extra (redundant) copies. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 13 00:24:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:24:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c7dd2f$7e78dd00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > "ruff" is not an instruction, it is (or at the very least can be) > interpreted as "play the lowest card of the suit which I thought was > trumps". It is as clear an indication of one intended card as touching > it, pointing to it, or even nodding. So when declarer "thinks" that he is playing in hearts when he is actually playing in spades (yes, I have seen such things happen more than once), plays a card in a suit where Dummy is void and calls for a trump Herman here argues that declarer has incontrovertibly asked for a heart and not a spade? At least that is what Herman says. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 13 00:39:07 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:39:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46BF8C0B.8040203@NTLworld.com> > Nigel Guthrie: >> He naively *volunteers* that when he said "ruff" he meant "play a >> low diamond". Should the director ignore his self-incriminating >> remark? > > Richard Hills: > Yes, ignore. Under Law the incontrovertible intent of a player to > play a card has relevance only if that player previously *called* for > a card. [nige1] You did not respond to my other example, Richard. Suppose declarer, believing diamonds to be trumps, instructs dummy "play any card except a trump". Can defenders insist that he discard a diamond? Or would declarer be allowed to escape any sanction by by pouring a cup of tea over dummy? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 13 01:17:13 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:17:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46BF94F9.40809@NTLworld.com> [Ruchard Hills] >> Another reason the ABF abolished R18 was that >> the Rule of 18 was infracted so frequently that >> it became an unenforced dead-letter law, due to >> the Aussie style of mad overbidding. [nige1l] The EBU seem to have all but abandoned "rule of 18" and other restrictions -- and for the same reasons. A handful of masochists lost matches by slavishly complying with the old regulation. The vast majority (especially director-players) ignored it or found ways round it. Some restrictions are now phrased as rule of x *or equivalent*. As David Burn previously pointed out, a secretary bird can drive a coach and horses through such regulations, especially if he's a director. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 13 01:30:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:30:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c7dd2f$7e78dd00$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >So when declarer "thinks" that he is playing in hearts when he is >actually playing in spades (yes, I have seen such things happen >more than once), plays a card in a suit where Dummy is void and >calls for a trump Herman here argues that declarer has >incontrovertibly asked for a heart and not a spade? > >At least that is what Herman says. Richard Hills: On this point I agree with Herman. If the contract is a suit contract (so that "ruff" is not a Landauesque dog noise), and if it is incontrovertible that declarer thought that the contract was 4H, then a call of "ruff" from declarer is a call for dummy to play a heart, despite the actual contract being 4S (or 5C or 5D). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 13 02:42:48 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:42:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c7dd42$df607890$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >So when declarer "thinks" that he is playing in hearts when he is > >actually playing in spades (yes, I have seen such things happen > >more than once), plays a card in a suit where Dummy is void and > >calls for a trump Herman here argues that declarer has > >incontrovertibly asked for a heart and not a spade? > > > >At least that is what Herman says. > > Richard Hills: > > On this point I agree with Herman. If the contract is a suit > contract (so that "ruff" is not a Landauesque dog noise), and if > it is incontrovertible that declarer thought that the contract was > 4H, then a call of "ruff" from declarer is a call for dummy to > play a heart, despite the actual contract being 4S (or 5C or 5D). And when Dummy obediently plays a spade (he knows what the contract is) and Declarer then shows signs of surprise . . . . .? How would you rule the situation I experienced many years ago when declarer obviously believed that whatever contract he was playing definitely was not with Hearts as trump (which indeed it was)? He ordered dummy to "discard" a heart on our play of a club where Dummy was void, and then waited some ten minutes before suddenly exclaiming "why have you all marked that trick to me"? Directors must not be required to have mind-reading capabilities. My opponent in the last case trumped, and that was that. In my first example declarer called for a trump, it was a trump contract so a denomination was designated (indirectly), dummy obediently played a trump; and that is that. Or do you want the play to be rolled back when declarer's intention becomes revealed say two tricks later? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 13 02:46:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:46:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708120024l1de057b0kc829c2032f87b257@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>That is, Herman has misread Law 46 by arguing that "intent" >>determines *whether* there has been a designation of a card. Jerry Fusselman: >As I have in vain asked twice before in this thread, what >other way is there to read the laws so that the director can >take proper action when declarer calls for a deuce instead of >a two? Richard Hills: Intent has nothing to do with synonyms. One does not have to read declarer's mind to deduce that "play the deuce" is a synonym for "play the two", or that "ruff" is a synonym for "play a trump". But incontrovertible intent is relevant for different cases. For example, declarer incontrovertibly intends to play a five, but has inadvertently called "deuce" instead. The relevant Law for determining whether or not declarer has used a synonym is Law 45C4(a), which has the phrase "otherwise designates". The question under debate is not whether "ruff" is a synonym for "play a trump", but whether "play a trump" can be defined as "otherwise designates" in a 3NT contract. Law 46B5 (No Suit or Rank Designated): "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or rank (as by saying, 'play anything', or words of like import), either defender may designate the play from dummy." Richard Hills: If, in a 3NT contract, declarer says "play a trump", are those words of like import to "play anything"? I think not. A harder question to answer is: If, in a 3NT contract, declarer says "ruff", has declarer made a Landauesque dog noise or has declarer "indicated a play"? That is, should the words "indicates a play" be interpreted as "indicates a possible play", given that it is impossible to play a trump in 3NT? 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 13 03:23:49 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:23:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be><003e01c7dcd6$25ad1280$b7a487d9@Hellen> <46BF3050.9040504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00ae01c7dd48$bc68b130$b3ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan, how can one "indicate a play" - no such > thing exists in the laws. One can only "indicate a > card". "ruff" does not mean anything in the laws >except "play a card of the trump suit". > +=+ Do you think we may possibly be looking at two different versions of Law 46B5 ("If declarer indicates a play....") ? +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 13 03:31:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:31:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BF8C0B.8040203@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >You did not respond to my other example, Richard. Suppose declarer, >believing diamonds to be trumps, instructs dummy "play any card >except a trump". Can defenders insist that he discard a diamond? > >Or would declarer be allowed to escape any sanction by pouring a >cup of tea over dummy? Richard Hills: Perhaps dummy would prefer their cup of tea shaken, but not stirred? :-) In a 3NT contract, the statement "play any card except a trump" is logically equivalent to "play any card", so Law 46B5 would apply. In normal circumstances defenders could insist that dummy discard a diamond. However, one must construe the Law 46B preamble as an integral part of Law 46B5, so if it is incontrovertible that declarer believed the 3NT contract was actually a 5D contract, declarer's incontrovertible intent of "play any non-diamond card" must be applied. 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 Aug 13 06:10:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:10:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] There is nothing like a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BF3050.9040504@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: There is nothing like a claim Nothing in the world There is nothing you can name That is anything like a claim Herman De Wael (from the thread "played or not?") asked: >Suppose a player were claiming, and he would say "and I ruff >those 2 spades". It turns out he's in 3NT. Would you not >rule that in judging his claim he is going to play one >diamond on a spade? Richard Hills answers: No. WBF Laws Committee Minutes, 1st November 2001, item 3: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." 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 Aug 13 06:52:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:52:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7dd42$df607890$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>On this point I agree with Herman. If the contract is a suit >>contract (so that "ruff" is not a Landauesque dog noise), and if >>it is incontrovertible that declarer thought that the contract was >>4H, then a call of "ruff" from declarer is a call for dummy to >>play a heart, despite the actual contract being 4S (or 5C or 5D). Sven Pran: >And when Dummy obediently plays a spade (he knows what the contract >is) and Declarer then shows signs of surprise . . . . .? > >How would you rule the situation I experienced many years ago when >declarer obviously believed that whatever contract he was playing >definitely was not with Hearts as trump (which indeed it was)? He >ordered dummy to "discard" a heart on our play of a club where >Dummy was void, and then waited some ten minutes before suddenly >exclaiming "why have you all marked that trick to me"? Richard Hills: Sven's case differs from Herman's case in one important respect. In Sven's case declarer not only called for a heart, declarer also incontrovertibly intended to play that heart. Declarer was merely unaware that the heart was a winner, not a loser. Sven Pran: >Directors must not be required to have mind-reading capabilities. Richard Hills: What about Law 25A? Law 45C4(b)? Law 62A? Law 72A2? Law 72B2? Law 74B4? Law 74C7? Law 75D1? and Law 85? 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 Aug 13 07:40:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:40:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Paused for thought or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7dd42$df607890$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran (parallel thread "played or not?") asserted: [big snip] >In my first example declarer called for a trump, it was a trump contract >so a denomination was designated (indirectly), dummy obediently played a >trump; and that is that. > >Or do you want the play to be rolled back when declarer's intention >becomes revealed say two tricks later? Law 45C4(b): "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47E)." Richard Hills quibbles: Sven Pran's assertion "that is that" is obviously contrary to what is a specific conditional permission for "that to be not that" granted by Law 45C4(b). But how long does a player have for a pause without thought? Can that pause without thought last until two tricks later? I would argue that a player's right to change an inadvertent designation of a card expires as soon as that player plays or designates any later card, since that player must have paused for thought when deciding which subsequent card to play after their previous inadvertent card. 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 henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 13 11:00:14 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:00:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <000501c7dd2e$18f03ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c7dd2e$18f03ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C01D9E.6070407@ripe.net> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman >>> Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... >> Not entirely your fault. When replying to a post, can we please have >> the software put blml at rtflb.org in the To field and the name of the >> poster in the Cc field? Then Reply would work the way most of us >> generally wish it would. > > OH NO - Please! > > My reply to this post will tell Jerry why because he will now receive this > answer both directly and via blml. This depends on your mail client and the way you have set it up. Henk > > Maybe he doesn't mind, but I shall prefer just one answer to my posts, so > reply to blml (only) is quite sufficient. Adding me as CC just fills my > mailbox with extra (redundant) copies. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 13 11:07:00 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:07:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <46C01D9E.6070407@ripe.net> References: <000501c7dd2e$18f03ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C01D9E.6070407@ripe.net> Message-ID: <46C01F34.2030101@ripe.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman >>>> Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... >>> Not entirely your fault. When replying to a post, can we please have >>> the software put blml at rtflb.org in the To field and the name of the >>> poster in the Cc field? Then Reply would work the way most of us >>> generally wish it would. >> OH NO - Please! >> >> My reply to this post will tell Jerry why because he will now receive this >> answer both directly and via blml. > > This depends on your mail client and the way you have set it up. More specific. Right now, the setup is: "reply" -> mail goes to the original poster. "reply all" -> mail goes to poster and list. I can change this, but this means that I have to override reply-to fields that people may have set. That will make it harder for people to manage their incoming mail. I don't want to do this. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 13 11:07:00 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:07:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <46C01D9E.6070407@ripe.net> References: <000501c7dd2e$18f03ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C01D9E.6070407@ripe.net> Message-ID: <46C01F34.2030101@ripe.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman >>>> Once more, apologies. Was meant for the group... >>> Not entirely your fault. When replying to a post, can we please have >>> the software put blml at rtflb.org in the To field and the name of the >>> poster in the Cc field? Then Reply would work the way most of us >>> generally wish it would. >> OH NO - Please! >> >> My reply to this post will tell Jerry why because he will now receive this >> answer both directly and via blml. > > This depends on your mail client and the way you have set it up. More specific. Right now, the setup is: "reply" -> mail goes to the original poster. "reply all" -> mail goes to poster and list. I can change this, but this means that I have to override reply-to fields that people may have set. That will make it harder for people to manage their incoming mail. I don't want to do this. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 13 11:11:31 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:11:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] There is nothing like a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C02043.7000702@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > There is nothing like a claim > Nothing in the world > There is nothing you can name > That is anything like a claim > > Herman De Wael (from the thread "played or not?") asked: > >> Suppose a player were claiming, and he would say "and I ruff >> those 2 spades". It turns out he's in 3NT. Would you not >> rule that in judging his claim he is going to play one >> diamond on a spade? > > Richard Hills answers: > > No. > > WBF Laws Committee Minutes, 1st November 2001, item 3: > > "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an > irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the > irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the > irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point > as though there were no statement of claim but should take > into account any later part of the claim that he considers > still to be valid." > > I interpret the "irregularity" in this example as the fact that declarer, after "ruffing" in dummy, attempts to play from there. That is an irregularity, the playing of the diamond is not. Nor can you say that, during the execution of the hypothetical play after the claim, declarer would utter the words "ruff", and the "irregularity" be found. He might just as well say "diamond" at that time, which is not an irregularity. Therefore, Richard, you are completely wrong in both these matters. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 13 11:14:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:14:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c7dd2f$7e78dd00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c7dd2f$7e78dd00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C020F1.8030103@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >> "ruff" is not an instruction, it is (or at the very least can be) >> interpreted as "play the lowest card of the suit which I thought was >> trumps". It is as clear an indication of one intended card as touching >> it, pointing to it, or even nodding. > > So when declarer "thinks" that he is playing in hearts when he is actually > playing in spades (yes, I have seen such things happen more than once), > plays a card in a suit where Dummy is void and calls for a trump Herman here > argues that declarer has incontrovertibly asked for a heart and not a spade? > > At least that is what Herman says. > Indeed that is what I say. This example may be far more difficult to unearth (dummy will simply trump with spades and declarer may be able to hide his surprise). But the alternate is also true. If declarer calls for a small heart, he has not ruffed, even if his intention was incontrovertibly to ruff. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 13 11:17:29 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:17:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C021A9.3080101@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran: > >> So when declarer "thinks" that he is playing in hearts when he is >> actually playing in spades (yes, I have seen such things happen >> more than once), plays a card in a suit where Dummy is void and >> calls for a trump Herman here argues that declarer has >> incontrovertibly asked for a heart and not a spade? >> >> At least that is what Herman says. > > Richard Hills: > > On this point I agree with Herman. If the contract is a suit > contract (so that "ruff" is not a Landauesque dog noise), and if > it is incontrovertible that declarer thought that the contract was > 4H, then a call of "ruff" from declarer is a call for dummy to > play a heart, despite the actual contract being 4S (or 5C or 5D). > Richard, how can you agree with me on this case and not on the other one. Either "ruff" is an instruction to ruff (impossible if the contract is NT, spades if it is in spades) or it is an instruction to play the smallest of the suit declarer thinks is trumps. But it cannot be something else depending on what the strain is! Please be consistent, Richard. "Ruff" is not a dog sound; "Ruff" is not an instruction to dummy - because you cannot give instructions, you can only indicate a card; "Ruff" is equivalent to naming a suit, that suit being the one you think is trumps. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 13 12:32:37 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:32:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <46C01F34.2030101@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000701c7dd95$44bdbf20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal ............. > More specific. Right now, the setup is: > > "reply" -> mail goes to the original poster. > "reply all" -> mail goes to poster and list. > > I can change this, but this means that I have to override reply-to fields > that people may have set. That will make it harder for people to manage > their incoming mail. I don't want to do this. As long as "reply" produces only one addressee I am quite comfortable. Whether "reply" sets up the original poster or the list is a minor issue. Although I had preferred the list I easily change it to the list myself. What I do not want is to receive two copies of each post I send, one direct and one from blml. Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 13 12:52:27 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:52:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <000701c7dd95$44bdbf20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <46C01F34.2030101@ripe.net> <000701c7dd95$44bdbf20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <20070813065227.7842d0ea@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:32:37 +0200 "Sven Pran" wrote: > > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > ............. > > More specific. Right now, the setup is: > > > > "reply" -> mail goes to the original poster. > > "reply all" -> mail goes to poster and list. > > > > I can change this, but this means that I have to override reply-to > > fields that people may have set. That will make it harder for > > people to manage their incoming mail. I don't want to do this. > > As long as "reply" produces only one addressee I am quite comfortable. > > Whether "reply" sets up the original poster or the list is a minor > issue. Although I had preferred the list I easily change it to the > list myself. > > What I do not want is to receive two copies of each post I send, one > direct and one from blml. > The above goes for me too. I was surprised to learn that the 'reply' is supposed to go to the original poster, I guess my mail client knows a mailing list when it sees one, because reply definitely goes to the list for me. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGwDfrX39R2QaHMdMRAqLCAJ9G7pqrE2pghAgzUuy1qQzsAEC1zwCcDxAz BItdGe1RdhTrv1A6uyFrvFA= =Ivou -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 13 14:47:20 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:47:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EF8F8C9-65A5-499A-9A5C-D8D2131F068B@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:11 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matthias Berghaus: > >>> Because we favor the lazy guy who just says "ruff", while a declarer >>> who correctly names a card is fixed. Both want to play the same card >>> at that moment, both will be informed that they are playing NT (the >>> second guy when he tries to lead from dummy to the next trick), so >>> they are essentially in the same position, except that the player >>> who calls his cards correctly has to play the card the named, while >>> the other one does not (under option C). This is the "hook": Two >>> players want the same card, one has to play it, the other doesn't. > > Nigel Guthrie: > >> He naively *volunteers* that when he said "ruff" he meant "play a >> low diamond". Should the director ignore his self-incriminating >> remark? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, ignore. Under Law the incontrovertible intent of a player to > play a card has relevance only if that player previously *called* for > a card. > > Mister Smug likes dummy to fetch a cup of tea for him whenever he is > declarer. Indeed, Mister Smug's one regret in life is that he never > shared a cup of tea with Marilyn Monroe, since Mister Smug was very > impressed with Marilyn Monroe singing, "Diamonds are a girl's best > friend". > > Because Mister Smug has this mental association of cups of tea with > diamonds, Mister Smug only remembers to call, "Dummy, please fetch a > cup of tea" when Mister Smug is about to play a diamond from dummy. > > Mister Smug's incontrovertible intent is to play a diamond from > dummy, but he has not yet actually called for a diamond, so Mister > Smug's self-incriminating *remark* must be ignored by the director. > > Meanwhile, unlucky expert Matthias Berghaus calls, "Five of diamonds, > and also please fetch a cup of tea". The director does not ignore the > self-incriminating *call* by unlucky expert Matthias Berghaus. > > Matthias Berghaus's point that an unlucky expert can be unlucky is > true, but so what? C'est la vie. Is Richard's scenario not rather similar to two players removing a card from their hand then changing their mind and wishing to play a different one, one of them having exposed the face of the card, the other not? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 13 15:19:22 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:19:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708120024l1de057b0kc829c2032f87b257@mail.gmail.com> References: <46BE0D0D.4050809@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0708120024l1de057b0kc829c2032f87b257@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 12, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 8/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: >> >> Ed, Jerry and I are willing to admit that "cup of tea" is a >> statement which shows that declarer _incontrovertibly intends_ >> to play the five of diamonds, ... > > No, not me. > >> >> The primary issue is whether calling "ruff" in a 3NT contract >> is either: >> >> (a) a Landauesque dog noise (Law 90B2 applies), or >> >> (b) a designation of a card not in dummy (Law 46B4 applies, as >> modified by the Law 46B preamble's statement "declarer's >> different intent is incontrovertible". >> > > or (c) an incontrovertible designation of a specific card in dummy. > The original poster gives us the fact that declarer thinks he is > playing a diamond contract, so (c) looks right. > >> That is, Herman has misread Law 46 by arguing that "intent" >> determines *whether* there has been a designation of a card. >> > > As I have in vain asked twice before in this thread, what other way is > there to read the laws so that the director can take proper action > when declarer calls for a deuce instead of a two? I.e., if the > parenthetical at the beginning of Law 46B does not help resolve that > case, what part of the law does? > >> Rather, Law 46 merely states that *after* a determination has >> been made that a card has been designated, an incontrovertible >> "intent" modifies the subsequent determination of *which* card >> has been designated. > > Again^3, which law allows a director to rule that deuce means two if > he must ignore the parenthetical at the beginning of Law 46B? He doesn't need a law; he needs only a bridge dictionary (or, in this case, any dictionary). "Deuce" is a recognized and unambiguous synonym for "two", just as much so as "deux" or "zwei". If declarer calls for "deuce", we apply L46B3 if there is a deuce in the dummy, otherwise we apply L46B4. And "ruff" is a recognized and unambiguous synonym for "play a trump". If declarer calls for a "ruff", we apply L46B2 if there is a trump in the dummy, otherwise we apply L46B4. ISTM that only by linguistic quibbling can we distinguish the two cases. That is not to deny that whether declarer calls for "deuce", or "ruff", or anything else, he may have done something in addition to his "designation" which makes a different intention incontrovertable. But that must be something manifest, not merely a presumed state of mind. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 13 15:37:25 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:37:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <200708120908.l7C9851H003192@smtp50.hccnet.nl> References: <200708120908.l7C9851H003192@smtp50.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <61067CEC-1AB1-4A85-9561-6E1F1D329004@starpower.net> On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Andr? Steffens wrote: > I think that the way declarer played the hand will make clear > whether he > thought to be playing in NT or in a trump contract: > -He will have drawn diamonds just long enough to remove the > diamonds from > the opponents. > -The fact alone that he plays for a ruff will seem very odd in NT, > because > usually he will play a suit in which he is wide open. Indeed. And in doing so, he stands a 99+% probability of having already played the board in such a way as to virtually guarantee the opponents a very good score even before he calls for the spurious "ruff". Asking him to name his imagined trump suit and then forcing him to discard it will almost always be nothing more than the insult added to the injury that will have already been self-inflicted. That may not make any difference to the law-parsers, but might affect how we would want to deal with such cases in real life affecting real bridge players. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 13 15:50:40 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:50:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> References: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > You should go a little further back, Richard, to L45B. This states > that there is at least one other ways of playing a card from dummy, > namely touching it. Only then do we get to L46A, which tells us how a > card should be named. L46A does not point us back to L1, and this > means that in stead of "diamonds" we are allowed to say "ruiten", > "carreaux", "koekes", "beer card", and "trump". All of these mean that > a suit is "designated" and (with the exception of beer card) L46B2 > (note that this law uses designates) tells us which rank is to be > assumed. > > L46B4 does not enter the game at all. That would be when declarer > calls for the beer card when the D7 is not in dummy. It does not say > that dummy cannot play a diamond if declarer says "ruff with a diamond > please". Of course if declarer says "ruff with a diamond" dummy must play a diamond -- if there is one in dummy. And if he says "ruff with the beer card" dummy must play the beer card -- if there is one in dummy. And if declarer says "ruff with a trump" dummy must play a trump -- if there is one in dummy. WTP? In the language I speak, "ruff" means with a trump, not with a diamond, or with a beer card, or with the suit on the left. > "ruff" is not an instruction, it is (or at the very least can be) > interpreted as "play the lowest card of the suit which I thought was > trumps". It is as clear an indication of one intended card as touching > it, pointing to it, or even nodding. Not in my game! If you say "ruff", it will be interpreted as "play the lowest card of the suit which *is* trumps", regardless of what you think. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 13 15:59:42 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:59:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? In-Reply-To: <003501c7dcd2$bfc3c6b0$b7a487d9@Hellen> References: <46BC5B3F.7010509@skynet.be><88BF352E-DB24-420D-A87C-C5E49F9DDBFE@rochester.rr.com><005a01c7dbfc$a8fef070$b99487d9@Hellen><874D3A32-ECCD-41D4-9897-5DC451B0599A@rochester.rr.com> <003501c7dcd2$bfc3c6b0$b7a487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <5021F94E-491F-4C50-AB4D-6B13346C01AD@starpower.net> On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Just so. The regulation is based on HCP not > on playing strength. Unfortunately, the law under which the regulation is justified is based on playing strength, not HCP, which is why there's a problem. > On the other hand there is a Systems Committee > decision, which I have just confirmed for Shanghai, > that xx/xx/AKQxxxx/xx is 'an average hand' for the > purposes of the WBF Systems Policy. It's nice to see the Systems Committee finally recognizing that HCP is not an adequate measure of what TFLB means by "strength". There are numerous contributors to this forum who have been trying to convince the WBF of this for years. Now we get to spend more years arguing about what other hands with fewer than 10 HCP are "at least as strong as" xx/xx/AKQxxxx/xx. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 13 16:07:36 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:07:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> References: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> Message-ID: <4881DA3A-A20F-43B8-8C48-D727EB4B6AE1@starpower.net> On Aug 12, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Brian wrote: > Well, I'd like to challenge the "most of us". > > When I click "Reply", my mailer puts the **list name** in the "To:" > field (though it actually uses blml at amsterdamned.org, not > blml at rtflb.org). It doesn't put the original poster in the "CC:" > field, > but I, for one, am glad that it doesn't. > > The idea of a public mailing list, or even a Usenet news group for > that > matter, is that those people who are subscribed **read the damn > list**. > What *is* the point of sending a second copy of a reply personally to > the previous poster? It's a nuisance, because if you happen to be > looking at your inbox rather than your BLML folder (assuming you use > folders) then it looks for all the world like someone sent you a > private reply, but then you find out it's only a nonsense copy of a > public posting. > > And yes, before anyone else who's been on the net for a while reminds > me, I know there were some near-religious wars back in the early days > about "courtesy copies" of postings to newsgroups. I thought that one > had been settled some years ago. > > So please, Henk, play around with the list headers to try to get > everyone defaulting to 'reply to list' by all means, but (IMO, at > least) please **DON'T** encourage the sending of an extra copy to > the previous poster. I vote with Brian. It is elementary net etiquette to avoid sending two identical copies of the same e-mail to the same recipient. Members of this forum should please take note; you know who you are. BTW, it always has been. "Courtesy copies" were for Usenet postings, not e-mails, and the fuss largely reflected the fact that some folks read Usenet with their mail client, others with a separate news client. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 13 16:17:59 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:17:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Please ignore Message-ID: <46C06817.6090501@ripe.net> Please ignore, looking at mailing list params... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 13 16:18:40 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:18:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Please ignore In-Reply-To: <46C06817.6090501@ripe.net> References: <46C06817.6090501@ripe.net> Message-ID: <46C06840.7010809@ripe.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Please ignore, looking at mailing list params... And another test -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 16:39:06 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:39:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <4881DA3A-A20F-43B8-8C48-D727EB4B6AE1@starpower.net> References: <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:07 13/08/2007 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >[brian] > > What *is* the point of sending a second copy of a reply personally to > > the previous poster? It's a nuisance >I vote with Brian. It is elementary net etiquette to avoid sending >two identical copies of the same e-mail to the same recipient. >Members of this forum should please take note; you know who you are. Please note that, when using the "reply to all" function of some mailing configurations, the message will be sent twice to the sender of the original message - once as an individual and once as a member of blml. Whle some other configurations "understand" they have to eradicate doubles. So, perhaps some of us do *not* know they created the problem. Please tell them they did and they should change their way to reply to blml only. Best regards lain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 13 16:55:20 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:55:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Please note that, when using the "reply to all" function of some > mailing configurations, the message will be sent twice to the > sender of the original message - once as an individual and once as > a member of blml. Whle some other configurations "understand" they > have to eradicate doubles. > > So, perhaps some of us do *not* know they created the problem. > Please tell them they did and they should change their way to reply > to blml only. Here's what works for me: I have assigned "blml" as a nickname for the list. I never use "Reply to all", which can be accident-prone. "Reply" sets up a single, private reply. To send to the list instead, just highlight the "To" field entry (some mailers require only a click, some a "click and drag") and type "blml" (or even less with autofill on). You will never send a duplicate copy, and can only screw up by accidentally sending an intended public post as private, not the other way around. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 13 17:37:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:37:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <61067CEC-1AB1-4A85-9561-6E1F1D329004@starpower.net> References: <200708120908.l7C9851H003192@smtp50.hccnet.nl> <61067CEC-1AB1-4A85-9561-6E1F1D329004@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46C07AC5.1000904@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Andr? Steffens wrote: > >> I think that the way declarer played the hand will make clear >> whether he >> thought to be playing in NT or in a trump contract: >> -He will have drawn diamonds just long enough to remove the >> diamonds from >> the opponents. >> -The fact alone that he plays for a ruff will seem very odd in NT, >> because >> usually he will play a suit in which he is wide open. > > Indeed. And in doing so, he stands a 99+% probability of having > already played the board in such a way as to virtually guarantee the > opponents a very good score even before he calls for the spurious > "ruff". Asking him to name his imagined trump suit and then forcing > him to discard it will almost always be nothing more than the insult > added to the injury that will have already been self-inflicted. That > may not make any difference to the law-parsers, but might affect how > we would want to deal with such cases in real life affecting real > bridge players. > What is wrong with you guys? You hate it that much when you happen to be wrong, that you find arguments that are so far out that they are hardly worth replying to. If you believe that insult has been added to injury, no-one thinks you should rule this way, as TD at the table. But that does not mean that the interpretation is the way I've told you. The next time you have this problem, there may well be no injury yet, and the "insult" is the only thing opponents will get from the mistake the player has made. Will you let that one off the hook because you did not give this previous one his super-bottom? > > 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 Mon Aug 13 17:39:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:39:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <4EF8F8C9-65A5-499A-9A5C-D8D2131F068B@starpower.net> References: <4EF8F8C9-65A5-499A-9A5C-D8D2131F068B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46C07B45.7060007@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:11 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Matthias Berghaus: >> >>>> Because we favor the lazy guy who just says "ruff", while a declarer >>>> who correctly names a card is fixed. Both want to play the same card >>>> at that moment, both will be informed that they are playing NT (the >>>> second guy when he tries to lead from dummy to the next trick), so >>>> they are essentially in the same position, except that the player >>>> who calls his cards correctly has to play the card the named, while >>>> the other one does not (under option C). This is the "hook": Two >>>> players want the same card, one has to play it, the other doesn't. >> Nigel Guthrie: >> >>> He naively *volunteers* that when he said "ruff" he meant "play a >>> low diamond". Should the director ignore his self-incriminating >>> remark? >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yes, ignore. Under Law the incontrovertible intent of a player to >> play a card has relevance only if that player previously *called* for >> a card. >> >> Mister Smug likes dummy to fetch a cup of tea for him whenever he is >> declarer. Indeed, Mister Smug's one regret in life is that he never >> shared a cup of tea with Marilyn Monroe, since Mister Smug was very >> impressed with Marilyn Monroe singing, "Diamonds are a girl's best >> friend". >> >> Because Mister Smug has this mental association of cups of tea with >> diamonds, Mister Smug only remembers to call, "Dummy, please fetch a >> cup of tea" when Mister Smug is about to play a diamond from dummy. >> >> Mister Smug's incontrovertible intent is to play a diamond from >> dummy, but he has not yet actually called for a diamond, so Mister >> Smug's self-incriminating *remark* must be ignored by the director. >> >> Meanwhile, unlucky expert Matthias Berghaus calls, "Five of diamonds, >> and also please fetch a cup of tea". The director does not ignore the >> self-incriminating *call* by unlucky expert Matthias Berghaus. >> >> Matthias Berghaus's point that an unlucky expert can be unlucky is >> true, but so what? C'est la vie. > > Is Richard's scenario not rather similar to two players removing a > card from their hand then changing their mind and wishing to play a > different one, one of them having exposed the face of the card, the > other not? > No, because you have now introduced a difference which makes a difference! Richard's scenario is rather like the one of two players removing a card from their hand, one showing it and the other naming it. Both have "played" the card, and neither is allowed to take it back. > > 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 Mon Aug 13 17:41:42 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:41:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: References: <46BED797.3080509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C07BB6.30709@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> You should go a little further back, Richard, to L45B. This states >> that there is at least one other ways of playing a card from dummy, >> namely touching it. Only then do we get to L46A, which tells us how a >> card should be named. L46A does not point us back to L1, and this >> means that in stead of "diamonds" we are allowed to say "ruiten", >> "carreaux", "koekes", "beer card", and "trump". All of these mean that >> a suit is "designated" and (with the exception of beer card) L46B2 >> (note that this law uses designates) tells us which rank is to be >> assumed. >> >> L46B4 does not enter the game at all. That would be when declarer >> calls for the beer card when the D7 is not in dummy. It does not say >> that dummy cannot play a diamond if declarer says "ruff with a diamond >> please". > > Of course if declarer says "ruff with a diamond" dummy must play a > diamond -- if there is one in dummy. And if he says "ruff with the > beer card" dummy must play the beer card -- if there is one in > dummy. And if declarer says "ruff with a trump" dummy must play a > trump -- if there is one in dummy. WTP? > > In the language I speak, "ruff" means with a trump, not with a > diamond, or with a beer card, or with the suit on the left. > >> "ruff" is not an instruction, it is (or at the very least can be) >> interpreted as "play the lowest card of the suit which I thought was >> trumps". It is as clear an indication of one intended card as touching >> it, pointing to it, or even nodding. > > Not in my game! If you say "ruff", it will be interpreted as "play > the lowest card of the suit which *is* trumps", regardless of what > you think. > How can you say that, Eric? Have you ever seen this case? In my game "ruff" means "play the lowest of the suit which I think is trumps". unless we come accross a case like this, our two definitions are the same. So you cannot use your definition to prove anything! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 13 17:25:15 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46C077DB.7010503@ripe.net> Hi all, I've added a "reply-to: blml at rtflb.org" field, so if your mail client behaves, then you won't send a second copy of your reply to the previous poster. I'm sure that this has some disadvantage for somebody that I haven't quite figured out... Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 13 17:22:44 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:22:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <20070813065227.7842d0ea@linuxbox> References: <46C01F34.2030101@ripe.net> <000701c7dd95$44bdbf20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <20070813065227.7842d0ea@linuxbox> Message-ID: <46C07744.8010100@ripe.net> Hi, >> What I do not want is to receive two copies of each post I send, one >> direct and one from blml. >> > > The above goes for me too. > > I was surprised to learn that the 'reply' is supposed to go to the > original poster, I guess my mail client knows a mailing list when it > sees one, because reply definitely goes to the list for me. I was somewhat suprised to see this too (in particular since I'm using a very recent mail client). Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 23:03:18 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:03:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708131403pd9c2883ua4bfebee9158ea52@mail.gmail.com> On 8/13/07, Eric Landau wrote: > > Here's what works for me: I have assigned "blml" as a nickname for > the list. I never use "Reply to all", which can be accident-prone. How ironic that on this particular email, Eric used "Reply to all" and thus sent two copies to Alain. When such brilliant people have problems getting the result they want, it seems well to consider a change. There have been several hundred posts apologizing for accidental sends to individuals when only BLML was intended. (Personally I don't mind receiving two copies, because gmail only shows one copy.) Until Henk's change today, when I presses "Reply" I got To the poster, not BLML. When I pressed "Reply to all" I got To the poster and Cc BLML. So I had to always remember to "Reply to all" and then delete the poster's name and move BLML to To. My main wish was to have "Reply" populate the To field with BLML, which Henk has now provided---thanks! However, "Reply to All" now functions just like Reply does on my gmail account, and I would therefore (apparently) have to look up an individual email address if I wanted to sent an email to the most-recent poster instead of all of BLML. Overall, I like Henk's change. Jerry Fusselman From mustikka at charter.net Mon Aug 13 23:11:53 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:11:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work References: <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox><5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <46C077DB.7010503@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000501c7ddee$92d05430$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Thanks! This works for me. I typically do not email to posters in private. But if I want to, I still can. Raija ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] This is how Reply should work > Hi all, > > I've added a "reply-to: blml at rtflb.org" field, so if your mail client > behaves, then you won't send a second copy of your reply to the > previous poster. I'm sure that this has some disadvantage for > somebody that I haven't quite figured out... > > Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" > # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the > compliment." > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 14 01:29:25 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:29:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C07AC5.1000904@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >What is wrong with you guys? > >You hate it that much when you happen to be >wrong, that you find arguments that are so far >out that they are hardly worth replying to. Richard Hills: The pot calling the kettle black? :-) H.C. Beeching (1859-1919), slightly modified: First come I; my name is Herman. There's no knowledge but I determine. I am Master of this college: What I don't know isn't knowledge. 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 Aug 14 03:42:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:42:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C021A9.3080101@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>On this point I agree with Herman. If the contract is a suit >>contract (so that "ruff" is not a Landauesque dog noise), and if it >>is incontrovertible that declarer thought that the contract was 4H, >>then a call of "ruff" from declarer is a call for dummy to play a >>heart, despite the actual contract being 4S (or 5C or 5D). Herman De Wael: >Richard, how can you agree with me on this case and not on the other >one. Either "ruff" is an instruction to ruff (impossible if the >contract is NT, spades if it is in spades) or it is [snip] >Please be consistent, Richard. > >"Ruff" is not a dog sound; [snip] Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882): "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Richard Hills: The primary question is: In 3NT, if declarer asks dummy to "ruff", then has a card been called? As Herman agrees, it is impossible to ruff in 3NT. The Landau / Hills interpretation is that an impossible instruction is not a call for a card, thus in 3NT "ruff" is a dog noise, so Law 90B2 applies. The De Wael School interpretation is that an impossible call for a card still counts as a call for a card, thus in 3NT "ruff" is a request for a card in the suit that declarer thinks is trumps, so that Law 46B2 will eventually apply (as soon as the declarer reveals to the Director what the 3NT trump suit is). But Landau, Hills and De Wael all agree that it is possible to ruff in a suit contract. The secondary question is: In 4S, if declarer asks dummy to "ruff", then must dummy play a spade? And of course "must" is incorrect. See Law 45C4(b) and the Law 46B preamble's bracketed phrase "(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible)". 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 Aug 14 04:30:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:30:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C07B45.7060007@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>Is Richard's scenario not rather similar to two players removing a >>card from their hand then changing their mind and wishing to play a >>different one, one of them having exposed the face of the card, the >>other not? Herman De Wael: >No, because you have now introduced a difference which makes a >difference! > >Richard's scenario is rather like the one of two players removing a >card from their hand, one showing it and the other naming it. Both >have "played" the card, and neither is allowed to take it back. Richard Hills: Is Herman really arguing that Mister Smug telling dummy to "fetch a cup of tea, please" is a Law 46B2 designation of the diamond suit because Mister Smug invariably plays a diamond from dummy subsequent to such a request for a cup of tea? I would argue that the statement "fetch a cup of tea, please" merely gives the defenders authorised information that a diamond is about to be played. I would further argue that if Mister Smug happened to change his mind about playing a diamond (perhaps because dummy fetched an Infinite Improbability Drive instead of a cup of tea), then Mister Smug would be permitted to call any other legal card from dummy. 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 18:24:20 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:24:20 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46C07AC5.1000904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C085B1.000007.53447@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > The next time you have this problem, there may well be no injury yet, and the "insult" is the only thing opponents will get from the mistake the player has made. Will you let that one off the hook ? Yes Sir. Because laws aren't there to punish the culprit. They are there to avoid the innocent being harmed. This is the difference between civil and penal laws, and note that, at bridge as in ordinary life, .civil and penal treatment of an offence are distinct. If a player bids OOT, and RHO, whose turn it was, passes, he is off the hook If a player passes OOT, it might well be that he is off the hook, as his side wouldn't have bid anyway. It might even end up better for his side, because his partner's silence will avoid helping declarer, or because other pairs in his line will go down. If a defender drops a non-honor, there will be many cases when he won't pay for doing it. So what ??? So, the problem boils down to a single question : which part of L46 do we apply ? 1. He infracted L46A, but note the conditional form "should", which means there will usually be no penalty. 2. L46B1 obviously doesn't apply 3. L46B2 doesn't apply, because "trumps" isn't the name of a suit. 4. L46B3 is irrelevant. So there remain only two possibilities : 1. Either consider "no card called" (46B4) : declarer does what he wants and gets a lecture on L74B1. 2. Or consider he called an unspecified card (46B5) : a defender may call for any card. Since 46B5 doesn't apply when one calls a card absent from dummy, a griffin, or sneezes, I'd say it doesn't apply here either. But considering he has to play a low diamond and nothing else isn't supported by L46. Note that, according to the wording of L46B, "uncontrovertible" applies only to wipe out restrictions, not to create them, so that the fact that we know he wanted to play a diamond isn't relevant. Did I touch all bases ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070813/ed11e819/attachment-0002.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/20070813/ed11e819/attachment-0002.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/20070813/ed11e819/attachment-0002.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 18:24:20 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:24:20 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46C07AC5.1000904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C085B1.000007.53447@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- > The next time you have this problem, there may well be no injury yet, and the "insult" is the only thing opponents will get from the mistake the player has made. Will you let that one off the hook ? Yes Sir. Because laws aren't there to punish the culprit. They are there to avoid the innocent being harmed. This is the difference between civil and penal laws, and note that, at bridge as in ordinary life, .civil and penal treatment of an offence are distinct. If a player bids OOT, and RHO, whose turn it was, passes, he is off the hook If a player passes OOT, it might well be that he is off the hook, as his side wouldn't have bid anyway. It might even end up better for his side, because his partner's silence will avoid helping declarer, or because other pairs in his line will go down. If a defender drops a non-honor, there will be many cases when he won't pay for doing it. So what ??? So, the problem boils down to a single question : which part of L46 do we apply ? 1. He infracted L46A, but note the conditional form "should", which means there will usually be no penalty. 2. L46B1 obviously doesn't apply 3. L46B2 doesn't apply, because "trumps" isn't the name of a suit. 4. L46B3 is irrelevant. So there remain only two possibilities : 1. Either consider "no card called" (46B4) : declarer does what he wants and gets a lecture on L74B1. 2. Or consider he called an unspecified card (46B5) : a defender may call for any card. Since 46B5 doesn't apply when one calls a card absent from dummy, a griffin, or sneezes, I'd say it doesn't apply here either. But considering he has to play a low diamond and nothing else isn't supported by L46. Note that, according to the wording of L46B, "uncontrovertible" applies only to wipe out restrictions, not to create them, so that the fact that we know he wanted to play a diamond isn't relevant. Did I touch all bases ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070813/ed11e819/attachment-0003.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/20070813/ed11e819/attachment-0003.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/20070813/ed11e819/attachment-0003.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 14 09:53:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:53:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C085B1.000007.53447@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46C07AC5.1000904@skynet.be> <46C085B1.000007.53447@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46C15F83.2000307@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > So, the problem boils down to a single question : which part of L46 do > we apply ? > > 1. He infracted L46A, but note the conditional form "should", which > means there will usually be no penalty. And indeed there is no penalty for calling diamonds "koekes" or "trumps". > 2. L46B1 obviously doesn't apply Well, it does in the sense that the lowest of the suit will be played, but I agree that is not important. > 3. L46B2 doesn't apply, because "trumps" isn't the name of a suit. neither is "koekes". Note that L46B2 uses "designates". Surely if he says "ruff" when there are trumps, the trump suit is designated? > 4. L46B3 is irrelevant. agreed. > > So there remain only two possibilities : > 1. Either consider "no card called" (46B4) : declarer does what he wants > and gets a lecture on L74B1. No, this one surely cannot apply. Either you consider that a card has been specified, and then that card is a low diamond and there is obviously one in dummy - or you consider that no card has been specified and then L46B4 does not apply. > 2. Or consider he called an unspecified card (46B5) : a defender may > call for any card. > Yes, but in that case we come to the "unless the intention was incontrovertible" bit. If we believe that a card has been played (because ruff is a definite order, we only don't know which card is meant) and we want to come to L46B5, then either: the opponents can throw away an Ace, or: declarer can state that he clearly intended to throw a low diamond). > Since 46B5 doesn't apply when one calls a card absent from dummy, a > griffin, or sneezes, I'd say it doesn't apply here either. > > But considering he has to play a low diamond and nothing else isn't > supported by L46. > > Note that, according to the wording of L46B, "uncontrovertible" applies > only to wipe out restrictions, not to create them, so that the fact that > we know he wanted to play a diamond isn't relevant. > Of course it's relevant. If he says "koekes" he has played a diamond. So if he says "ruff" and we know he means a diamond, why hasn't he played a diamond? > Did I touch all bases ? > Did I? > Best regards > > Alain > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 14 10:02:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:02:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C085B1.000007.53447@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner noted: [big snip] Note that, according to the wording of L46B, "incontrovertible" applies only to wipe out restrictions, not to create them, so that the fact that we know he wanted to play a diamond isn't relevant. Richard Hills concurs: A scintillating new point from Alain. The wording of the final phrase of the Law 46B preamble states: "...the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" The combination of "restrictions" and "except when" means one cannot again restrict declarer under Law 46B to play a _specific_ card because of "intentions" if declarer has a Law 46B4 option to play _many_ . cards. So, if declarer by asking dummy to "play a trump" is requesting the play of a card which is not in dummy's hand, then Law 46B4 says that the "restriction" on declarer is to "designate any legal card". Therefore, the only way that the Law 46B preamble "different intention" could apply to Law 46B4 would be if declarer incontrovertibly intended to play an _illegal_ card from dummy (a revoke). :-) 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 Aug 14 10:35:07 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:35:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C15F83.2000307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c7de4e$0574bb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................... > > 3. L46B2 doesn't apply, because "trumps" isn't the name of a suit. > > neither is "koekes". Note that L46B2 uses "designates". Surely if he > says "ruff" when there are trumps, the trump suit is designated? True, because in that case the designation "trumps" is unambiguous. .................... > Of course it's relevant. If he says "koekes" he has played a diamond. Apparently "koekes" is an unambiguous alias for Diamonds in your language. It is not in mine. > So if he says "ruff" and we know he means a diamond, why hasn't he > played a diamond? Because unless he positively clarifies that with "ruff" he intends a diamond you do not "know" that he intends a diamond, you only assume (when the contract is in NT). We all agree that if declarer positively states that he wants a diamond then a diamond is played. Even if he subsequently (after the commotion) indicates that he thought he was playing in Diamonds I would apply Law 45B4(b) and allow him to change his call for a card from Dummy because he has not "paused for thought". His intention was not to play a diamond as such, his intention was to play a trump - a denomination that does not exist when playing without trumps. We have solid ground for ruling that "pause for thought" shall be "measured" from the moment a player becomes aware of his mistake until he claims that it was an unintended play. The mistake here is of course his belief that he was playing with trumps and calling a non-existent denomination from Dummy. Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Aug 14 10:41:38 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:41:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46C07AC5.1000904@skynet.be> <46C085B1.000007.53447@CERAP-MATSH1> <46C15F83.2000307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c7de4e$ee5c7300$0200a8c0@david> > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > >> So, the problem boils down to a single question : which part of L46 do >> we apply ? >> >> 1. He infracted L46A, but note the conditional form "should", which >> means there will usually be no penalty. > > And indeed there is no penalty for calling diamonds "koekes" or "trumps". > >> 2. L46B1 obviously doesn't apply > > Well, it does in the sense that the lowest of the suit will be played, > but I agree that is not important. > >> 3. L46B2 doesn't apply, because "trumps" isn't the name of a suit. > > neither is "koekes". Note that L46B2 uses "designates". Surely if he > says "ruff" when there are trumps, the trump suit is designated? > >> 4. L46B3 is irrelevant. > > agreed. > >> >> So there remain only two possibilities : >> 1. Either consider "no card called" (46B4) : declarer does what he wants >> and gets a lecture on L74B1. > > No, this one surely cannot apply. Either you consider that a card has > been specified, and then that card is a low diamond and there is > obviously one in dummy - or you consider that no card has been > specified and then L46B4 does not apply. > >> 2. Or consider he called an unspecified card (46B5) : a defender may >> call for any card. >> > > Yes, but in that case we come to the "unless the intention was > incontrovertible" bit. If we believe that a card has been played > (because ruff is a definite order, we only don't know which card is > meant) and we want to come to L46B5, then either: the opponents can > throw away an Ace, or: declarer can state that he clearly intended to > throw a low diamond). > >> Since 46B5 doesn't apply when one calls a card absent from dummy, a >> griffin, or sneezes, I'd say it doesn't apply here either. >> >> But considering he has to play a low diamond and nothing else isn't >> supported by L46. >> >> Note that, according to the wording of L46B, "uncontrovertible" applies >> only to wipe out restrictions, not to create them, so that the fact that >> we know he wanted to play a diamond isn't relevant. >> > > Of course it's relevant. If he says "koekes" he has played a diamond. > So if he says "ruff" and we know he means a diamond, why hasn't he > played a diamond? > >> Did I touch all bases ? >> (A) Perhaps we should compare and contrast this with the case (debated at length) where declarer leads towards AQ in dummy and nominates " The Qu.... oh the Ace" (previous player having played the K). Now we could rule that "the Qu" was simply a duck noise and could be ignored. We could rule that "the Qu" does not designate a card since it does not name a suit and rank. We could rule that declarer has nominated a card that does not exist in dummy and declarer is free to nominate any other card. We DO rule that that "the Qu" does constitute a card having been nominated. We DO rule that any subsequent attempt to substitute another card is too late in accordance with L45.4(b) We DO rule that it was declarer's incontrovertible intention to play the Q. Put me in Herman's camp. - Sorry Herman that is usually a "kiss of death". (B) Is the case of "ruff" any different from "ruff with the 3"? if the 3 of D is in the dummy? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.483 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date: 13/08/2007 10:15 From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 14 11:27:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:27:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C17584.1090104@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner noted: > > [big snip] > > Note that, according to the wording of L46B, > "incontrovertible" applies only to wipe out > restrictions, not to create them, so that the fact > that we know he wanted to play a diamond isn't > relevant. > > Richard Hills concurs: > > A scintillating new point from Alain. The wording of > the final phrase of the Law 46B preamble states: > > "...the following restrictions apply (except when > declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):" > > The combination of "restrictions" and "except when" > means one cannot again restrict declarer under Law > 46B to play a _specific_ card because of "intentions" > if declarer has a Law 46B4 option to play _many_ . > cards. > > So, if declarer by asking dummy to "play a trump" is > requesting the play of a card which is not in dummy's > hand, then Law 46B4 says that the "restriction" on > declarer is to "designate any legal card". > > Therefore, the only way that the Law 46B preamble > "different intention" could apply to Law 46B4 would > be if declarer incontrovertibly intended to play an > _illegal_ card from dummy (a revoke). > > :-) > But L46B4 does not apply at all. Because either you judge that the word "ruff" designates the D3, and that is in dummy, or you judge that it does not so designate, in which case there is no "card designated not in dummy". So please forget L46B4. And yes, Alain's contribution about "incontrovertible intention" being not of application in this case is correct, but that was not what I was taking into it. I was not talking about the last sentence of the introduction to L46B when I was talking about the intention to play diamonds. Rather, I was making analogies to "koekes", "beer card" (add "the Qu" of David into this) and several others where a card is deemed played when declarer utters some words. Declarer's intention does come into that when trying to decide which card he was trying to play. Take David's example again, but with an A and an 8 there. If declarer starts "the aei.." he has played a card, and he is not allowed to reconsider. It may be difficult to find out what the original intent was, and that intent defines the card that is played, but the fact remains that one card has been played already. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 14 12:56:22 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:56:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000a01c7de4e$0574bb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c7de4e$0574bb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C18A56.3010703@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................... >>> 3. L46B2 doesn't apply, because "trumps" isn't the name of a suit. >> neither is "koekes". Note that L46B2 uses "designates". Surely if he >> says "ruff" when there are trumps, the trump suit is designated? > > True, because in that case the designation "trumps" is unambiguous. Why should the "unambiguous" be necessary? > .................... >> Of course it's relevant. If he says "koekes" he has played a diamond. > > Apparently "koekes" is an unambiguous alias for Diamonds in your language. > It is not in mine. > Every language has their own words. The importance of this word is that it is not mentioned in the dutch translation of diamonds, yet everyone in Flanders knows what it means, even if it is only used in a small part of our country. >> So if he says "ruff" and we know he means a diamond, why hasn't he >> played a diamond? > > Because unless he positively clarifies that with "ruff" he intends a diamond > you do not "know" that he intends a diamond, you only assume (when the > contract is in NT). We all agree that if declarer positively states that he > wants a diamond then a diamond is played. > Ah, you do! So if the player volunteers that he thought he was playing in diamonds, you rule that he has played a diamond, but if he doesn't volunteer, you refuse to ask him because he might lie? And you let him change his designation? That is not mind-reading no, but it does lead to a possibility of cheating - and that'd the interpretation you favour? You cannot have it both ways, Sven. Either you rule that someone who volunteers that he thought he was playing in diamonds, still change his designation, or you demand to know what the non-volunteering declarer was thinking, and hold him to his designation as well. Either "ruff" designates a card, or it does not - but not one or the other depending on whether the player volunteers the information or not. > Even if he subsequently (after the commotion) indicates that he thought he > was playing in Diamonds I would apply Law 45B4(b) and allow him to change > his call for a card from Dummy because he has not "paused for thought". His > intention was not to play a diamond as such, his intention was to play a > trump - a denomination that does not exist when playing without trumps. > Yes, his intention was to play a diamond. His intention was to ruff, and ruffing is done by playing a card of the suit which one believes is the trump suit. So his intention to ruff is equal to his intention to play a diamond. > We have solid ground for ruling that "pause for thought" shall be "measured" > from the moment a player becomes aware of his mistake until he claims that > it was an unintended play. The mistake here is of course his belief that he > was playing with trumps and calling a non-existent denomination from Dummy. > But he did not call a non-existent denomination. He called for an existent one, diamonds - only he did it by another word than "diamonds", namely "ruff". if you equate the word "ruff" with "diamonds" when diamonds are trumps, then you must do the same here! Really, I cannot fathom why people don't want to change their initial knee-jerk reaction and admit that arguments have persuaded them that they were wrong to begin with - there's nothing bad about being wrong some of the time! There is something wrong about sticking to an initially held view by handing our arguments which have been pricked like balloons! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 14 13:19:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46BF94F9.40809@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > A handful of masochists > lost matches by slavishly complying with the old regulation. It never happened. Some idiots erroneously assumed that the previous EBU regulation was incompatible with the laws and precluded the use of judgement. Those same idiots never bothered to take a test case to the EBU L&E. If they lost matches as a result the may bemoan the lack of clarity in the way the regs were presented but *they* must take responsibility for interpreting those regs in the way that they did. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 14 13:19:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <002301c7de4e$ee5c7300$0200a8c0@david> Message-ID: *From:* "David Barton" > (A) Perhaps we should compare and contrast this with the case > (debated > at length) where declarer leads towards AQ in dummy and nominates > " The Qu.... oh the Ace" (previous player having played the K). > We could rule that declarer has nominated a card that does not > exist in dummy and declarer is free to nominate any other card. Of course, and that is exactly what we do. > We DO rule that that "the Qu" does constitute a card having been > nominated. Perhaps - but then you face a player taking the hand to appeal (and eventually to court). His solicitor will hand you a deck of cards and ask you to find a "Qu". You will fail so to do and end up forking out for legal costs. It is a trivial matter to ask *why* we have a law like L46b. The answer is that it is necessary to protect dummy's LHO from being conned into playing a card/revealing info about his hand. A player who believes he is ruffing when in a NT contract, or who belatedly notices a card from *his* LHO and changes his mind at the last second isn't, in general, inconveniencing his RHO in any way. Of course I can construct a hand where a declarer (knowing he is in NT) requests that dummy "ruff" in order that opps mis-read his holding but no interpretation of L46b is going to address that stratagem (other laws will). Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Aug 14 14:21:04 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:21:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46BF94F9.40809@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <20070814082104.7aad5812@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:19 +0100 (BST) "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > Nigel wrote: > > A handful of masochists > > lost matches by slavishly complying with the old regulation. > > It never happened. Some idiots erroneously assumed that the previous > EBU regulation was incompatible with the laws and precluded the use of > judgement. Those same idiots never bothered to take a test case to > the EBU L&E. If they lost matches as a result the may bemoan the > lack of clarity in the way the regs were presented but *they* must > take responsibility for interpreting those regs in the way that they > did. > Hmm. Well I can tell you that in the EBU's "Rule of 19" days, there was at least one 'A' list EBU TD who insisted that the Ro19 applied with mathematical precision, pointed me at the regulation in the Yellow Book, and told me I could appeal but I'd be wasting my time, and likely my money. The hand in question was a Precision 1D opener on a good 4333 11 count. I remember that because our opponents (teams) seemed to be able to open it 1NT with impunity. And no, I didn't appeal it, let alone take it to the L&EC - but if lack of money (the appeal fee in those days represented a significant amount of cash to me) and experience equals idiocy, then I guess I plead guilty. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGwZ4wX39R2QaHMdMRAmUrAJ9J5mYqrxCeS73uuWvv1Pt3mzqikACgk+El XubBlH5QHZl2c6PQjEP9YHQ= =q5wm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 14 14:52:56 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:52:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not? In-Reply-To: <46C07B45.7060007@skynet.be> References: <4EF8F8C9-65A5-499A-9A5C-D8D2131F068B@starpower.net> <46C07B45.7060007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <30543997-186B-481E-B40C-FB9A672F7926@starpower.net> On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Is Richard's scenario not rather similar to two players removing a >> card from their hand then changing their mind and wishing to play a >> different one, one of them having exposed the face of the card, the >> other not? > > No, because you have now introduced a difference which makes a > difference! > Richard's scenario is rather like the one of two players removing a > card from their hand, one showing it and the other naming it. Both > have "played" the card, and neither is allowed to take it back. If we're going to reason by analogy, let's try for one that approximates the thread case: Defender A shows his card to the table, and is required to play it. Defender B does not show his card, but announces that he is ruffing this trick. The contract is in NT. Is defender B required to play the card in his hand? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 14 15:16:04 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:16:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070814082104.7aad5812@linuxbox> References: <46BF94F9.40809@NTLworld.com> <20070814082104.7aad5812@linuxbox> Message-ID: <46C1AB14.6050104@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] A handful of masochists lost matches by slavishly complying with the old regulation. [Tim West-Meads] It never happened. Some idiots erroneously assumed that the previous EBU regulation was incompatible with the laws and precluded the use of judgement. Those same idiots never bothered to take a test case to the EBU L&E. If they lost matches as a result the may bemoan the lack of clarity in the way the regs were presented but *they* must take responsibility for interpreting those regs in the way that they did. [Brian Meadows] Hmm. Well I can tell you that in the EBU's "Rule of 19" days, there was at least one 'A' list EBU TD who insisted that the Ro19 applied with mathematical precision, pointed me at the regulation in the Yellow Book, and told me I could appeal but I'd be wasting my time, and likely my money. The hand in question was a Precision 1D opener on a good 4333 11 count. I remember that because our opponents (teams) seemed to be able to open it 1NT with impunity. And no, I didn't appeal it, let alone take it to the L&EC - but if lack of money (the appeal fee in those days represented a significant amount of cash to me) and experience equals idiocy, then I guess I plead guilty. {nige2] I might resent Tim again branding me a "liar and and idiot", were I not in such good company. David Burn is another of Tim's "idiots" who interpreted the old regulation to mean what it said. For several years, the matter was exhaustively discussed on RGB and BLML by Grattan and others. Eventually I sent a letter, summarising some of the arguments, to the EBU L&E committee. The good news is that, a few years years later, the committee amended the Orange book. The bad news is that, instead of scrapping relevant regulations, they made them more complex and subjective. From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 14 15:20:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:20:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C18A56.3010703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c7de75$e85912c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......... > There is something wrong about sticking to an initially held view by > handing our arguments which have been pricked like balloons! Has it really? I don't think so. And more: I don't believe I am alone with this view. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 14 15:27:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070814082104.7aad5812@linuxbox> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > Hmm. Well I can tell you that in the EBU's "Rule of 19" days, there > was at least one 'A' list EBU TD who insisted that the Ro19 applied > with mathematical precision, pointed me at the regulation in the > Yellow Book, and told me I could appeal but I'd be wasting my time, > and likely my money. I don't recall the Yellow book and am not familiar with the wording of the regulation in question but: > The hand in question was a Precision 1D opener on a good 4333 11 > count. The Precision 1D (IIRC) is a conventional bid. As such it may be regulated any way an SO chooses. > I remember that because our opponents (teams) seemed to be able to > open it 1NT with impunity. 1N, being natural, would not be subject to direct regulation by Ro18 (being within a king of average strength). > And no, I didn't appeal it, let alone take it to the L&EC - but if > lack of money (the appeal fee in those days represented a significant > amount of cash to me) and experience equals idiocy, then I guess I > plead guilty. An impoverished junior at Brighton was getting input on whether to appeal a particular ruling. Those he consulted offered (collectively) more than twice the sum he needed as a deposit. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 14 16:01:35 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:01:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <46C07744.8010100@ripe.net> References: <46C01F34.2030101@ripe.net> <000701c7dd95$44bdbf20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <20070813065227.7842d0ea@linuxbox> <46C07744.8010100@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi, > >>> What I do not want is to receive two copies of each post I send, one >>> direct and one from blml. >>> >> >> The above goes for me too. >> >> I was surprised to learn that the 'reply' is supposed to go to the >> original poster, I guess my mail client knows a mailing list when it >> sees one, because reply definitely goes to the list for me. > > I was somewhat suprised to see this too (in particular since I'm using > a very recent mail client). RFC 822: 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail- boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine address. In the second case, an author may wish additional persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own. Note: The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended to identify a path back to the orginator of the mes- sage. The "Reply-To" field is added by the message originator and is intended to direct replies. 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO For systems which automatically generate address lists for replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any problems in transport or delivery of the original messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the "From" field mailbox should be used. o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used automatically, in a recipient's reply message. o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages o If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field, the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with the person that initiated the message transfer. In such cases, it is reasonable to use the "Sender" address. This recommendation is intended only for automated use of originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies may not also be sent to other recipients of messages. It is up to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what additional facilities will be provided. From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Aug 14 16:09:03 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:09:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <20070814082104.7aad5812@linuxbox> Message-ID: <20070814100903.085a7bf5@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:27 +0100 (BST) "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > Brian wrote: > > > Hmm. Well I can tell you that in the EBU's "Rule of 19" days, there > > was at least one 'A' list EBU TD who insisted that the Ro19 applied > > with mathematical precision, pointed me at the regulation in the > > Yellow Book, and told me I could appeal but I'd be wasting my time, > > and likely my money. > > I don't recall the Yellow book and am not familiar with the wording of > the regulation in question but: > > > The hand in question was a Precision 1D opener on a good 4333 11 > > count. > > The Precision 1D (IIRC) is a conventional bid. As such it may be > regulated any way an SO chooses. > But the decision we were given related solely to Ro19, Tim. There was **no mention made** as to whether it was on the basis of 1D being conventional. Something along these lines... Opp: TD please! The opposition opened 1D on a hand which is less than Ro19. TD: I assume you agree with the fact that you opened 1D? Would you always open that hand? Me: Yes on both counts. I think the fillers are more than worth the extra 1 HCP. TD: Then opponent's complaint is justified, you are not allowed to open 1 of a suit on a hand which contravenes Ro19. . > > I remember that because our opponents (teams) seemed to be able to > > open it 1NT with impunity. > > 1N, being natural, would not be subject to direct regulation by Ro18 > (being within a king of average strength). > See above. To the best of my (hazy, by now) recollection, the question of natural and conventional never arose. I don't recall the TD even bothering to look at my CC, though I could be wrong this long after the event. > > And no, I didn't appeal it, let alone take it to the L&EC - but if > > lack of money (the appeal fee in those days represented a > > significant amount of cash to me) and experience equals idiocy, > > then I guess I plead guilty. > > An impoverished junior at Brighton was getting input on whether to > appeal a particular ruling. Those he consulted offered > (collectively) more than twice the sum he needed as a deposit. > This was in the first round of the Gold Cup, in the days when the first couple of rounds were held over a single weekend at six or seven different locations. In those days I wouldn't really have known who to consult, and since the TD had pointed me to a clause in the Yellow Book that seemed perfectly clear to me, I felt I was on a loser. I also suspect that a well-known (I assume) junior at Brighton might have rather more offers of charity than some anonymous long-haired student type from a totally unknown team. But all this is really irrelevant anyway. The bottom line is that the rules of a game should be clear and unambiguous. It's lunacy to have one body make the laws and other bodies add regulations, the difference between the two being an academic one as far as the vast majority of players are concerned, when those regulations can conflict with the laws. And then when the WBFLC finally gets off its collective backside and sorts things out, that's *IF* the ACBL doesn't happen to be your ZO, the WBFLC will claim that it's the job of the ZO and NCBO to let decisions filter down to the grass roots level. Yeah right. Happens every day. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGwbeAX39R2QaHMdMRApQcAKCtPzPhgYxaa4xO6ERiKHwO2t7apwCfQcwp 8MQqw+vIWG94ktowQM/wNns= =YSrn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 14 17:03:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:03:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C1C42B.5020007@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > *From:* "David Barton" >> (A) Perhaps we should compare and contrast this with the case >> (debated >> at length) where declarer leads towards AQ in dummy and nominates >> " The Qu.... oh the Ace" (previous player having played the K). > >> We could rule that declarer has nominated a card that does not >> exist in dummy and declarer is free to nominate any other card. > > Of course, and that is exactly what we do. > No we don't. >> We DO rule that that "the Qu" does constitute a card having been >> nominated. > > Perhaps - but then you face a player taking the hand to appeal (and > eventually to court). His solicitor will hand you a deck of cards and > ask you to find a "Qu". You will fail so to do and end up forking out > for legal costs. > And I will point to the word "designates" in L46B3 and tell the court that it is my judgment that "the Qu" is enough to designate the queen. > It is a trivial matter to ask *why* we have a law like L46b. The answer > is that it is necessary to protect dummy's LHO from being conned into > playing a card/revealing info about his hand. > We have a Law like L46b because declarers are lazy, and because we accept laziness. We want to accept a designation like "the queen". > A player who believes he is ruffing when in a NT contract, or who > belatedly notices a card from *his* LHO and changes his mind at the last > second isn't, in general, inconveniencing his RHO in any way. > No, but he is taking advantage of UI. He wanted to ruff, and they tell him he can't. > Of course I can construct a hand where a declarer (knowing he is in NT) > requests that dummy "ruff" in order that opps mis-read his holding but no > interpretation of L46b is going to address that stratagem (other laws > will). > We can construct all we like. But we need to get clear when a card is played. And IMO, saying "ruff" means a card is played. If you don't accept that a card is played. I will say "ruff" and when you overruff claim your interpretation. And don't say that it is impossible to know which is the card that is played. In 99.99% of the case where a player says "ruff", it will be blooming obvious which card he intends to ruff with. I don't care about the other 0.01%. > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 14 17:04:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:04:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000f01c7de75$e85912c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c7de75$e85912c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C1C475.7080708@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ......... >> There is something wrong about sticking to an initially held view by >> handing our arguments which have been pricked like balloons! > > Has it really? > > I don't think so. And more: I don't believe I am alone with this view. > An even worse argument. I don't believe I am alone either. Please Sven, stick to real discussions, or admit that you might be wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 14 22:17:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <46C1C42B.5020007@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote:> *From:* Herman De Wael > And I will point to the word "designates" in L46B3 and tell the > court that it is my judgment that "the Qu" is enough to designate > the queen. Go back and read the words Herman. That law says "designates a rank" If you wish to know what the ranks are you can check law one. There is no "judgement" - it is basic, well-defined stuff and the court will have a laugh at your idiocy before making you pay the costs. > We can construct all we like. But we need to get clear when a card > is played. And IMO, saying "ruff" means a card is played. And saying "spade" means a card is played - except when dummy contains no spades. "Ruff" designates a specific card when playing in a trump contract *and* dummy has trumps. > If you don't accept that a card is played. I will say "ruff" and > when you overruff claim your interpretation. Well, if the term "overruff" has any meaning we must be in a trump contract and thus when you said "ruff" you specified the lowest trump (according to my interpretation). WTP? From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 14 22:17:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070814100903.085a7bf5@linuxbox> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > > But the decision we were given related solely to Ro19, Tim. There > was **no mention made** as to whether it was on the basis of 1D being > conventional. So perhaps the TD was wrong. Perhaps the event pre-dated the 87 lawbook and a precise limitation of both natural and conventional 1D openers would have been legal. I can only repeat that for a TD to interpret the post 87 OB reg in the post 87 lawbook context (when applied to natural bids) as precluding judgement as to playing strength would have been illegal. > Something along these lines... > TD: Then opponent's complaint is justified, you are not allowed to > open 1 of a suit on a hand which contravenes Ro19. So at the time the prohibition did not apply to 1NT (opened at the other table)? I'm sorry Brian but my initial comments referred to the OB regs post 87 and I simply cannot remember the Yellow book at all (it was those regs, not the YB, to which Nigel was referring). > I might resent Tim again branding me a "liar and and idiot", were I > not in such good company. Just an idiot Nigel. I believe you when you tell me that your team slavishly decided the EBU would use illegal regulations. I believe you didn't bother making bids that would have tested the legality of those regulations. I believe you when you say that Burn also thought the EBU would act illegally. However I checked with the EBU and they assured *me* that the regulations were legal. Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Aug 14 22:43:37 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:43:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <20070814100903.085a7bf5@linuxbox> Message-ID: <20070814164337.0e768811@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:17 +0100 (BST) "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > Brian wrote: > > > > But the decision we were given related solely to Ro19, Tim. There > > was **no mention made** as to whether it was on the basis of 1D > > being conventional. > > So perhaps the TD was wrong. Perhaps the event pre-dated the 87 > lawbook and a precise limitation of both natural and conventional 1D > openers would have been legal. > Ah. That's the explanation. This occurred while I was living in and around London, so 82-88, and it was likely in the earlier part of that period. It was one of three adverse decisions that I got from that particular TD in a relatively short space of time, all of which *really* got under my skin. It looks like I owe him a (very) retrospective apology, from what you say - at least on this question. > I can only repeat that for a TD to interpret the post 87 OB reg in the > post 87 lawbook context (when applied to natural bids) as precluding > judgement as to playing strength would have been illegal. > > > Something along these lines... > > TD: Then opponent's complaint is justified, you are not allowed to > > open 1 of a suit on a hand which contravenes Ro19. > > So at the time the prohibition did not apply to 1NT (opened at the > other table)? No. The 10-12 1NT was perfectly legal. The prohibition only applied to one of a *suit* openers. > I'm sorry Brian but my initial comments referred to > the OB regs post 87 and I simply cannot remember the Yellow book at > all (it was those regs, not the YB, to which Nigel was referring). > Fair comment. I wasn't aware that the 87 lawbook was that much of a turning point. Though I don't think there was any difference in status between the OB and the YB, both were the EBU's regulations, they just changed the colour scheme at some point. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGwhP5X39R2QaHMdMRAh8LAJ9vk44iD2ppiGc5I9G8OvzywRE7dwCgoQz/ XRqLF0Cj7w815g3gAi2SBQ8= =jzaG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 22:45:35 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:45:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <000501c7ddee$92d05430$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0708120031g6629b854w9a39c8159d531fdb@mail.gmail.com> <20070812075136.36e70889@linuxbox> <5.1.0.14.0.20070813163043.021319e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <46C077DB.7010503@ripe.net> <000501c7ddee$92d05430$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708141345s5592ad07nccc7c9f27858f051@mail.gmail.com> On 8/13/07, raija wrote: > Thanks! This works for me. I typically do not email to posters in private. > But if I want to, I still can. > Raija > The new behavior that Henk set up now seems the best way. If, for example, I want to post to Raija, I have his email address given above between the < and > signs that my email client provides when I press "Reply" or "Reply to All". Also, when I look at the details in the header, I see that Raiji's address is in the "from" field and BLML is in the "reply-to" field. I suspect this new way will cause a minimum of double postings and a minimum of misdirected postings. Thanks, Henk! Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 14 23:55:41 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:55:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070814164337.0e768811@linuxbox> References: <20070814100903.085a7bf5@linuxbox> <20070814164337.0e768811@linuxbox> Message-ID: <2FF6BAEB-855D-4BE2-8D28-F1C24109F941@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Brian wrote: > I don't think there was any difference > in status between the OB and the YB, both were the EBU's regulations, > they just changed the colour scheme at some point. I used to have a Yellow Book. Not sure if I still do. It will have dated from 93 or so. There was a Green Book with it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 00:07:23 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:07:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: All JT2 KQJ3 AQ94 96 95 Q84 AT65 --- 52 KT8763 QT752 AKJ3 AK763 98742 J 84 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 2C(1) Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Double Checkback 4S made four, +620 for North-South. The defence took two club tricks and then shifted to a spade. Declarer drew one round of trumps and claimed ten tricks, saying "You get the heart ace." East-West acquiesced (Law 69A). After the match, East-West approached the Director saying they believed they should have gotten a second heart trick (if West had again ducked the heart ace when a small heart was lead towards dummy at Trick 6). East-West are international experts, a class of player for which almost all errors in play are irrational errors. What ruling do you make? What other ruling do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From adam at irvine.com Wed Aug 15 00:46:30 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:46:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:07:23 +1000." Message-ID: <200708142233.PAA30110@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: All > > JT2 > KQJ3 > AQ94 > 96 > 95 Q84 > AT65 --- > 52 KT8763 > QT752 AKJ3 > AK763 > 98742 > J > 84 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D Pass 1S > Pass 1NT Pass 2C(1) > Pass 3S Pass 4S > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Double Checkback What's "double checkback"? > 4S made four, +620 for North-South. > > The defence took two club tricks and then > shifted to a spade. Declarer drew one > round of trumps and claimed ten tricks, > saying "You get the heart ace." East-West > acquiesced (Law 69A). > > After the match, East-West approached the > Director saying they believed they should > have gotten a second heart trick (if West > had again ducked the heart ace when a > small heart was lead towards dummy at > Trick 6). Richard, this description is a little baffling. First of all, who led the trump at trick 3---East or West? If it was East, what actually happened---did declarer guess to duck? Next, when you said declarer drew one round of trumps, does this mean that he led a round himself at trick 4, after the round that the defense led at trick 3? Assuming that something like this happened---after trick 4, two rounds of trumps had gone and declarer had found the queen. I'm assuming that declarer (and the defense) assumed that a third round would have been drawn at trick 5 so that hearts won't get ruffed. OK, so at trick 6 declarer leads a small heart toward dummy: what do you mean by the word "again" in "if West had *again* ducked the heart ace"? Fine, I'll assume the "again" was a typo or meant something other than what I read into it. Assuming it goes 2, 5, K, discard, on the first round of hearts, declarer would then lead the queen from dummy, then ace and a diamond ruff back to hand, then lead a heart; West needs to rise and lead a club to beat it. If we assume, based on this statement: > East-West are international experts, a > class of player for which almost all > errors in play are irrational errors. that any other play would be considered irrational---AND that West pitching a heart on the third round of trumps would have been irrational (keeping in mind that West didn't know that South had a heart suit at that point)---then I guess the director would have to award the trick to East-West. However, if East-West are players "for which almost all errors in play are irrational errors", then: (1) why the heck did they acquiesce in the first place---surely that was a grosser error in play than any of the possible defense errors that could have happened, and (2) why didn't they beat the contract off the top with a heart ruff? (OK, maybe that last wasn't an error, but I'd think that an international expert East could find a way to play the clubs in order to get his ruff.) -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 15 01:22:25 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:22:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c7dec9$f97f97f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: All > > JT2 > KQJ3 > AQ94 > 96 > 95 Q84 > AT65 --- > 52 KT8763 > QT752 AKJ3 > AK763 > 98742 > J > 84 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D Pass 1S > Pass 1NT Pass 2C(1) > Pass 3S Pass 4S > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Double Checkback > > 4S made four, +620 for North-South. > > The defence took two club tricks and then > shifted to a spade. Declarer drew one > round of trumps and claimed ten tricks, > saying "You get the heart ace." East-West > acquiesced (Law 69A). > > After the match, East-West approached the > Director saying they believed they should > have gotten a second heart trick (if West > had again ducked the heart ace when a > small heart was lead towards dummy at > Trick 6). > > East-West are international experts, a > class of player for which almost all > errors in play are irrational errors. > > What ruling do you make? This is a clear Law 71C case and the table result stands. When East-West did not see a killing defense (if it is killing?) at the table they cannot afterwards claim that it would be irrational for them not to play this defense. > What other ruling do you consider making? None (But had the claim been contested chances are good that I would have awarded East-West two heart tricks.) Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Aug 15 01:46:35 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:46:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:22:25 +0200." <000801c7dec9$f97f97f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200708142333.QAA30672@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > The defence took two club tricks and then > > shifted to a spade. Declarer drew one > > round of trumps and claimed ten tricks, > > saying "You get the heart ace." East-West > > acquiesced (Law 69A). > > > > After the match, East-West approached the > > Director saying they believed they should > > have gotten a second heart trick (if West > > had again ducked the heart ace when a > > small heart was lead towards dummy at > > Trick 6). > > > > East-West are international experts, a > > class of player for which almost all > > errors in play are irrational errors. > > > > What ruling do you make? > > This is a clear Law 71C case and the table result stands. 71C is for concessions, not acquiescences. I think you mean 69B. > (But had the claim been contested chances are good that I would have awarded > East-West two heart tricks.) Yes, I certainly would have. I do not think South can make against best defense unless he takes a first-round finesse against the heart 10. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 02:10:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:10:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >Perhaps the event pre-dated the 87 lawbook and a precise >limitation of both natural and conventional 1D openers >would have been legal. Richard Hills: The 1975 Law 40D and the 1975 Law 40E1 gave sponsoring organisations *less* regulatory power over natural bids than the 1997 Law 40D and the 1997 Law 40E1 do. 1975 Law 40D (Regulation of Conventions): "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions." 1975 Law 40E1 (Convention Card - Right to Prescribe): "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which partners may list their conventions, and may establish regulations for its use." Compare and contrast the 1997 Law 40E1: "The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions ***and other agreements*** and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." As I recall, one WBF tournament adopted a special Law 40E1 regulation forbidding the use of any partnership agreement unless that partnership agreement was written on the prescribed WBF convention card. This regulation failed to achieve its intended outcome. Players using varied and complex agreements simply used a tiny font when typing up their WBF convention cards. :-) 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 Aug 15 02:29:30 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:29:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200708142233.PAA30110@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Thanks to Adam Beneschan for pointing out major errors in my initial posting on this thread. Please delete my first post and use this replacement post instead. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * Imps Dlr: West Vul: All JT2 KQJ3 AQ94 96 95 Q84 AT65 --- 52 KT8763 QT752 AKJ3 AK763 98742 J 84 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 2C(1) Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Double Checkback 4S made four, +620 for North-South. The defence took two club tricks and then shifted to a spade. Declarer drew three rounds of trumps (which in this case were spades, not diamonds nor cups of tea) finessing en route and winning the last round of trumps (Trick 5) in the South hand. Declarer then claimed ten tricks, saying "You get the heart ace." East-West acquiesced (Law 69A). After the match, East-West approached the Director saying they believed they should have gotten a second heart trick if West had chosen to duck the heart ace when a small heart was led by declarer towards dummy at Trick 6. East-West are international experts, a class of player for which almost all errors in play are irrational errors. What ruling do you make? What other ruling do you consider making? * * * [Richard Hills is a blmler, a class of poster for which almost all errors in posting are normal errors.] 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 Wed Aug 15 02:52:45 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:52:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46b96a53.25bb720a.52a9.5299SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <46b96a53.25bb720a.52a9.5299SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708141752l7716015evf54a75df045e1a6d@mail.gmail.com> On 8/8/07, ton wrote: > > This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a clear answer. > I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was indicated. > When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the > diamond suit. How can that be ignored? > > > If you say he indicated the > lowest diamond you know what to do. If you say he asked for a card which is > not in dummy, one with trumping quality, so winning the trick that means, > you also know what to do. > In my opinion the laws do not tell which of those two is the right approach. > And with my personal lenient approach to the game I would have chosen the > second option. This seems something the laws committee should take a stand > in. Unless it already has done so, or somebody comes up with a more > convincing argument. > I am confused by one aspect of this. Ton says, "When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the diamond suit." He also says "If you say he indicated the lowest diamond you know what to do." >From these, using simple logic, I would assume ton would rule the lowest diamond is played. (We were originally given that declarer thought the contract is 5D---and we know which card is considered played when a suit is mentioned by not a rank.) So my one confusion from this post is why did ton say, "I would have chosen the second option"---given that logic applied to his earlier statements would imply the first option. -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 02:57:48 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:57:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <010f01c7d99d$0956ba00$159187d9@Hellen> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <010f01c7d99d$0956ba00$159187d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708141757h6fb1d0f8oa806062cf97bcfdd@mail.gmail.com> On 8/8/07, Grattan Endicott wrote > +=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an appeal > committee, I would listen with care to any suggestion that > declarer has not played any card because he has not given > any instruction as to a play consistent with a No Trumps > contract. ~ G ~ +=+ Whose suggestion would you listen to? The table director? The DiC? Declarer? Defenders? Would you ignore the other side of the argument? Is the basic principle here that you would not want to overrule the DiC on a point of law in appeal-committee service? -Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 03:14:08 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:14:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135817.02a40c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <46B84E73.60505@skynet.be> <46B882D3.000004.85869@CERAP-MATSH1> <46B897B6.1020201@skynet.be> <7900B977-8F22-4C26-B6F8-C584A88CCEF6@rochester.rr.com> <001401c7d923$d9406fb0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708071220l4226210q598a281331681065@mail.gmail.com> <003201c7d931$70f3cfc0$0f9d87d9@Hellen> <5.1.0.14.0.20070808135817.02a40c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708141814k26726439x46e7c14689a97719@mail.gmail.com> On 8/8/07, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 21:27 7/08/2007 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can be > >read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is Kaplanesque. > > It is more general : it is grammatical. > "Parentheses introduce a comment, an information, a reflexion, an > explanation, necessary or not, to help understand the remainider of the text" > (translated from "proto typo", M. Bourdain / M. Burny) > > - inference : it is not part of the main text. > Alright, then I suggest that the famous parenthetical in Law 46B limits the applicability of Law 46B (as everyone agrees), but does so the following way: Some of the cases that one might have thought should be covered by Law 46B are instead covered by Law 45B; the phrase "naming the card" in Law 45B includes all cases where declarer's intention is incontrovertible; the lawmakers imagined that when declarer states which card to play, either he named a card with incontrovertible intention or he didn't---and Law 45B or 46B applies, respectively. I don't think the lawmakers had any intention of making a third category whereby the declarer's intention is incontrovertible but he has not yet named a card. -Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 15 03:25:22 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:25:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C25602.2090607@NTLworld.com> [Tim West Meads] Just an idiot Nigel. I believe you when you tell me that your team slavishly decided the EBU would use illegal regulations. I believe you didn't bother making bids that would have tested the legality of those regulations. I believe you when you say that Burn also thought the EBU would act illegally. However I checked with the EBU and they assured *me* that the regulations were legal. [nige1] Unlike Tim, I don't break rules "to test their legality". As to the other opinions that Tim ascribes to me above: I haven't expressed such views in BLML or elsewhere. and I agree with none of them. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 03:45:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:45:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] The moon's a balloon [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C18A56.3010703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael ("played or not" thread): >There is something wrong about sticking to an initially held view >by handing out arguments which have been pricked like balloons! Law 75D, first paragraph: "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)." Herman De Wael ("Law 1 - mephitic order" thread): >>You criticise me for telling a person to give misinformation, >>and I accept that criticism. >> >>There is indeed a second misexplanation, but there is no >>"subsequent" realisation of it. Richard Hills: A De Wael School acolyte gives deliberate misinformation. Before the giving of MI that acolyte realises that they will be giving misinformation. During the giving of MI that acolyte realises that they are giving misinformation. Subsequent to the giving of MI that acolyte realises that they have given misinformation, so the first paragraph of Law 75D applies, contrary to Herman's argument otherwise. There is something wrong about Herman sticking to an initially held De Wael School view on the second paragraph of Law 75D by handing out arguments about the first paragraph of Law 75D which have been pricked like balloons! :-) :-) :-) 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 Wed Aug 15 04:08:07 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:08:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46BF94F9.40809@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708141908w6eed8422rde3e839fef2309c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:19 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads wrote: > Nigel wrote: > > A handful of masochists > > lost matches by slavishly complying with the old regulation. > > It never happened. Some idiots erroneously assumed that the previous EBU > regulation was incompatible with the laws and precluded the use of > judgement. Those same idiots never bothered to take a test case to the > EBU L&E. If they lost matches as a result the may bemoan the lack of > clarity in the way the regs were presented but *they* must take > responsibility for interpreting those regs in the way that they did. > Tim's position is amazing: Blame the victims. They should have broken what they were told the regulations were and then taken the "test case" to the EBU L&E. A good word to describe someone attempting to obey regulations is---idiot? -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 04:15:05 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:15:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200708142333.QAA30672@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 74C5, bracketed phrase: "(but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card)" Adam Beneschan: >I do not think South can make against best defense unless >he takes a first-round finesse against the heart 10. Richard Hills: Adam's analysis is correct. If West has not inadvertently exposed their heart ten to South, best play by both sides will proceed: Trick 6: Low heart smoothly ducked by West, dummy's king is played Trick 7: Queen of hearts ducked by West Trick 8: Ace of diamonds Trick 9: Diamond ruff, and dummy fetches a cup of tea Trick 10: Heart towards dummy's jack, and _now_ West grabs the ace of hearts, blocking the heart suit Trick 11: Club, forcing out declarer's last trump before the hearts can be unblocked 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 Wed Aug 15 04:17:34 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again Message-ID: <2da24b8e0708141917g4577acd4sc655bc3e9cfd7d0e@mail.gmail.com> I'd like to get clarification regarding WBF regulations. WBF System Policy defines the word "Natural" as follows: "Natural: A call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)". This quote can be found in the 2000 edition of the WBF Systems Policy. It was my (long standing) impression that Natural and Conventional are NOT mutually exclusive. For example, I've often seen the example where a Flannery type 2D opening is considered to be both natural AND conventional. I'd appreciate clarification on this point: Does the WBF define "Natural" and "Conventional" differently than some local sponsoring authorities. -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 04:51:53 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:51:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Willey asked: [snip] >I'd appreciate clarification on this point: Does the WBF >define "Natural" and "Conventional" differently than some >local sponsoring authorities? Richard Hills: Yes. The Australian Bridge Federation follows the WBF line of applying Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle, defining all calls as either "conventional" or "natural", and with "natural" calls defined as "not conventional". But the English Bridge Union takes a subtler approach to definition of calls, due to its dissatisfaction with the Fabulous Lawbook's official Definition of "convention". So in the EBU "natural" is specifically defined in the Orange Book clause 5F. Some EBU "natural" bids would be WBF / ABF "conventional" bids. For example, the EBU chooses to define a Precision opening bid of 2C as a "natural" bid. The EBU also has adopted the concept of an "artificial" bid, and in Orange Book clauses 4E1 and 4E2 notes that "artificial" can include sub-categories. Such as, for example: Short, Nebulous, Phoney, Strong, Either/or and Two-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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 15 06:23:33 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:23:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C27FC5.1090300@NTLworld.com> IMO, the WBF and EBU are free to define terms as they wish but for some players (like me), normal meanings are as follows... The antonym of "Natural" is "Artificial" (they are disjoint sets) "Conventional" means (roughly) subject to an agreement that is not intuitively obvious. Suppose your agreements include opening 1S with 10-12HCP or 15-19HCP and either 4 spades or 6 spades (but never 5 spades or 13-14 HCP). IMO, such a bid is "Natural" but "Conventional". Thus for us, "Conventional" overlaps both "Natural" and "Artificial." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 06:44:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:44:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708141814k26726439x46e7c14689a97719@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asserted: >Some of the cases that one might have thought >should be covered by Law 46B are instead covered by >Law 45B; the phrase "naming the card" in Law 45B >includes all cases where declarer's intention is >incontrovertible; the lawmakers imagined that when >declarer states which card to play, either he named >a card with incontrovertible intention or he didn't >---and Law 45B or 46B applies, respectively. Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, Jerry is misreading the intentions of the drafters of the Lawbook. I naively believe that: (1) Law 45A defines proper procedure for a player other than dummy to play a card. (2) Law 45B defines proper procedure for declarer to play a card from dummy's hand, with either declarer calling for dummy to play a card, or alternatively declarer reaching over to dummy's hand in order for declarer to play the card themself. (3) Law 46A clarifies what declarer should do if declarer elects to call for dummy to play a card. (4) Law 46B clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 clarify what restrictions apply if declarer incompletely calls for a card. (5) Law 46B clause 4 clarifies what restrictions apply if declarer erroneously calls for a card. Therefore, in my naive opinion, "incontrovertible intent" does not define the border between Law 45B and Law 46B. Declarer's intent is relevant to a ruling under Law 45C4(b) "Correction of Inadvertent Designation", but my naive opinion is that the inadvertent designation of a card can be corrected regardless of whether the inadvertent designation was complete or incomplete. Sir Humphrey Appleby: "If local authorities don't send us the statistics that we ask for, then government figures will be a nonsense." Jim Hacker: "Why?" Sir Humphrey Appleby: "They will be incomplete." Jim Hacker: "But government figures are a nonsense anyway." Bernard Woolley: "I think Sir Humphrey wants to ensure they are a complete nonsense." 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 Wed Aug 15 08:33:39 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:33:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] played or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0708141814k26726439x46e7c14689a97719@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708142333y66f91bedldb1edf7f805211ca@mail.gmail.com> Richard wrote: > > I naively believe that: > > (1) Law 45A defines proper procedure for a player > other than dummy to play a card. > > (2) Law 45B defines proper procedure for declarer to > play a card from dummy's hand, with either declarer > calling for dummy to play a card, or alternatively > declarer reaching over to dummy's hand in order for > declarer to play the card themself. > > (3) Law 46A clarifies what declarer should do if > declarer elects to call for dummy to play a card. > > (4) Law 46B clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 clarify what > restrictions apply if declarer incompletely calls > for a card. > > (5) Law 46B clause 4 clarifies what restrictions > apply if declarer erroneously calls for a card. > You are wrong about Law 46B4: It is not about the case where declarer erroneously calls for a card. It is about the case where declarer calls for a card not in dummy *and* his intent in not incontrovertible: It starts, "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy" and it can be applied only when his intent is not "incontrovertible." Quite a difference. For example, it appears to me that you would say that (cutely) calling for the 2 of clovers calls for a card not in dummy, but I think if declarer's clear intent was the 2 of clubs, the director has no business applying Law 46B4 because of the parenthetical phrase in Law 46B. > Therefore, in my naive opinion, "incontrovertible > intent" does not define the border between Law 45B > and Law 46B. > Apparently you think there can be a case in which declarer's words neither names nor otherwise designates a specific card---but somehow his words show an incontrovertible intent to play a specific card (Otherwise, I think you would agree with my border). That would be amazing to witness. Yours is not a naive position; it is so sophisticated that I cannot imagine it. Also, which law would you say applies in that case? It cannot be 45C4a, because (by definition) the words did not name or otherwise designate a specific card. It cannot be any part of Law 46B either, because (by definition) declarer's intent is incontrovertible. I simply concluded that the lawmakers intended no such case, for they did not want leave directors out in the cold, vainly searching for the proper law. > Declarer's intent is relevant to a ruling under Law > 45C4(b) "Correction of Inadvertent Designation", but > my naive opinion is that the inadvertent designation > of a card can be corrected regardless of whether the > inadvertent designation was complete or incomplete. > I don't think anyone was talking about inadvertent designations in this thread, and I do not see the relevance. I don't get your (snipped) bit about Sir Humphrey. Maybe you would like to explain that part. Jerry Fusselman Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and send him all of your money immediately. This email, including attachments (though there are none), may contain worthwhile ideas and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, parody, disagreement, sarcasm, disproof, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the commissioner of baseball is prohibited. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 08:41:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:41:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c7dec9$f97f97f0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>What ruling do you make? Sven Pran asserted: >When East-West did not see a killing defense (if it is >killing?) at the table they cannot afterwards claim that >it would be irrational for them not to play this defense. Law 69B (Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn) "Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side. "* For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." Richard Hills quibbles: Is Sven asserting that the mere fact of acquiescence means that a stupid defensive line must always be "normal"? I believe that there is a difference between acquiescence and at-the-table play. It is easy to assume that a fellow expert's superficially attractive claim is correct. But at the table it is possible that one would never have found the irrational line of defence which was necessary to make your fellow expert's contract successful. >>What other ruling do you consider making? Sven Pran asserted: >None. Richard Hills quibbles: The actual Director took a more nuanced approach to the ruling. Since the key issue was what would be irrational for an international expert, the Director chose to poll seven international experts. Although this deal arose in the bridge backwater of Bermuda, fortunately seven experts were available since the event was part of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Bermuda Bowl in January 2000. Of the seven experts polled, four chose to immediately play the ace of hearts when a small heart was led toward dummy at Trick 6. Therefore the Director ruled that allowing the contract to make by grabbing the ace of hearts was at worst inferior and not irrational. So under Law 69B the Director ruled that East-West were not allowed to withdraw their acquiescence. But..... Who's afraid of the big bad Wolff? East-West appealed. The chair of the Appeals Committee was Bobby Wolff (USA), supported by Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil) and Nissan Rand (Israel). * * * The Committee Decision: The Committee allowed the claim, as agreed at the table, to stand without comment. Chairman's Note: Since the word "irrational" should be, and has been, interpreted in a bridge context to mean a wild, emotional action which is also contrary to any bridge logic the Committee had no option but to allow the claimed contract to be made. Having said that, it was the Committee's recommendation that declarer consider a concession of one down since: (1) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate defense, and (2) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and thus within the spirit of the game. Editor's Note: The declarer agreed to the Committee's recommendation and immediately conceded down one. Accordingly, the Committee authorised a change of score. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 09:30:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:30:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Recondite apostle (was played or not?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c7d9bc$8adf2f70$d3c887d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott recondited: >>+=+ Edgar was nothing if not grammatical - at >>times to the point of obscurity for all but the >>recondite apostles. +=+ >> >>+=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an >>appeal committee, I would listen with care to any >>suggestion that declarer has not played any card >>because he has not given any instruction as to a >>play consistent with a No Trumps contract. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Jerry Fusselman asked: >Whose suggestion would you listen to? The table >director? The DiC? Declarer? Defenders? Would >you ignore the other side of the argument? Richard Hills recalls: I remember with joy an occasion when Grattan was deliberately excessively recondite, by inserting the word "autochthonous" into one of his postings. Some foolish blmlers asserted that Grattan had made up a fake word. Gordon Bower responded: >>>Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very >>>often. >>> >>>Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, >>>you will hear very frequently -- if you are a >>>geologist in Alaska, and we have at least one of >>>those on this mailing list. (It was news to me >>>to discover, after the spelling bee, that the >>>words also have currency in other fields.) >>> >>>Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the >>>next edition of the alert rules: "Autochthonous >>>conventions are part of one's general bridge >>>knowledge and experience, but all allochthons >>>are allocated alerts." >>> >>>And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously >>>ought be allochtrocuted. 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 Aug 15 11:01:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:01:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c7df1a$e5f1eed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Thanks to Adam Beneschan for pointing out > major errors in my initial posting on this > thread. > > Please delete my first post and use this > replacement post instead. > > Best wishes Just for the record: This replacement is exactly how I interpreted the original post when writing my answer yesterday. I considered it the only play that made sense given the "irrational" parts of the posting. Regards Sven > * * * > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: All > > JT2 > KQJ3 > AQ94 > 96 > 95 Q84 > AT65 --- > 52 KT8763 > QT752 AKJ3 > AK763 > 98742 > J > 84 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D Pass 1S > Pass 1NT Pass 2C(1) > Pass 3S Pass 4S > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Double Checkback > > 4S made four, +620 for North-South. > > The defence took two club tricks and then > shifted to a spade. Declarer drew three > rounds of trumps (which in this case were > spades, not diamonds nor cups of tea) > finessing en route and winning the last > round of trumps (Trick 5) in the South > hand. Declarer then claimed ten tricks, > saying "You get the heart ace." > > East-West acquiesced (Law 69A). > > After the match, East-West approached the > Director saying they believed they should > have gotten a second heart trick if West > had chosen to duck the heart ace when a > small heart was led by declarer towards > dummy at Trick 6. > > East-West are international experts, a > class of player for which almost all > errors in play are irrational errors. > > What ruling do you make? > What other ruling do you consider making? > > * * * > > [Richard Hills is a blmler, a class of > poster for which almost all errors in > posting are normal errors.] > > > > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities > other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 15 11:05:44 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:05:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... In-Reply-To: <200708142333.QAA30672@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000901c7df1b$76ac68b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sven wrote: > > > > The defence took two club tricks and then > > > shifted to a spade. Declarer drew one > > > round of trumps and claimed ten tricks, > > > saying "You get the heart ace." East-West > > > acquiesced (Law 69A). > > > > > > After the match, East-West approached the > > > Director saying they believed they should > > > have gotten a second heart trick (if West > > > had again ducked the heart ace when a > > > small heart was lead towards dummy at > > > Trick 6). > > > > > > East-West are international experts, a > > > class of player for which almost all > > > errors in play are irrational errors. > > > > > > What ruling do you make? > > > > This is a clear Law 71C case and the table result stands. > > 71C is for concessions, not acquiescences. I think you mean 69B. Sure - my fault. But the outcome is exactly the same. (I wrote my comment at about 3AM here and was a bit sleepy!) Regards Sven > > > (But had the claim been contested chances are good that I would have > awarded > > East-West two heart tricks.) > > Yes, I certainly would have. I do not think South can make against > best defense unless he takes a first-round finesse against the heart > 10. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 11:20:33 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:20:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] The moon's a balloon [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C2C561.8000001@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael ("played or not" thread): > >> There is something wrong about sticking to an initially held view >> by handing out arguments which have been pricked like balloons! > > Law 75D, first paragraph: > > "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was > erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director > (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)." > > Herman De Wael ("Law 1 - mephitic order" thread): > >>> You criticise me for telling a person to give misinformation, >>> and I accept that criticism. >>> >>> There is indeed a second misexplanation, but there is no >>> "subsequent" realisation of it. > > Richard Hills: > > A De Wael School acolyte gives deliberate misinformation. > > Before the giving of MI that acolyte realises that they will be > giving misinformation. > > During the giving of MI that acolyte realises that they are > giving misinformation. > > Subsequent to the giving of MI that acolyte realises that they > have given misinformation, so the first paragraph of Law 75D > applies, contrary to Herman's argument otherwise. > > There is something wrong about Herman sticking to an initially > held De Wael School view on the second paragraph of Law 75D by > handing out arguments about the first paragraph of Law 75D which > have been pricked like balloons! > Richard, you have totally misrepresented both my views. When talking on the "played or not thread", I was criticizing Sven (and others) for sticking to their arguments by reiterating their arguments which were pricked like balloons. In the DwS, I am using arguments of my own, and none of these are pricked like balloons. The fact that you come up with arguments contra has nothing to do with balloons. I know that I am acting illegally! My whole point is that there is nothing I can do that is completely legal. Rather YOU should be the one realizing that you're wrong, in trying to prick holes in ballons that aren't full to begin with. Don't hammer on about my actions being illegal - look at your own actions and conclude that they are illegal as well - then we can talk on. But all this has been said over and over again, and you are one of those who cannot give up even when your arguments have been pricked like balloons. Sorry Richard, and that is not symmetrical - our arguments aren't either. You continue to state that what I'm doing is illegal, and I agree with you; I continue to state that what you're doing is illegal, and you don't agree with that. See? > :-) :-) :-) > > > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 11:23:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:23:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C2C5F7.7050600@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote:> *From:* Herman De Wael > >> And I will point to the word "designates" in L46B3 and tell the >> court that it is my judgment that "the Qu" is enough to designate >> the queen. > > Go back and read the words Herman. That law says "designates a rank" > If you wish to know what the ranks are you can check law one. > There is no "judgement" - it is basic, well-defined stuff and the court > will have a laugh at your idiocy before making you pay the costs. > My point is that the law does not say "names a rank", in which case "the Qu" would not be a rank. The law speaks of designating so "one higher", "highest prime number", and "the qu" all _designate_ a rank, and only one. Laugh all you want. Court costs are mine. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 11:24:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:24:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > And saying "spade" means a card is played - except when dummy contains no > spades. "Ruff" designates a specific card when playing in a trump > contract *and* dummy has trumps. > But that is excatly what we are trying to decide if it does. I say that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer. You cannot counterargue this by simply stating the contrary. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 15 11:27:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:27:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c7df1e$83189df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asserted: > > >When East-West did not see a killing defense (if it is > >killing?) at the table they cannot afterwards claim that > >it would be irrational for them not to play this defense. ............ > Richard Hills quibbles: > > The actual Director took a more nuanced approach to the > ruling. Since the key issue was what would be irrational > for an international expert, the Director chose to poll > seven international experts. Although this deal arose in > the bridge backwater of Bermuda, fortunately seven experts > were available since the event was part of the Fiftieth > Anniversary of the Bermuda Bowl in January 2000. Of the > seven experts polled, four chose to immediately play the > ace of hearts when a small heart was led toward dummy at > Trick 6. > > Therefore the Director ruled that allowing the contract to > make by grabbing the ace of hearts was at worst inferior > and not irrational. So under Law 69B the Director ruled > that East-West were not allowed to withdraw their > acquiescence. > > But..... > > Who's afraid of the big bad Wolff? > > East-West appealed. The chair of the Appeals Committee > was Bobby Wolff (USA), supported by Ernesto d'Orsi > (Brazil) and Nissan Rand (Israel). > > * * * > > The Committee Decision: The Committee allowed the claim, > as agreed at the table, to stand without comment. So both the Director and the appeals committee reached the same result as I did. > Chairman's Note: Since the word "irrational" should be, > and has been, interpreted in a bridge context to mean a > wild, emotional action which is also contrary to any > bridge logic the Committee had no option but to allow the > claimed contract to be made. Having said that, it was the > Committee's recommendation that declarer consider a > concession of one down since: > (1) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate > defense, and > (2) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and > thus within the spirit of the game. I have an immediate feeling that this comment and recommendation by the Committee is somehow way out of line and can only be defended by this event being in the "bridge backwater", i.e. of little importance. > Editor's Note: The declarer agreed to the Committee's > recommendation and immediately conceded down one. > Accordingly, the Committee authorised a change of score. And I have a serious question to which I suppose we shall never have any answer: Would declarer have agreed to this recommendation if it had meant the loss of the BB championship? My general position to the question of whether or not a particular play is irrational is this: If the player in question could have made the particular play in a situation at the table he cannot afterwards be heard with a claim that the play would have been irrational, only that it is inferior. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 15 12:52:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <46C2C5F7.7050600@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > My point is that the law does not say "names a rank", in which case > "the Qu" would not be a rank. The law speaks of designating so "one > higher", "highest prime number", Those are indeed designations. > and "the qu" all That is a partial designation. (as are "The..", "T.." etc). If you cannot tell the difference between complete and partial designations then you shouldn't be making rulings. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 15 12:52:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070814164337.0e768811@linuxbox> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > It was one of three adverse decisions that I got from that > particular TD in a relatively short space of time, all of which > *really* > got under my skin. It looks like I owe him a (very) retrospective > apology, from what you say - at least on this question. *Might* owe him. Perhaps he was indeed clueless and the regs back then were similar to post 87 - it's just that *I* have no familiarity with the regs/laws extant that long ago. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 15 13:42:59 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:42:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c7df31$6e65def0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > I say that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer. Herman: I shall have some sympathy for your argumentation if you go along with Declarer on his request in the following situation: Declarer asks for a diamond and Dummy places his smallest diamond in the played position. All three players follow suit, LHO wins the trick and leads a card to the next trick, but then declarer exclaims (before playing any card): Hold it! In my mind I asked for a heart, so Dummy did not play the card I designated. Under Law 45D I request that the small diamond led from Dummy is withdrawn and replaced with a small heart! How do you rule? Does it make any difference if Declarer instead of calling a "diamond" called for "koekes" (or any similar recognized alias for diamonds)? Does it make any difference if it is obvious to all players that declarer intended (in his mind) to play a heart and not a diamond from Dummy? (Note that it must be far too late for the application of Law 47C!) Sven From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 13:55:26 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:55:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2da24b8e0708150455t64fa60d5x725635724882909d@mail.gmail.com> On 8/14/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > So in the EBU "natural" is specifically defined in the > Orange Book clause 5F. Some EBU "natural" bids would be > WBF / ABF "conventional" bids. For example, the EBU > chooses to define a Precision opening bid of 2C as a > "natural" bid. Wow. This is getting even more bizarre. Does the WBF really consider a Precision 2C opening to be a convention? I was curious whether anyone could point to an explanation of this ruling. In a similar vein, I'd like to throw out the following example: Lets assume that my partnership is playing a disciplined 2S preempt in which a 2D opening promises 6+ Diamonds Two of the top three honors Approximately 5 - 11 HCP Furthermore, a 2D opening denies a void a side 4 card major Would the WBF consider this 2D opening conventional? If not, what is the difference between this case and the conventional Precision 2C opening? -- The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 15 14:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > East-West are international experts, a > class of player for which almost all > errors in play are irrational errors. Apparently the AC disagreed. On the evidence presented I too would have classified EW as "amongst the international experts for whom errors remain relatively commonplace". Personally I can't see why it is a significant error* to rise with the HA since had declarer held SAKxxx,x,JTxxx,xx it would be the only defence to beat the contract. That *might* be marginally inferior odds-wise (beyond my capacity to judge at the table). *Had there been no claim Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 15 14:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > But that is excatly what we are trying to decide if it does. I say > that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer. You > cannot counterargue this by simply stating the contrary. Of course I can. That you state that black means white leaves me little option but to say "it doesn't". "Ruff" or "Trump" mean play a card from the trump suit. If there is no trump suit, or dummy is void in trumps, then no card has been nominated. Just because I *might* be able to work out what card declarer intended doesn't mean he has played a card. If declarer says "spade" believing one of dummy's clubs to be a spade it doesn't make that club a played card. Tim From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 14:42:39 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:42:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0708150455t64fa60d5x725635724882909d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0708150455t64fa60d5x725635724882909d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 15/08/07, richard willey wrote: > > On 8/14/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > So in the EBU "natural" is specifically defined in the > > Orange Book clause 5F. Some EBU "natural" bids would be > > WBF / ABF "conventional" bids. For example, the EBU > > chooses to define a Precision opening bid of 2C as a > > "natural" bid. > > Wow. This is getting even more bizarre. > > Does the WBF really consider a Precision 2C opening to be a > convention? I was curious whether anyone could point to an > explanation of this ruling. > > In a similar vein, I'd like to throw out the following example: Lets > assume that my partnership is playing a disciplined 2S preempt in > which a > > 2D opening promises > > 6+ Diamonds > Two of the top three honors > Approximately 5 - 11 HCP This would not, IMHO, make this 2D opening conventional. Furthermore, a 2D opening denies > > a void > a side 4 card major This would make it conventional IMO, since there's a conventional meaning regarding lenght in other suits than the suit named by the bid. The same goes for a traditional Precision 2C, since it does show one 4-card major suit when you have only 5 clubs. I did formerly play a big club system where 2C only showed a 6-card suit (4-card side suit anywhere possible). This opening I'd classify as non-conventional (AND natural). I know there won't be universal agreement to my views here. :-) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran Would the WBF consider this 2D opening conventional? If not, what is > the difference between this case and the conventional Precision 2C > opening? > > > -- > The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate > intensity > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070815/82470db9/attachment.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 15 14:55:23 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:55:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Recondite apostle (was played or not?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003e01c7df3b$97eee9b0$92a287d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Recondite apostle (was played or not?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott recondited: > >>>+=+ Edgar was nothing if not grammatical - at >>>times to the point of obscurity for all but the >>>recondite apostles. +=+ >>> >>>+=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an >>>appeal committee, I would listen with care to any >>>suggestion that declarer has not played any card >>>because he has not given any instruction as to a >>>play consistent with a No Trumps contract. >>> ~ G ~ +=+ > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > >>Whose suggestion would you listen to? The table >>director? The DiC? Declarer? Defenders? Would >>you ignore the other side of the argument? > > Richard Hills recalls: > > I remember with joy an occasion when Grattan was > deliberately excessively recondite, by inserting > the word "autochthonous" into one of his postings. > > Some foolish blmlers asserted that Grattan had made > up a fake word. > > Gordon Bower responded: > >>>>Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very >>>>often. >>>> >>>>Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, >>>>you will hear very frequently -- if you are a >>>>geologist in Alaska, and we have at least one of >>>>those on this mailing list. (It was news to me >>>>to discover, after the spelling bee, that the >>>>words also have currency in other fields.) >>>> >>>>Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the >>>>next edition of the alert rules: "Autochthonous >>>>conventions are part of one's general bridge >>>>knowledge and experience, but all allochthons >>>>are allocated alerts." >>>> >>>>And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously >>>>ought be allochtrocuted. > +=+ With autogenous power ? +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 15 14:55:23 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:55:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Recondite apostle (was played or not?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003e01c7df3b$97eee9b0$92a287d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Recondite apostle (was played or not?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott recondited: > >>>+=+ Edgar was nothing if not grammatical - at >>>times to the point of obscurity for all but the >>>recondite apostles. +=+ >>> >>>+=+ As to what argument could persuade me in an >>>appeal committee, I would listen with care to any >>>suggestion that declarer has not played any card >>>because he has not given any instruction as to a >>>play consistent with a No Trumps contract. >>> ~ G ~ +=+ > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > >>Whose suggestion would you listen to? The table >>director? The DiC? Declarer? Defenders? Would >>you ignore the other side of the argument? > > Richard Hills recalls: > > I remember with joy an occasion when Grattan was > deliberately excessively recondite, by inserting > the word "autochthonous" into one of his postings. > > Some foolish blmlers asserted that Grattan had made > up a fake word. > > Gordon Bower responded: > >>>>Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very >>>>often. >>>> >>>>Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, >>>>you will hear very frequently -- if you are a >>>>geologist in Alaska, and we have at least one of >>>>those on this mailing list. (It was news to me >>>>to discover, after the spelling bee, that the >>>>words also have currency in other fields.) >>>> >>>>Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the >>>>next edition of the alert rules: "Autochthonous >>>>conventions are part of one's general bridge >>>>knowledge and experience, but all allochthons >>>>are allocated alerts." >>>> >>>>And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously >>>>ought be allochtrocuted. > +=+ With autogenous power ? +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 15 15:00:20 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:00:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Autogenous power" (sic) Message-ID: <005001c7df3c$42e31a80$92a287d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Hmmm... as alleged by some to be exercised by certain regulatory authorities? +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 15:29:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:29:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C2FFCB.50909@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >> My point is that the law does not say "names a rank", in which case >> "the Qu" would not be a rank. The law speaks of designating so "one >> higher", "highest prime number", > > Those are indeed designations. > >> and "the qu" all > > That is a partial designation. (as are "The..", "T.." etc). > > If you cannot tell the difference between complete and partial > designations then you shouldn't be making rulings. > And what does that difference imply. Where does it say that a designation needs to be complete or partial? What makes a designation complete, BTW? "The Queeeeeeeee, no the Ace". how far into the nasal "N" does one need to go before a designation becomes final, so (according to you) the card becomes played? In my book, "the Que" univoquially designates one single rank. I don't care about partial designations. The use of the word "designates" is enough for me to be sure that the intent of the lawmakers is given. Besides which, Tim, I don't like that tone. Who are you to be deciding unilaterally on who gets to rule or not? Who are you to spout your opinion as hard fact? You know we disagree about this, please lower your tone a bit then. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 15:37:28 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:37:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000d01c7df31$6e65def0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c7df31$6e65def0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C30198.5030008@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> I say that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer. > > Herman: I shall have some sympathy for your argumentation if you go along > with Declarer on his request in the following situation: > > Declarer asks for a diamond and Dummy places his smallest diamond in the > played position. > > All three players follow suit, LHO wins the trick and leads a card to the > next trick, but then declarer exclaims (before playing any card): > > Hold it! In my mind I asked for a heart, so Dummy did not play the card I > designated. Under Law 45D I request that the small diamond led from Dummy is > withdrawn and replaced with a small heart! > > How do you rule? > How did he "designate" a heart by uttering the word "diamond"? I will go along with the following: Playing in Italy, a player calls for a "fiori". Dummy duly plays a club, and declarer shouts "no, I meant a diamond" (or is it vice-versa, I always get that word wrong). That case I can go along with. Your case is just too weird (declarer following with a diamond while thinking he played a heart from the table) to be of use in a discussion - agreed? > Does it make any difference if Declarer instead of calling a "diamond" > called for "koekes" (or any similar recognized alias for diamonds)? > > Does it make any difference if it is obvious to all players that declarer > intended (in his mind) to play a heart and not a diamond from Dummy? (Note > that it must be far too late for the application of Law 47C!) > Why must it be too late? all my examples thus far have been without it being too late (declarer saying "ruff" and 3 opponents objecting that the contract is 3NT). But the problem is not this one - in your example, the declarer wants to play a heart, but he says 'diamond' - has he played a diamond? In my example, the declarer wanted to play a diamond, said "ruff", and _now_ wants to change his mind and play a heart instead. See the subtle difference? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 15 16:10:53 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:10:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c7df46$17b57060$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran ............. In a similar vein, I'd like to throw out the following example:??Lets assume that my partnership is playing a disciplined 2S preempt in which a 2D opening promises 6+ Diamonds Two of the top three honors Approximately 5 - 11 HCP ? This would not, IMHO, make this 2D opening conventional. Furthermore, a 2D opening denies a void a side 4 card major ? This would make it conventional IMO, since there's a conventional meaning regarding lenght in other suits than the suit named by the bid. Sven comments: I am not so sure that _denial_ of length and/or _denial_ of void in side suit(s) makes a bid conventional. If that should be the case then all "natural" NT opening bids are conventional because they deny voids! There is a difference between showing and denying length/voids. Harald continued: The same goes for a traditional Precision 2C, since it does show one 4-card major suit when you have only 5 clubs. I did formerly play a big club system where 2C only showed a 6-card suit (4-card side suit anywhere possible). This opening I'd classify as non-conventional (AND natural). I know there won't be universal agreement to my views here. :-) Sven's comment: Well you have my vote here! Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 15 16:56:10 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:56:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02405F61-04D3-45B0-A6AC-928E9DE8D140@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 14, 2007, at 10:51 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > So in the EBU "natural" is specifically defined in the > Orange Book clause 5F. Some EBU "natural" bids would be > WBF / ABF "conventional" bids. For example, the EBU > chooses to define a Precision opening bid of 2C as a > "natural" bid. What then, in the eyes of the WBF/ABF, makes this 2C bid conventional? From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 17:38:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:38:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C31E0C.5070705@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> But that is excatly what we are trying to decide if it does. I say >> that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer. You >> cannot counterargue this by simply stating the contrary. > > Of course I can. That you state that black means white leaves me little > option but to say "it doesn't". "Ruff" or "Trump" mean play a card from > the trump suit. If there is no trump suit, or dummy is void in trumps, > then no card has been nominated. Just because I *might* be able to work > out what card declarer intended doesn't mean he has played a card. If > declarer says "spade" believing one of dummy's clubs to be a spade it > doesn't make that club a played card. > Please see that there are two interpretations for this! Your saying that the one interpretation is right because the other one is wrong does not make your interpretation right! You have provided not a singe external argument for your contention. If I say "ruff" or "play a diamond" (if diamonds are trump), that has exactly the same meaning. So how can you say that ruff means one thing and not the other, when diamonds are not trumps? > 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 15 17:50:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:50:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C30198.5030008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c7df54$07b41dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >> I say that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer. > > > > Herman: I shall have some sympathy for your argumentation if you go > along > > with Declarer on his request in the following situation: > > > > Declarer asks for a diamond and Dummy places his smallest diamond in the > > played position. > > > > All three players follow suit, LHO wins the trick and leads a card to > the > > next trick, but then declarer exclaims (before playing any card): > > > > Hold it! In my mind I asked for a heart, so Dummy did not play the card > I > > designated. Under Law 45D I request that the small diamond led from > Dummy is > > withdrawn and replaced with a small heart! > > > > How do you rule? > > > > How did he "designate" a heart by uttering the word "diamond"? "in his mind" !!!!! ............................... > Why must it be too late? all my examples thus far have been without it > being too late (declarer saying "ruff" and 3 opponents objecting that > the contract is 3NT). I cannot remember you wanting to apply Law 45C4(b) anywhere? L45C4(b) allows a player to correct a misnomer unless it is too late for that, but it does not force him to do so. > > But the problem is not this one - in your example, the declarer wants > to play a heart, but he says 'diamond' - has he played a diamond? > In my example, the declarer wanted to play a diamond, said "ruff", and > _now_ wants to change his mind and play a heart instead. See the > subtle difference? Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? THAT is the "subtle" difference. I wanted to find out how far you stretch the importance of what declarer had in his "mind" against the visible facts on what he actually did. The answer is clear: You only consider declarer's mind as far as it suits your argumentation. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 15 19:50:54 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:50:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C2FFCB.50909@skynet.be> References: <46C2FFCB.50909@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: >> Herman wrote: >> >>> and "the qu" all >> >> That is a partial designation. (as are "The..", "T.." etc). >> >> If you cannot tell the difference between complete and partial >> designations then you shouldn't be making rulings. > > And what does that difference imply. Where does it say that a > designation needs to be complete or partial? > What makes a designation complete, BTW? > "The Queeeeeeeee, no the Ace". It sounds to me like the man called for the ace. Of course, we recognize that that is a rather odd "manner" of calling for the ace, so that if declarer's RHO does anything attributable to the "false inference" that declarer has attempted to play the queen he will be fully protected by L73F2. Moreover, if it looks like declarer is deliberately trying for the Alcatraz coup, the majesty of the C&E regulations will smite him and lay him low. If declarer cannot gain by making extraneous noises before he calls for the ace, why should we want to go out of our way to punish him for doing so? WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 15 20:38:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:38:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C31E0C.5070705@skynet.be> References: <46C31E0C.5070705@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 15, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Please see that there are two interpretations for this! Your saying > that the one interpretation is right because the other one is wrong > does not make your interpretation right! > You have provided not a singe external argument for your contention. > > If I say "ruff" or "play a diamond" (if diamonds are trump), that has > exactly the same meaning. So how can you say that ruff means one thing > and not the other, when diamonds are not trumps? Because diamonds are also not trumps when spades, hearts or clubs are trumps. If we accept that because "ruff" or "play a diamond" have exactly the same meaning if diamonds are trump, therefore "ruff" means "play a diamond" in 3NT, it must follow that "ruff" means "play a diamond" in any contract. That would mean that if a declarer at 4S says "ruff" and dummy plays a spade, he should get a serious hearing when he stops the action and calls the TD to explain that he really meant "ruff with a diamond" rather than "ruff with a trump", triggering an investigation, finding of fact, formal ruling, and right to appeal. As Herman himself has admitted, if we accept his argument in the original thread case, it follows logically that we can no longer automatically rule that a declarer who tells dummy to "ruff" has called for a trump from a dummy, even if he is in a suit contract, has trumps in the dummy, and has not indicated any particular card in any other way. That is madness. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 15 21:02:16 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:02:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000601c7df54$07b41dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c7df54$07b41dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <58E66620-94C4-4755-A9DB-90EEC875F0F3@starpower.net> On Aug 15, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ............... >>>> I say that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of >>>> declarer. >>> >>> Herman: I shall have some sympathy for your argumentation if you go >> along >>> with Declarer on his request in the following situation: >>> >>> Declarer asks for a diamond and Dummy places his smallest diamond >>> in the >>> played position. >>> >>> All three players follow suit, LHO wins the trick and leads a >>> card to >> the >>> next trick, but then declarer exclaims (before playing any card): >>> >>> Hold it! In my mind I asked for a heart, so Dummy did not play >>> the card >> I >>> designated. Under Law 45D I request that the small diamond led from >> Dummy is >>> withdrawn and replaced with a small heart! >>> >>> How do you rule? >> >> How did he "designate" a heart by uttering the word "diamond"? > > "in his mind" !!!!! That's exactly right. If "'ruff' designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer", e.g. diamonds, rather than the suit that is in fact trumps, then "heart" must designate "the heart suit in the mind of declarer", e.g. diamonds, rather than the suit that is in fact hearts. Logic demands we accept both or neither of the above propositions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 23:19:58 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:19:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000601c7df54$07b41dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c7df54$07b41dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C36DFE.7040406@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >> But the problem is not this one - in your example, the declarer wants >> to play a heart, but he says 'diamond' - has he played a diamond? >> In my example, the declarer wanted to play a diamond, said "ruff", and >> _now_ wants to change his mind and play a heart instead. See the >> subtle difference? > > Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? THAT is the "subtle" > difference. > But that's the same thing! You cannot ask yourself whether he wanted to do the one or the other, since both are (in his mind) the same thing. Of course he wanted to ruff, but in order to do so, he wanted to play a diamond. It's no use trying to distinguish. > I wanted to find out how far you stretch the importance of what declarer had > in his "mind" against the visible facts on what he actually did. > But in your example the two are opposite, in my example they are the same thing. In your case, he says "hearts" when he means diamonds. It's hard to see how it can be done, but I gave a similar example. And yes, I believe he should be allowed to play the card he intended, not the one he said. But in my example the card he intended and the card he pronounced ("ruff") are the same! So again, you cannot go asking whether we should follow his words or his mind, because they point to the same card! > The answer is clear: You only consider declarer's mind as far as it suits > your argumentation. > No, I always consider declarer's word over his mind, but I believe that in my case his word and his mind coincide - only we need to know his mind to know what his word means. Take the Italian example again - if declarer intends diamonds, and pronounces "fiori", I let him play diamonds - because his word (to him) meant diamonds (even if to 65 million Italians it means clubs) (or have I gotten then the wrong way around again). The point I'm trying to get accross is that a card is played once declarer utters a few sounds, but that we may need to know his mind to know which card is designated by the particular words uttered. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 15 23:24:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:24:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <46C31E0C.5070705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C36F1C.9030706@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Please see that there are two interpretations for this! Your saying >> that the one interpretation is right because the other one is wrong >> does not make your interpretation right! >> You have provided not a singe external argument for your contention. >> >> If I say "ruff" or "play a diamond" (if diamonds are trump), that has >> exactly the same meaning. So how can you say that ruff means one thing >> and not the other, when diamonds are not trumps? > > Because diamonds are also not trumps when spades, hearts or clubs are > trumps. > > If we accept that because "ruff" or "play a diamond" have exactly the > same meaning if diamonds are trump, therefore "ruff" means "play a > diamond" in 3NT, it must follow that "ruff" means "play a diamond" in > any contract. > > That would mean that if a declarer at 4S says "ruff" and dummy plays > a spade, he should get a serious hearing when he stops the action and > calls the TD to explain that he really meant "ruff with a diamond" > rather than "ruff with a trump", triggering an investigation, finding > of fact, formal ruling, and right to appeal. > > As Herman himself has admitted, if we accept his argument in the > original thread case, it follows logically that we can no longer > automatically rule that a declarer who tells dummy to "ruff" has > called for a trump from a dummy, even if he is in a suit contract, > has trumps in the dummy, and has not indicated any particular card in > any other way. > > That is madness. > No it's not. Because in 99.9% of the cases, "trumps" and "trumps in the mind of declarer" are the same suit. And we will soon find out about the other cases, because declarer will be surprised when dummy plays a different suit than the one he intended. ("No, ruff I said!") And yes, it is my belief that if a declarer believes he is playing 5Di, when in fact he's playing 4Sp, and he calls "ruff" when playing a heart towards dummy's void (and it is discovered that he was mistaken at that time), that a diamond is played on the heart and the trick is defenders'. I see no difference with the declarer who plays dummy's cards himself and he touches a diamond. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 16 00:31:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:31:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C36DFE.7040406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c7df8c$102627e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ............... > > Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? > > THAT is the "subtle" difference. > > But that's the same thing! > You cannot ask yourself whether he wanted to do the one or the other, > since both are (in his mind) the same thing. Of course he wanted to > ruff, but in order to do so, he wanted to play a diamond. It's no use > trying to distinguish. When you do not even want to see the difference this discussion is (as I suspected) futile. Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 02:13:32 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:13:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000701c7df8c$102627e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <46C36DFE.7040406@skynet.be> <000701c7df8c$102627e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708151713h5fcc3a6dibd8bdd16b192bcae@mail.gmail.com> On 8/15/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sven Pran wrote: > ............... > > > Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? > > > THAT is the "subtle" difference. > > > > But that's the same thing! > > You cannot ask yourself whether he wanted to do the one or the other, > > since both are (in his mind) the same thing. Of course he wanted to > > ruff, but in order to do so, he wanted to play a diamond. It's no use > > trying to distinguish. > > When you do not even want to see the difference this discussion is (as I > suspected) futile. > Sven, it is difficult to see your point. It appears that you consider it crucial to know whether declarer wanted to ruff and thinking that diamonds were trump therefore played a diamond, or whether declarer wanted to play a diamond for some other reason. You wrote, "Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? THAT is the "subtle" difference." But declarer's motive for selecting a card is irrelevant to determining what card he selected under the law. The card he selected is all that matters. Would your really have the director ask declarer whether or not his choice of a diamond play was motivated by his desire to ruff? Jerry Fusselman From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Aug 16 02:17:53 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:17:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> It is my unvarying practice to call for a ruff, whether playing at trump or NT if they lead an ace at trick 1. If any defender calls the director, he is going to have the cards torn up and pushed down his nearest orifice, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 16 02:25:07 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:25:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c7df1e$83189df0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: The big bad Wolff asserted: >>Chairman's Note: Since the word "irrational" should be, >>and has been, interpreted in a bridge context to mean a >>wild, emotional action which is also contrary to any >>bridge logic the Committee had no option but to allow the >>claimed contract to be made. Having said that, it was >>the Committee's recommendation that declarer consider a >>concession of one down since: >>(1) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate >>defense, and >>(2) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and >>thus within the spirit of the game. Sven Pran differed: >I have an immediate feeling that this comment and >recommendation by the Committee is somehow way out of line WBF Code of Practice, "Ethics" paragraph (page 6): "A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens." 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 Aug 16 02:57:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:57:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] The moon's a balloon [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C2C561.8000001@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>Richard, you have totally misrepresented both my views. >>When talking on the "played or not thread", I was criticizing >>Sven (and others) for sticking to their arguments by >>reiterating their arguments which were pricked like balloons. >> >>In the DwS, I am using arguments of my own, and none of these >>are pricked like balloons. [snip] >>Don't hammer on about my actions being illegal - look at your >>own actions and conclude that they are illegal as well - then >>we can talk on. Tim West-Meads: >That you state that black means white leaves me little option >but to say "it doesn't". Richard Hills: I have played a vast number of different games of strategy (chess, Rail Baron, etc, etc). In all of those games, some of their rules have been ambiguous as to what is legal. But in all of those games, the jurisprudential policy has been to reinterpret the rules in order to have an agreed resolution on legal actions. Now Herman is proposing a uniquely novel jurisprudential policy for Duplicate Bridge. The De Wael School argues that an ambiguity in the Duplicate Bridge rules should not be resolved, and instead all possible actions should be deemed illegal in a routine bridge situation. Extreme jurisprudential theories ("black means white") require substantial jurisprudential support. What support does Herman have for his De Wael School from that body which has the authority to interpret the Lawbook? Has the WBF Laws Committee agreed that black means white? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Aug 16 03:43:30 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:43:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <46C3ABC2.1040802@NTLworld.com> [Tony Musgrove] It is my unvarying practice to call for a ruff, whether playing at trump or NT if they lead an ace at trick 1. If any defender calls the director, he is going to have the cards torn up and pushed down his nearest orifice. [nige1] A declarer in our club has a similar unvarying and irritating routine. Sometimes I wonder how his exasperated dummies restrain themselves from administering the penalty that Tony would impose on innocent and long-suffering defenders. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 16 04:14:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:14:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c7df46$17b57060$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I am not so sure that _denial_ of length and/or _denial_ of void >in side suit(s) makes a bid conventional. If that should be the >case then all "natural" NT opening bids are conventional because >they deny voids! There is a difference between showing and >denying length/voids. Richard Hills: A practical difference, but not (yet) a difference under Law. Chapter 1 Definitions, "Convention": "... conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named ..." Richard Hills: If one's 1NT opening bid denies a void, then that does indeed convey a meaning of, "No voids, pard!", with this conveyed meaning possibly affecting pard's subsequent bidding and/or subsequent defence. So indeed all so-called natural 1NT opening bids are also conventional bids. Therefore, because the official Definition of "Convention" has unsatisfactory wording, the EBU has decided to use customised nomenclature in its Orange Book. 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 Aug 16 05:55:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:55:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irony or irritation? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C3ABC2.1040802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>It is my unvarying practice to call for a ruff, whether playing >>at trump or NT if they lead an ace at trick 1. If any defender >>calls the director, he is going to have the cards torn up and >>pushed down his nearest orifice. Nigel Guthrie: >A declarer in our club has a similar unvarying and irritating >routine. Sometimes I wonder how his exasperated dummies >restrain themselves from administering the penalty that Tony >would impose on innocent and long-suffering defenders. Richard Hills: Tony's ironical joke has best humorous effect if it is made after the opening lead of the ace has been faced, but before dummy is displayed. A problem could arise if Tony was playing in 6S, his LHO led the ace of hearts, and dummy had a void in hearts. If the only way to make 6S was to play loser-on-loser on the opening lead, Tony's joke would backfire. For example: AKQ --- 432 AKQJT98 JT9 876 AJT9 Q876 QT8 KJ9 765 432 5432 K5432 A765 --- 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Aug 16 06:07:09 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:07:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not___?= =?iso-8859-1?q?__=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C3ABC2.1040802@NTLworld.com> References: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> <46C3ABC2.1040802@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <200708160407.l7G47jjk013097@mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 11:43 AM 16/08/2007, you wrote: >[Tony Musgrove] >It is my unvarying practice to call for a ruff, whether playing at >trump or NT if they lead an ace at trick 1. If any defender >calls the director, he is going to have the cards torn up and >pushed down his nearest orifice. > >[nige1] >A declarer in our club has a similar unvarying and irritating routine. >Sometimes I wonder how his exasperated dummies restrain themselves >from administering the penalty that Tony would impose on innocent and >long-suffering defenders. > Don't worry, my partner exacts his revenge by observing unfailingly "the better players made 4", when I enter the score. We play to enjoy ourselves, but "the oldies are the goodies", Cheers, >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 16 06:36:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:36:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bart Bramley (ACBL casebook panellist) asserted: Note that East-West's acquiescence was an easy trap to fall into. Declarer still had two trumps left at the time of the claim. Thus, working out that normal defense could prevail necessarily took extra time. Sven Pran counter-asserted: >>When East-West did not see a killing defense (if it is >>killing?) at the table they cannot afterwards claim that >>it would be irrational for them not to play this defense. Sven Pran re-asserted: >My general position to the question of whether or not a >particular play is irrational is this: > >If the player in question could have made the particular >play in a situation at the table he cannot afterwards be >heard with a claim that the play would have been irrational, >only that it is inferior. Richard Hills quibbles: This dodges the point, since Sven seems to be saying that his criterion "could have made" is automatically proven by the previous acquiescence. In effect, Sven has deleted this Law 69B clause from his copy of the Lawbook: "or in the loss of a trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards" 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 Aug 16 08:22:00 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:22:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070814100903.085a7bf5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: [big snip] >The bottom line is that the rules of a game >should be clear and unambiguous. Richard Hills: And internally consistent (no penalty card paradoxes). Brian Meadows: >It's lunacy to have one body make the laws >and other bodies add regulations ..... when >those regulations can conflict with the laws. Richard Hills: It is the conflict which is the lunacy, not the federal principle of subsidiarity (the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the lowest competent authority). Grattan Endicott (12th June 2005): >>+=+ There are now NBOs where under EU law it >>is possible for an external non-bridge court >>of arbitration to intervene. Opinion thinks >>it very likely that a principal concern of >>such a body might be to investigate whether >>an authority has exceeded the powers granted >>to it under the rules of the game. Among the >>matters which I regard as important in >>simplifying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is >>the use of explicit language, to include >>unequivocal statements as to the scope and >>limitations of the powers of regulating >>authorities, appeals committees and >>directors, and their accountability for the >>exercise of those powers. >> >>I think also that the letter of the law >>should embody the spirit of the law. >> ~ 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 16 08:38:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:38:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Irony or irritation? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >Don't worry, my partner exacts his revenge by observing >unfailingly "the better players made 4", when I enter the >score. We play to enjoy ourselves, but "the oldies are >the goodies", Richard Hills: Yes, I believe it was a member of the Australian international open team, Elizabeth Havas, who said: "You can say anything you like, pard, as long as you say it with a smile." But rather than ironical criticisms of my partner's play, I find a different criticism of partner more humorous. If RHO's 3NT was cold because declarer held a vital spade jack, but would have been easy to defeat if partner had had that card, I announce: "A _real_ partner would have held the jack of spades." Likewise, if we lacked the bidding space to achieve an optimum result, I announce: "A _real_ partner would have made an insufficient bid." :-) 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 Wed Aug 15 23:41:02 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:41:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c7df46$17b57060$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c7df46$17b57060$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 15/08/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran > ............. > In a similar vein, I'd like to throw out the following example:Lets > assume that my partnership is playing a disciplined 2S preempt in > which a > > 2D opening promises > > 6+ Diamonds > Two of the top three honors > Approximately 5 - 11 HCP > > This would not, IMHO, make this 2D opening conventional. > > Furthermore, a 2D opening denies > > a void > a side 4 card major > > This would make it conventional IMO, since there's a conventional meaning > regarding lenght in other suits than the suit named by the bid. > > Sven comments: > I am not so sure that _denial_ of length and/or _denial_ of void in side > suit(s) makes a bid conventional. If that should be the case then all > "natural" NT opening bids are conventional because they deny voids! There > is > a difference between showing and denying length/voids. Huh? The main part of the defintion of a convention read: "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there." How can you talk about lenght and high-card strenght in the denimination named when that's a notrump bid? Any notrump bid is "obviously" natural if it conveys a meaning of willingness to play a notrump contract. (I said "obviously", since some would argue that opening some NT with a singleton is non-natural - I'm not going into that debate here.) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran Harald continued: > The same goes for a traditional Precision 2C, since it does show one > 4-card > major suit when you have only 5 clubs. > I did formerly play a big club system where 2C only showed a 6-card suit > (4-card side suit anywhere possible). This opening I'd classify as > non-conventional (AND natural). > I know there won't be universal agreement to my views here. :-) > > Sven's comment: Well you have my vote here! > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070815/4d53382c/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 08:46:52 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:46:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000501c7df46$17b57060$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 16/08/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Sven Pran: > > >I am not so sure that _denial_ of length and/or _denial_ of void > >in side suit(s) makes a bid conventional. If that should be the > >case then all "natural" NT opening bids are conventional because > >they deny voids! There is a difference between showing and > >denying length/voids. > > Richard Hills: > > A practical difference, but not (yet) a difference under Law. > > Chapter 1 Definitions, "Convention": > > "... conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the > denomination named ..." > > Richard Hills: > > If one's 1NT opening bid denies a void, then that does indeed > convey a meaning of, "No voids, pard!", with this conveyed > meaning possibly affecting pard's subsequent bidding and/or > subsequent defence. So indeed all so-called natural 1NT opening > bids are also conventional bids. With such reasoning any opening showing 4+ of a specific suit is conventional since it, by inference, denies 10+ cards in the three other suits. Nonsense, of course. :-) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran Therefore, because the official Definition of "Convention" has > unsatisfactory wording, the EBU has decided to use customised > nomenclature in its Orange Book. > > > 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/20070816/e90d8ddb/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 09:49:22 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:49:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] RXf. : Re: Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: References: <46C1C42B.5020007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816092703.02a4aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:17 14/08/2007 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > And I will point to the word "designates" in L46B3 and tell the > > court that it is my judgment that "the Qu" is enough to designate > > the queen. > >Go back and read the words Herman. That law says "designates a rank" >If you wish to know what the ranks are you can check law one. >There is no "judgement" - it is basic, well-defined stuff and the court >will have a laugh at your idiocy before making you pay the costs. Partial designation of a card can't be taken as a correct designation. There are languages where the names of two cards begin with the same sounds (Italian Sei and Sette), even where the name for one card begins with the name of another. In that case, Herman's ruling would create absurdities. If, for example, an Estonian player says 'ka...', did he ask for the Two or the Eight ? Not to mention Esperanto, where 'king' is 'regh' and 'queen' is 'reghin'. And, since a ruling can't be different according to the language in use in the club, you can't rule Herman's way in general. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070816/41b626ea/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 10:02:45 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:02:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C2C5F7.7050600@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816100124.02a4f730@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:23 15/08/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >T >My point is that the law does not say "names a rank", in which case >"the Qu" would not be a rank. The law speaks of designating so "one >higher", "highest prime number", and "the qu" all _designate_ a rank, >and only one. There is no highest prime number. Proven by Euclid ca. -340. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 10:04:51 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:04:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816100304.02a4f4c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:24 15/08/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > And saying "spade" means a card is played - except when dummy contains no > > spades. "Ruff" designates a specific card when playing in a trump > > contract *and* dummy has trumps. > > > >But that is excatly what we are trying to decide if it does. I say >that "ruff" designates the trump suit in the mind of declarer. You >cannot counterargue this by simply stating the contrary. Of course he can. "What is stated without proof can be negated without proof" (Euclid of Megara - not the same guy than in previous post) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 10:12:20 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:12:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0708150455t64fa60d5x725635724882909d@mail.gmail.co m> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816100630.02a5acf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:55 15/08/2007 -0400, richard willey wrote: >2D opening promises > >6+ Diamonds >Two of the top three honors >Approximately 5 - 11 HCP > >Furthermore, a 2D opening denies > >a void >a side 4 card major > >Would the WBF consider this 2D opening conventional? If not, what is >the difference between this case and the conventional Precision 2C >opening? In that the sense of your 2D opening is to be expected, while the sense of a Precision 2C can't. Nigel's excellent example of openings with a hole in their range (played by some Flemish pairs) can't either, and you may add many : - Dutch Two's - StMand? 3C (once popular in France : clubs, similar to an Acol 2-bid) - Roman jump overcalls (the suit named + the suit above in cyclic order, excluding opponents') - Forcing 2NT response (at least, it would be considered conventional in Europe) ... Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 16 10:53:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:53:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708151713h5fcc3a6dibd8bdd16b192bcae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c7dfe2$ec806970$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > ............... > > > > Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? > > > > THAT is the "subtle" difference. > > > > > > But that's the same thing! > > > You cannot ask yourself whether he wanted to do the one or the other, > > > since both are (in his mind) the same thing. Of course he wanted to > > > ruff, but in order to do so, he wanted to play a diamond. It's no use > > > trying to distinguish. > > > > When you do not even want to see the difference this discussion is (as I > > suspected) futile. > > > > Sven, it is difficult to see your point. It appears that you consider > it crucial to know whether declarer wanted to ruff and thinking that > diamonds were trump therefore played a diamond, or whether declarer > wanted to play a diamond for some other reason. You wrote, "Did he > want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? THAT is the "subtle" > difference." > > But declarer's motive for selecting a card is irrelevant to > determining what card he selected under the law. The card he selected > is all that matters. Would your really have the director ask declarer > whether or not his choice of a diamond play was motivated by his > desire to ruff? I am sorry if my position is not clear. I want to rule according to facts whenever possible, and not according to assumptions on what was in a player's mind (except when absolutely necessary like in laws 25A and 47C). The fact here is that declarer designated a non-existent card; there is no trump in NT contracts. Declarer did not ask for a diamond, he asked for a trump, or rather for a ruff. If declarer had added words to the effect that he indeed wanted a diamond then the picture of course would have been different, but without such "clarification" we simply have a misnomer which IMHO must be handled under Law 46B4. I have also tried to show that involving a player's "mind" when determining what he has and has not played can lead to the most absurd situations. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 16 11:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <46C2FFCB.50909@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > And what does that difference imply. Where does it say that a > designation needs to be complete or partial? In Law46b3 it says "If declarer designates a rank..." It does not say "If declarer designates, or partially designates, a rank.." Thus we use what the lawmakers actually wrote rather than assuming an aberrant unwritten intention. > What makes a designation complete, BTW? What makes a word comple? > "The Queeeeeeeee, no the Ace". > how far into the nasal "N" does one need to go before a designation > becomes final, so (according to you) the card becomes played? Que(EEE)en with a gap after it. Not Queeee.....NO, or Queeno, quace or anything else. As Eric has said the "could have know" law protects declarer's RHO. > In my book, "the Que" univoquially designates one single rank. I > don't care about partial designations. I care not whether you care. OK maybe the "Que" is easy for you in Flemish/French/English but were we to include partial designations of rank within the scope of 46b3 we would also have the "T..", "K/C", "F/V" and other nightmares of distinction. In some cases we won't even know if the start of a word was a partial designation of the suit or the rank. > Besides which, Tim, I don't like that tone. Strange, I considered my tone more patient than you deserved. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 16 11:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02405F61-04D3-45B0-A6AC-928E9DE8D140@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > What then, in the eyes of the WBF/ABF, makes this 2C bid > conventional? For the WBF - Nothing. Just as opening 2H (showing 5+H but won't be a 5332 shape) is not conventional while "Exactly 5H, won't be 5332" is conventional because it promises 5H and 4+ of another suit. The Lawbook definition of conventional is imperfect but should not be treated as insane - thus NT bids denying any shortage are not conventional simply because they show a balanced(ish) hand and suit bids which exclude balanced(ish) hands within a certain range are not conventional either (unless there is some other factor). Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 16 11:10:32 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:10:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c7dfe5$4ce26a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au .............. > Sven Pran counter-asserted: > > >>When East-West did not see a killing defense (if it is > >>killing?) at the table they cannot afterwards claim that > >>it would be irrational for them not to play this defense. > > Sven Pran re-asserted: > > >My general position to the question of whether or not a > >particular play is irrational is this: > > > >If the player in question could have made the particular > >play in a situation at the table he cannot afterwards be > >heard with a claim that the play would have been irrational, > >only that it is inferior. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > This dodges the point, since Sven seems to be saying that his > criterion "could have made" is automatically proven by the > previous acquiescence. In effect, Sven has deleted this Law > 69B clause from his copy of the Lawbook: > > "or in the loss of a trick that could not, in the Director's > judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards" How come? If the player in question "could have failed to see that he must not rise with his Ace on the first or second round of Hearts" had the board been played out, he cannot IMO afterwards claim that such failure is "irrational". The part of L69B quoted by Richard is still present in my law book. An irrational action is something a player never does (unless he has a momentary complete black-out); an inferior action is something he does with some small probability and a careless action is something he does without really thinking through all his options. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 11:18:23 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:18:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] The moon's a balloon [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C4165F.5050206@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Now Herman is proposing a uniquely novel jurisprudential policy > for Duplicate Bridge. The De Wael School argues that an > ambiguity in the Duplicate Bridge rules should not be resolved, > and instead all possible actions should be deemed illegal in a > routine bridge situation. > Richard, your posts are beginning to lack any coherence whatsoever. Since I cannot begin to understand what this means, I shall refrain from commenting. It seems to me however, that Richard is suffering from "if Herman then wrong syndrome". I cannot recall him giving any valid argumentation against anything I posted in this thread. Other than "If I say it's white and Herman says it's black, Herman is obviously wrong". I hope more and more posters see that not everything I write is automatically wrong. In fact, I hope more and more posters see that Richard et.al. are not worthy of the attention we sometimes accord them. I am going to be more selective in who I answer to from now on. Please do not believe that means that I believe you have said anything sensible. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 11:20:44 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:20:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816100124.02a4f730@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816100124.02a4f730@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 11:23 15/08/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> T >> My point is that the law does not say "names a rank", in which case >> "the Qu" would not be a rank. The law speaks of designating so "one >> higher", "highest prime number", and "the qu" all _designate_ a rank, >> and only one. > > There is no highest prime number. Proven by Euclid ca. -340. Within the range expressed in Law 1, there is, it is the seven. of course if you count the King as 13 ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 12:06:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:06:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000a01c7dfe2$ec806970$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c7dfe2$ec806970$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C421A0.6040205@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> But declarer's motive for selecting a card is irrelevant to >> determining what card he selected under the law. The card he selected >> is all that matters. Would your really have the director ask declarer >> whether or not his choice of a diamond play was motivated by his >> desire to ruff? > > I am sorry if my position is not clear. I want to rule according to facts > whenever possible, and not according to assumptions on what was in a > player's mind (except when absolutely necessary like in laws 25A and 47C). > That's all well and good, but you create a problem that way: in 99% of the cases it will be possible to find out without any doubt what was in his mind, but you refuse to accept that as non-fact, because you fear you might rule wrongly in 1% of the cases? This is not a basis on which to build interpretations! > The fact here is that declarer designated a non-existent card; No he did not! He designated a very specific card: the lowest of the suit he thought was trumps! In 99% of the cases, that card will be precisely well known. Even if you don't accept this as fact (when does the mind of a player become fact - when he utters it?), it is something the layer will not dispute if you do rule based on it! Now please understand my problem: The player tells you he said "ruff", intending to play the D3, but they tell him he's playing in 3NT (or even 4Sp). Do you allow him to play the H2 (or the S2!) instead? Your argument that you don't know what "ruff" meant is not valid: the declarer tells you he intended the D3! Are you going to say "if someone else says ruff, he may not admit to intending the D3, so I will allow that declarer to change his card, and therefor you as well". That strikes me as terribly odd. > there is no > trump in NT contracts. Declarer did not ask for a diamond, he asked for a > trump, or rather for a ruff. If declarer had added words to the effect that > he indeed wanted a diamond then the picture of course would have been > different, but without such "clarification" we simply have a misnomer which > IMHO must be handled under Law 46B4. > Well, I tell you that the clarification is there. Is your ruling different then? In fact, I believe that in 60% of such cases, the declarer will have told the table what contract he thought he was playing. In another 30% of cases, he will tell the TD when he arrives (it's terribly difficult to say "I though I was playing in a trump contract"), and in another 9 out of 10, he will honestly answer when the TD asks what he thought was trumps. You are basing your interpretation on the other 1%. > I have also tried to show that involving a player's "mind" when determining > what he has and has not played can lead to the most absurd situations. > What absurd situations? I am not talking about somebody saying diamonds when they mean hearts. I am talking about a common case of a player saying trump or ruff when he means diamonds. This is a simple case - don't go making it difficult! > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 13:56:52 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:56:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >> And what does that difference imply. Where does it say that a >> designation needs to be complete or partial? > > In Law46b3 it says "If declarer designates a rank..." > It does not say "If declarer designates, or partially designates, a > rank.." > I interpret the word "designates" as meaning "indicates in any manner". "The Qu" uniquely designates a rank, IMO. > Thus we use what the lawmakers actually wrote rather than assuming an > aberrant unwritten intention. > Well, your interpretation is no better than mine. >> What makes a designation complete, BTW? > > What makes a word comple? > Good one, Tim. >> "The Queeeeeeeee, no the Ace". >> how far into the nasal "N" does one need to go before a designation >> becomes final, so (according to you) the card becomes played? > > Que(EEE)en with a gap after it. Not Queeee.....NO, or Queeno, quace or > anything else. As Eric has said the "could have know" law protects > declarer's RHO. > That point is well received. Indeed your alternative does not create extra problems. But please note that mine does not create any other ones either. OK? >> In my book, "the Que" univoquially designates one single rank. I >> don't care about partial designations. > > I care not whether you care. OK maybe the "Que" is easy for you in > Flemish/French/English but were we to include partial designations of > rank within the scope of 46b3 we would also have the "T..", "K/C", "F/V" > and other nightmares of distinction. In some cases we won't even know if > the start of a word was a partial designation of the suit or the rank. > I agree with that one - but then again, aren't those other problems? Who cares if someone starts "the A.." and you don't know yet if he means the eight or the ace - if next he tries to change it into the three? I'm quite willing to allow him to complete into A or 8 while refusing him to play the three instead. But I agree that this is not really important. And not relevant to the topic of the "ruff", since whatever your views on that one "ruff" is a complete designation. >> Besides which, Tim, I don't like that tone. > Strange, I considered my tone more patient than you deserved. > I quote: "If you cannot tell the difference between complete and partial designations then you shouldn't be making rulings." If that is patient, or even acceptable, then I don't know what is what anymore. Anyway, I did not like that. We are having a difference of opinion. An interesting one at that. That does not mean you should question my general abilities. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 16 14:10:27 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:10:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708151713h5fcc3a6dibd8bdd16b192bcae@mail.gmail.com> References: <46C36DFE.7040406@skynet.be> <000701c7df8c$102627e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2b1e598b0708151713h5fcc3a6dibd8bdd16b192bcae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 15, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 8/15/07, Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> Sven Pran wrote: >> ............... >>>> Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? >>>> THAT is the "subtle" difference. >>> >>> But that's the same thing! >>> You cannot ask yourself whether he wanted to do the one or the >>> other, >>> since both are (in his mind) the same thing. Of course he wanted to >>> ruff, but in order to do so, he wanted to play a diamond. It's no >>> use >>> trying to distinguish. >> >> When you do not even want to see the difference this discussion is >> (as I >> suspected) futile. > > Sven, it is difficult to see your point. It appears that you consider > it crucial to know whether declarer wanted to ruff and thinking that > diamonds were trump therefore played a diamond, or whether declarer > wanted to play a diamond for some other reason. You wrote, "Did he > want to play a diamond or did he want to ruff? THAT is the "subtle" > difference." Nobody has debated my earlier premise that we can translate "ruff" to "play a trump". So Sven's question is equivalent to, "Did he want to play a diamond or did he want to play a trump?" That's hardly a "subtle" difference when diamonds aren't trump. > But declarer's motive for selecting a card is irrelevant to > determining what card he selected under the law. The card he selected > is all that matters. Would your really have the director ask declarer > whether or not his choice of a diamond play was motivated by his > desire to ruff? Of course, but that has nothing to do with the original thread case. All declarer did in that case was direct dummy to "ruff" when it was stipulated that everyone at the table was aware that declarer, in 3NT, thought he was playing in 5D. Declarer never said the word "diamond" nor did he indicate a diamond (or any other card) in any (other?) way. The translation of "ruff" to "diamond" relies entirely on what declarer was thinking (I accept the premise that there is no question as to what that was), not on anything he did. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 16 14:14:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:14:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not__?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Aug 15, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > It is my unvarying practice to call for a ruff, whether playing at > trump or NT if they lead an ace at trick 1. If any defender > calls the director, he is going to have the cards torn up and > pushed down his nearest orifice, Nevertheless, if there is a trump suit and dummy is void of the suit led, I will rule that Tony has ruffed that ace whether he intended to or not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 16 14:38:26 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:38:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816100630.02a5acf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816100630.02a5acf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2007, at 4:12 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 07:55 15/08/2007 -0400, richard willey wrote: > >> 2D opening promises >> >> 6+ Diamonds >> Two of the top three honors >> Approximately 5 - 11 HCP >> >> Furthermore, a 2D opening denies >> >> a void >> a side 4 card major >> >> Would the WBF consider this 2D opening conventional? If not, what is >> the difference between this case and the conventional Precision 2C >> opening? > > In that the sense of your 2D opening is to be expected, while the > sense of > a Precision 2C can't. Nigel's excellent example of openings with a > hole in > their range (played by some Flemish pairs) can't either, and you > may add many : > - Dutch Two's > - StMand? 3C (once popular in France : clubs, similar to an Acol 2- > bid) > - Roman jump overcalls (the suit named + the suit above in cyclic > order, > excluding opponents') > - Forcing 2NT response (at least, it would be considered > conventional in > Europe) The degree to which the meaning of a call is "to be expected" affects (at least in most jurisdictions) its users' disclosure obligations, and may well be determinative as to whether it is alertable. But that has nothing to do with whether it is or is not a convention. By whatever definition we choose, a call with a particular meaning must be either conventional or not regardless of whether it is played by only one pair in the world or by everyone. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 15:03:00 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:03:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not___?= =?iso-8859-1?q?__=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> <46C2C645.80908@skynet.be> <200708160018.l7G0ISn0018066@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070816144931.02a45a30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:14 16/08/2007 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >On Aug 15, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > It is my unvarying practice to call for a ruff, whether playing at > > trump or NT if they lead an ace at trick 1. If any defender > > calls the director, he is going to have the cards torn up and > > pushed down his nearest orifice, Really ? Do you expect, after the irregular nomination, that defenders apply L46 themselves ? What about L9Ba ? (not to speak of L74A2 and A3) I always tell newcomers to tournaments to call the TD when *anything* irregular happens at the table. Don't you ? I might even, in rare cases, rule along L73D2. For example, after the bidding went 1C 1S X 3S etc., a player might interpret this as your being certain that partner had a void, which means you hold 4 spades (unexpectedly giving partner only 4). If he plays according to this, I'll listen at his claim that you deceived him. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 16 14:52:42 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:52:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C421A0.6040205@skynet.be> References: <000a01c7dfe2$ec806970$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C421A0.6040205@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The fact here is that declarer designated a non-existent card; > > No he did not! He designated a very specific card: the lowest of the > suit he thought was trumps! That is nonsense. Imagine being asked to sit in and turn dummy's cards, having been told that the contract is 3NT. According to Herman, when declarer says "play the lowest card of the suit I think is trumps" he will have "designated a very specific card". If that were so, you would be in no doubt as to which card you should play from dummy. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 16 15:00:06 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:00:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C421A0.6040205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7e005$5e6d7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > I am sorry if my position is not clear. I want to rule > > according to facts whenever possible, and not according > > to assumptions on what was in a player's mind (except when > > absolutely necessary like in laws 25A and 47C). > > > > That's all well and good, but you create a problem that way: > in 99% of the cases it will be possible to find out without > any doubt what was in his mind, but you refuse to accept that > as non-fact, because you fear you might rule wrongly in 1% of > the cases? This is not a basis on which to build interpretations! As long as a player has not revealed his thoughts those thoughts are irrelevant for a ruling (unless explicitly made relevant by the laws). Rulings shall be made on actions, not thoughts. > > The fact here is that declarer designated a non-existent card; > > No he did not! He designated a very specific card: the lowest of the > suit he thought was trumps! Unless he reveals which suit he possibly had in mind he has not designated any card in Dummy as it was no trumps there. And he cannot be forced to name the suit (if any) he thought was trumps; he is free to designate any legal card. The situation is exactly the same as a declarer asking for a spade when there are no spades in dummy. He may have thought of another suit or he may have thought that there was a spade in Dummy, it does not matter; he has called a card that is not in Dummy. In 99% of the cases, that card will be > precisely well known. Even if you don't accept this as fact (when does > the mind of a player become fact - when he utters it? Exactly. ), it is > something the layer will not dispute if you do rule based on it! Why not? > Now please understand my problem: The player tells you he said "ruff", > intending to play the D3, but they tell him he's playing in 3NT (or > even 4Sp). Do you allow him to play the H2 (or the S2!) instead? Of course I do - unless he told you that he intended to play the D3. Did he? > > Your argument that you don't know what "ruff" meant is not valid: the > declarer tells you he intended the D3! Did he? The report from the event as given to us includes no information to this effect. > Are you going to say "if > someone else says ruff, he may not admit to intending the D3, so I > will allow that declarer to change his card, and therefor you as > well". That strikes me as terribly odd. This entire sentence makes no sense to me. > > > there is no > > trump in NT contracts. Declarer did not ask for a diamond, he asked for > a > > trump, or rather for a ruff. If declarer had added words to the effect > that > > he indeed wanted a diamond then the picture of course would have been > > different, but without such "clarification" we simply have a misnomer > which > > IMHO must be handled under Law 46B4. > > > > Well, I tell you that the clarification is there. What clarification? I have not seen any such clarification made by the declarer. > Is your ruling > different then? > In fact, I believe that in 60% of such cases, the declarer will have > told the table what contract he thought he was playing. In another 30% > of cases, he will tell the TD when he arrives (it's terribly difficult > to say "I though I was playing in a trump contract"), and in another 9 > out of 10, he will honestly answer when the TD asks what he thought > was trumps. You are basing your interpretation on the other 1%. If declarer tells me (as Director) which suit he intended with his request for a "ruff" I shall rule that he has designated that suit. If not I shall not request him to elaborate on his misnomer but simply request him to play a legal card. > > > I have also tried to show that involving a player's "mind" when > determining > > what he has and has not played can lead to the most absurd situations. > > > > What absurd situations? > I am not talking about somebody saying diamonds when they mean hearts. > I am talking about a common case of a player saying trump or ruff when > he means diamonds. You cannot have it both ways, either you base your rulings upon the player's actions or you base your rulings on what he had in mind. If you base your rulings on what he had in mind you must also accept the player who said diamonds when he meant hearts. That is one of the absurd situations I had in my mind. I feel I have gone out of my way to comment still another time on this. I have noticed that you do not want to listen to other views than your own and recently even insulted some of us who have different opinions. I have wondered why some distinguished members of the bridge society seem to avoid blml and I fear that eventually blml shall be reduced to a forum for one lonely contributor only. I certainly hope it shall not come that far. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 16 15:03:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:03:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be> References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08BEA71C-FB16-4038-B09B-2C3956C45FDE@starpower.net> On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: >> Herman wrote: >> >>> "The Queeeeeeeee, no the Ace". >>> how far into the nasal "N" does one need to go before a designation >>> becomes final, so (according to you) the card becomes played? >> >> Que(EEE)en with a gap after it. Not Queeee.....NO, or Queeno, >> quace or >> anything else. As Eric has said the "could have know" law protects >> declarer's RHO. > > That point is well received. Indeed your alternative does not create > extra problems. But please note that mine does not create any other > ones either. OK? Tim's view creates no problems at all. Herman's view does create an "extra problem", in the form of an unnecessarily pissed-off declarer who was not permitted to play the card everyone knows he wanted to play, in a situation where there is no equity or potential advantage/ damage issue. Why create that problem when nobody gains by doing so? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mustikka at charter.net Thu Aug 16 15:52:37 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:52:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" (snipped much) [Herman DW wrote to Tim W-M] > whatever your views on that one "ruff" is a complete designation. I agree, as does everyone: "ruff" is a complete designation, meaning the same as "play the smallest trump". Also, everyone except Herman agrees that "ruff" is an invalid designation when the contract is No Trump. I am surprised to see this thread live so long... From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 16:20:57 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:20:57 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A__played_or_not__=3F?= References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 16/08/2007 11:21:01 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Fw: played or not ? Within the range expressed in Law 1, there is, it is the seven. of course if you count the King as 13 ... AG : allowing such denominations would create many problems, and doesn't do any good. Say dummy and RHO aren't very skilled in math (I have some names in mind), dummy reaches for the 9 from a holding of 976, and RHO, not knowing the 9 wasn't what declarer ordered, plays the 10 from 108. Now try sorting out the mess. What if I call "the fifth root of 16534" or "the number of my brothers" or the like ? Does RHO need to know which card they specify ? Where do you put the limit ? * IMOBO, there are three kinds of "denominations" (let aside, for a moment, voluntarily ambigous denominations like "do what you want", which are covered by a specific item of Law) : - correct denominations, height and suit ; this could include some variations (eg calling them in another language or dialect, or calling trump" when there is a trump suit). - partial denominations, of which there are three kinds, covered by L46B1-3, which tells us how they should be understood and which card should be played : ambigu?ty about rank when following suit, suit but not rank, rank but not suit. Note that calling "5 of trumps" when the contract is NT and there is only one 5 in dummy would arguably pertain to this category ; - wrong denominations, including neither a rank nor a suit, about which TFLB doesn't say what they mean, and doesn't compel the player to play any specific card. According to the TD's perception of the situation, those can be settled according to L46B4 or B5. That's what those two are for. Some other laws, like L74A2, A3, L73D2 may apply in specific cases. In the absurd cases mentioned under *, the TD would give me a penalty for spoiling the pleasure, or what is it ? Saying "small" when dummy is void of the suit played is a wrong denomination (none of the three categories above apply), as would saying "trump" when there are none, or "griffin", or sneezing. A well-known Belgian player and TD is called "the Queen of Spades" for non-bridge reasons. If, playing against him, I say to any of my regular partners "play LHO, please", he will understand it, but the Laws say I haven t played any card. Of course, I'm liable to several kinds of penalties, but that's another story. Whence the fact that one knows what card was asked doesn't mean it was legally asked and played. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070816/2700f581/attachment-0002.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/20070816/2700f581/attachment-0002.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/20070816/2700f581/attachment-0002.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 16:20:57 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:20:57 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A__played_or_not__=3F?= References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 16/08/2007 11:21:01 A : blml Sujet : Re: [blml] Rif. : Re: Fw: played or not ? Within the range expressed in Law 1, there is, it is the seven. of course if you count the King as 13 ... AG : allowing such denominations would create many problems, and doesn't do any good. Say dummy and RHO aren't very skilled in math (I have some names in mind), dummy reaches for the 9 from a holding of 976, and RHO, not knowing the 9 wasn't what declarer ordered, plays the 10 from 108. Now try sorting out the mess. What if I call "the fifth root of 16534" or "the number of my brothers" or the like ? Does RHO need to know which card they specify ? Where do you put the limit ? * IMOBO, there are three kinds of "denominations" (let aside, for a moment, voluntarily ambigous denominations like "do what you want", which are covered by a specific item of Law) : - correct denominations, height and suit ; this could include some variations (eg calling them in another language or dialect, or calling trump" when there is a trump suit). - partial denominations, of which there are three kinds, covered by L46B1-3, which tells us how they should be understood and which card should be played : ambigu?ty about rank when following suit, suit but not rank, rank but not suit. Note that calling "5 of trumps" when the contract is NT and there is only one 5 in dummy would arguably pertain to this category ; - wrong denominations, including neither a rank nor a suit, about which TFLB doesn't say what they mean, and doesn't compel the player to play any specific card. According to the TD's perception of the situation, those can be settled according to L46B4 or B5. That's what those two are for. Some other laws, like L74A2, A3, L73D2 may apply in specific cases. In the absurd cases mentioned under *, the TD would give me a penalty for spoiling the pleasure, or what is it ? Saying "small" when dummy is void of the suit played is a wrong denomination (none of the three categories above apply), as would saying "trump" when there are none, or "griffin", or sneezing. A well-known Belgian player and TD is called "the Queen of Spades" for non-bridge reasons. If, playing against him, I say to any of my regular partners "play LHO, please", he will understand it, but the Laws say I haven t played any card. Of course, I'm liable to several kinds of penalties, but that's another story. Whence the fact that one knows what card was asked doesn't mean it was legally asked and played. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070816/2700f581/attachment-0003.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/20070816/2700f581/attachment-0003.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/20070816/2700f581/attachment-0003.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 16:41:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:41:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <08BEA71C-FB16-4038-B09B-2C3956C45FDE@starpower.net> References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be> <08BEA71C-FB16-4038-B09B-2C3956C45FDE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46C46232.6070201@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> That point is well received. Indeed your alternative does not create >> extra problems. But please note that mine does not create any other >> ones either. OK? > > Tim's view creates no problems at all. Herman's view does create an > "extra problem", in the form of an unnecessarily pissed-off declarer > who was not permitted to play the card everyone knows he wanted to > play, in a situation where there is no equity or potential advantage/ > damage issue. Why create that problem when nobody gains by doing so? > Neither does the declarer who plays a card from hand (definition of the lawbook) and then wants to retract the played card. Nor does the player who says "one spade, oh no, one diamond" (in the sense of L25B). And yes, that second example is not as good as the first, but we're playing a serious game and once you've decided to stop thinking and start acting, that should be it and you should not be allowed to retract. But that is a philosophical question, not a legal one. I agree that there is no absolute need to rule that "the Qu" is a played card. But neither is there anything against so ruling (IMO). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 16:45:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:45:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c7dfe2$ec806970$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C421A0.6040205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C46315.7090206@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 16, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>> The fact here is that declarer designated a non-existent card; >> No he did not! He designated a very specific card: the lowest of the >> suit he thought was trumps! > > That is nonsense. Imagine being asked to sit in and turn dummy's > cards, having been told that the contract is 3NT. According to > Herman, when declarer says "play the lowest card of the suit I think > is trumps" he will have "designated a very specific card". If that > were so, you would be in no doubt as to which card you should play > from dummy. > No, that is not what I meant at all. When declarer states "ruff", a single card is designated. OK, some people may not yet know which one it is, but it is designated still. Take your same example: you are being asked to sit in to turn dummy's cards, but they don't inform you what the contract is. Now declarer says "ruff". You don't know which one it is, so by your previous argument the card is not designated? Yet three people at the table know quite well which one it is. I don't believe that it matters that some people don't (yet) know which is the designated card for that card to be designated. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 17:03:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:03:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be> <001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46C4675D.5000407@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > (snipped much) > > [Herman DW wrote to Tim W-M] > > whatever your views on that one "ruff" is a complete designation. > > I agree, as does everyone: "ruff" is a complete designation, meaning the > same as "play the smallest trump". > Also, everyone except Herman agrees that "ruff" is an invalid designation > when the contract is No Trump. > And what do you do with an invalid designation? And not everyone disagrees with me. > I am surprised to see this thread live so long... > So am I. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Thu Aug 16 17:18:17 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:18:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be><001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4675D.5000407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c7e018$aca61170$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Fw: played or not? > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> (snipped much) >> >> [Herman DW wrote to Tim W-M] >> > whatever your views on that one "ruff" is a complete designation. >> >> I agree, as does everyone: "ruff" is a complete designation, meaning the >> same as "play the smallest trump". >> Also, everyone except Herman agrees that "ruff" is an invalid designation >> when the contract is No Trump. >> > > And what do you do with an invalid designation? The invalid designation is ignored. TD asks declarer to give a valid designation. From adam at irvine.com Thu Aug 16 17:18:25 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:18:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:36:54 +1000." Message-ID: <200708161505.IAA17422@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard quoted: > Bart Bramley (ACBL casebook panellist) asserted: > > Note that East-West's acquiescence was an easy trap to fall > into. Declarer still had two trumps left at the time of the > claim. Thus, working out that normal defense could prevail > necessarily took extra time. With all due respect to Mr. Bramley, I think this is a pretty lame excuse. Certainly, if West had had A9xx of hearts and the declaring side had KQJ10 between the two hands, declarer's claim of losing just one heart trick is pretty obvious, and wouldn't require any extra thought. But the actual position, KQJx of hearts in dummy and West holding ATxx, is very different---how is declarer going to take care of the 10? Declarer didn't say. Plus, it should be clear that declarer goofed since he doesn't know that *East* didn't have ATxx; knowing this (that declarer was obviously being careless) should have made E-W look a little more closely anyway. In any case, I'm nowhere near the level of "international expert", but I don't think I would have fallen into this trap. The heart holding would have set off a small alarm in me, which would have caused me to look just a little more closely, which would have led me to wonder exactly how this was going to played, which would have led me to start looking a *lot* more closely and to realize that I would need to spend the extra time necessary to work out the position. (Most likely I'd just call the director before spending the extra time.) Maybe that's just me; once, at a Seattle NABC, I made a careless claim and my less-experienced opponents accepted it without much thought, and I realized a few boards later that I should not have claimed (although I would have made anyway on the actual lie, but there were several possible layouts where my claim could have failed)---and ever since then I have tended to be a lot more careful about claims, both mine and the opponents'. Even so, I still believe that it was a gross error for E-W to acquiesce to this particular claim, and I don't have much sympathy for them in their attempt to get their trick back later. -- Adam From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 17:47:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:47:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000001c7e005$5e6d7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e005$5e6d7b00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C4719B.6010002@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >>> I am sorry if my position is not clear. I want to rule >>> according to facts whenever possible, and not according >>> to assumptions on what was in a player's mind (except when >>> absolutely necessary like in laws 25A and 47C). >>> >> That's all well and good, but you create a problem that way: >> in 99% of the cases it will be possible to find out without >> any doubt what was in his mind, but you refuse to accept that >> as non-fact, because you fear you might rule wrongly in 1% of >> the cases? This is not a basis on which to build interpretations! > > As long as a player has not revealed his thoughts those thoughts are > irrelevant for a ruling (unless explicitly made relevant by the laws). > Rulings shall be made on actions, not thoughts. > But what I am saying is that 90% of the time the declarer will reveal his thoughts, and in an estimated 9% of the time he will ruthfully answer if you ask him. So what case are you talking of? >>> The fact here is that declarer designated a non-existent card; >> No he did not! He designated a very specific card: the lowest of the >> suit he thought was trumps! > > Unless he reveals which suit he possibly had in mind he has not designated > any card in Dummy as it was no trumps there. And he cannot be forced to name > the suit (if any) he thought was trumps; he is free to designate any legal > card. > Well, I doubt if he cannot be forced. But he can be asked, and he will answer truthfully all of the time. Anyway, I was not talking about a case where declarer did not reveal which suit he thought it was, but a case in which he DID reveal which suit he thought was trumps. So your sentence above means nothing - because it states only what you would do if he does not reveal it - well, what do you do if he reveals it? > The situation is exactly the same as a declarer asking for a spade when > there are no spades in dummy. He may have thought of another suit or he may > have thought that there was a spade in Dummy, it does not matter; he has > called a card that is not in Dummy. > No, that situation is _not_ at all the same. Your case is about a person who thinks he wants to play a spade (so he says spade), and there is no spade. My case is about a player who wants to play a diamond (so he says ruff) and there _IS_ a diamond. NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL! Do I make myself clear? > In 99% of the cases, that card will be >> precisely well known. Even if you don't accept this as fact (when does >> the mind of a player become fact - when he utters it? > > Exactly. > > ), it is >> something the layer will not dispute if you do rule based on it! > > Why not? > Because I tell you he won't. In 99% of the cases he won't dispute that he intended diamonds when he said "ruff". And in the 1 other percent he will say he intended hearts, and you let him play a heart. WTP? You would let him play a heart all the time! >> Now please understand my problem: The player tells you he said "ruff", >> intending to play the D3, but they tell him he's playing in 3NT (or >> even 4Sp). Do you allow him to play the H2 (or the S2!) instead? > > Of course I do - unless he told you that he intended to play the D3. Did he? > Yes, he did. I've said so all the time. From the beginning, the very first thread. >> Your argument that you don't know what "ruff" meant is not valid: the >> declarer tells you he intended the D3! > > Did he? The report from the event as given to us includes no information to > this effect. > There was no report, as this was not a real case. Anyway, imagine that you clearly establish that he intended diamonds as trumps. When he is told he's playing 3NT, he sees that throwing away one of the long diamonds will cost him a trick, so he wants to change his play to a heart. Will you let him? >> Are you going to say "if >> someone else says ruff, he may not admit to intending the D3, so I >> will allow that declarer to change his card, and therefor you as >> well". That strikes me as terribly odd. > > This entire sentence makes no sense to me. > That was what I thought you were going to rule. You would be before a declarer who has told that he thought he was playing 5Di and asking to change the diamond into a heart. Read the sentence again, it makes sense. >>> there is no >>> trump in NT contracts. Declarer did not ask for a diamond, he asked for >> a >>> trump, or rather for a ruff. If declarer had added words to the effect >> that >>> he indeed wanted a diamond then the picture of course would have been >>> different, but without such "clarification" we simply have a misnomer >> which >>> IMHO must be handled under Law 46B4. >>> >> Well, I tell you that the clarification is there. > > What clarification? I have not seen any such clarification made by the > declarer. > Well, in all the cases I've talked about 99% of declarers giving that clarification. Well, 90% giving it freely, and 9% giving it after being asked. Why do you insist on talking about a case that happens only 1% of cases that hardly ever happen in the first place? Do you have no sense of human mind? Don't you see that most people in this situation will automatically shout out "I thought I was in 5Di!". Don't you think that if I wanted to ask the question about a declarer refusing to tell what he thought trumps was, that I would have mentioned this. Need I really add everything? Haven't you noticed yet that I was assuming that he'd told? Come to think of it - is it really that important? If you tell him that he must play the suit he thought was trumps, he will do so (even if he is lying about which suit he thought was trumps). >> Is your ruling >> different then? >> In fact, I believe that in 60% of such cases, the declarer will have >> told the table what contract he thought he was playing. In another 30% >> of cases, he will tell the TD when he arrives (it's terribly difficult >> to say "I though I was playing in a trump contract"), and in another 9 >> out of 10, he will honestly answer when the TD asks what he thought >> was trumps. You are basing your interpretation on the other 1%. > > If declarer tells me (as Director) which suit he intended with his request > for a "ruff" I shall rule that he has designated that suit. If not I shall > not request him to elaborate on his misnomer but simply request him to play > a legal card. > See? We agree! >>> I have also tried to show that involving a player's "mind" when >> determining >>> what he has and has not played can lead to the most absurd situations. >>> >> What absurd situations? >> I am not talking about somebody saying diamonds when they mean hearts. >> I am talking about a common case of a player saying trump or ruff when >> he means diamonds. > > You cannot have it both ways, either you base your rulings upon the player's > actions or you base your rulings on what he had in mind. > Why not on both? Why should they be any different? > If you base your rulings on what he had in mind you must also accept the > player who said diamonds when he meant hearts. That is one of the absurd > situations I had in my mind. > yes, except that I don't see this happening. Except when speaking in a foreign language, a case which I have agreed to, and it's not so absurd. > I feel I have gone out of my way to comment still another time on this. I > have noticed that you do not want to listen to other views than your own and > recently even insulted some of us who have different opinions. I have > wondered why some distinguished members of the bridge society seem to avoid > blml and I fear that eventually blml shall be reduced to a forum for one > lonely contributor only. I certainly hope it shall not come that far. > Sven, you have just listened to me, and it turns out we have agreed on the important issue. I have never insulted people who have different opinions. I have (maybe) insulted people who repeat for the third time an argument I have debunked previously. I have no sympathy for people who say I call white things black, if that is their only justification for saying that they are right. Anyway, it takes two to tango. If people continue to argue against me, I shall continue to argue against them. > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 19:11:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:11:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <001101c7e018$aca61170$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be><001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4675D.5000407@skynet.be> <001101c7e018$aca61170$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46C4852B.30207@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Fw: played or not? > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>> (snipped much) >>> >>> [Herman DW wrote to Tim W-M] >>> > whatever your views on that one "ruff" is a complete designation. >>> >>> I agree, as does everyone: "ruff" is a complete designation, meaning the >>> same as "play the smallest trump". >>> Also, everyone except Herman agrees that "ruff" is an invalid designation >>> when the contract is No Trump. >>> >> And what do you do with an invalid designation? > > The invalid designation is ignored. TD asks declarer to give a valid > designation. > Sorry to be obtuse, but "why?" Law numbers please. And definition of "invalid". I happen to believe "ruff" is a valid designation. I sure as hell won't rule against it in a trump contract. Actually, what I'm asking is "how will you rule this case", and why. Because so far you've not stated anything else than "this is how I rule". And if you think that's unfair, then consider that I've been telling you all the time that I'll rule differently (and I've said why), so I won't accept your unfounded statement. Sorry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 16 19:14:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:14:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A__played_or_not__=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46C48600.7080808@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > A well-known Belgian player and TD is called "the Queen of Spades" for > non-bridge reasons. If, playing against him, I say to any of my regular > partners "play LHO, please", he will understand it, but the Laws say I > haven't played any card. Of course, I'm liable to several kinds of > penalties, but that's another story. > > Whence the fact that one knows what card was asked doesn't mean it was > legally asked and played. > ehm? So if I say "LHO, please, oh no, Club ace first", you will rule that differently than if I say "SQ, oh no, CA"? Surely that can't be right. Either "LHO" is a valid designation or it must be disallowed at all times. If it is accepted as a valid designation then it must stand as a played card. > Best regards, > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 16 19:43:27 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:43:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_Fw=3A_played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C4719B.6010002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c7e02c$f3e6a3b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > > Of course I do - unless he told you that he intended to play the D3. > > Did he? > > > > Yes, he did. I've said so all the time. From the beginning, the very > first thread. This is what you wrote in your very first post on this thread: "The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks he's playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called. Has the lowest diamond been played or not?" Since then you have had numerous invitations to clarify exactly what should make declarer's intention to play a diamond "incontrovertible" when he asked for a "ruff". As far as I can see (going back to the archived messages) you have carefully ignored every one of those invitations. Your statement above is the very first time I see anything to the effect that declarer actually stated his intention being to play a diamond when he asked for the "ruff". Even with such a statement after the commotion a ruling must depend on the circumstances in which the statement was made (and how), but I am not going to engage in any discussion around that theme. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Thu Aug 16 22:04:30 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:04:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be><001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4675D.5000407@skynet.be><001101c7e018$aca61170$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4852B.30207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c7e040$a88de9f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Fw: played or not? raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Fw: played or not? > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> >>> (snipped much) >>> >>> [Herman DW wrote to Tim W-M] >>> > whatever your views on that one "ruff" is a complete designation. >>> >>> I agree, as does everyone: "ruff" is a complete designation, meaning >>> the >>> same as "play the smallest trump". >>> Also, everyone except Herman agrees that "ruff" is an invalid >>> designation >>> when the contract is No Trump. >>> >> And what do you do with an invalid designation? > > The invalid designation is ignored. TD asks declarer to give a valid > designation. > Sorry to be obtuse, but "why?" Law numbers please. And definition of "invalid". I happen to believe "ruff" is a valid designation. I sure as hell won't rule against it in a trump contract. Actually, what I'm asking is "how will you rule this case", and why. Because so far you've not stated anything else than "this is how I rule". And if you think that's unfair, then consider that I've been telling you all the time that I'll rule differently (and I've said why), so I won't accept your unfounded statement. Sorry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium If I say "milk", is exactly as silly as when I say "ruff" in a NT contract. The silly one is ignored as invalid. You know the law number yourself that requires declarer to make a valid designation of a card to be played from dummy. This is my last contribution in this thread. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 01:37:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:37:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c7dfe5$4ce26a00$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >The part of L69B quoted by Richard is still present in my law book. > >An irrational action is something a player never does (unless he >has a momentary complete black-out); Richard Hills: Yes, it looks like Sven and I were arguing at cross-purposes, and we are really of one mind on this principle. My point is that a momentary complete black-out occurs with greater frequency during an acquiescence than during at-the-table play. Note that I was merely arguing a point of principle - in the specific case at the stem of this thread I join Sven in concurring with the Director's ruling (and I also join Sven in strongly objecting to the big bad Wolff's antics as Appeals Committee chair). ACBL casebook panellist Bobby Wolff asserted: "Even though the law is unfair (at least in this case), I have more patience for the written law that is applied in the event of a 'wooden' happening (revoke, lead out of turn etc.) However, should the Committee leave it at that? A thousand times, no! We need to be the beacons of Bridge Justice. Hallelujah! Will all mourners rise and get the laws changed?" ACBL casebook editor Rich Colker refuted: "An Appeals Committee Chairman's job is not to change the laws but rather to enforce them fairly and evenhandedly." 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 Aug 17 02:28:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:28:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] The moon's a balloon [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C4165F.5050206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael, sauce for the goose: >>Anyway, I did not like that. We are having a >>difference of opinion. >> >>An interesting one at that. >> >>That does not mean you should question my general >>abilities. Richard Hills asked: >>>Extreme jurisprudential theories ("black means >>>white") require substantial jurisprudential >>>support. What support does Herman have for his De >>>Wael School from that body which has the authority >>>to interpret the Lawbook? Has the WBF Laws >>>Committee agreed that black means white? Herman De Wael, sauce for the gander: >>Richard, your posts are beginning to lack any >>coherence whatsoever. [snip] >>In fact, I hope more and more posters see that >>Richard et.al. are not worthy of the attention we >>sometimes accord them. >> >>I am going to be more selective in who I answer to >>from now on. Please do not believe that means that >>I believe you have said anything sensible. Sven Pran, blml netiquette suggestion: >I have noticed that you do not want to listen to >other views than your own and recently even insulted >some of us who have different opinions. I have >wondered why some distinguished members of the >bridge society seem to avoid blml and I fear that >eventually blml shall be reduced to a forum for one >lonely contributor only. I certainly hope it shall >not come that far. Grattan Endicott concurred (13th June 2007): +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+ 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 Fri Aug 17 04:25:29 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:25:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again In-Reply-To: <200708162215.l7GMFHwT022651@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708162215.l7GMFHwT022651@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46C50719.2060303@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > I am not so sure that _denial_ of length and/or _denial_ of void in side > suit(s) makes a bid conventional. It does under a literal reading of the present definition: "...a meaning other than..." Of course, as I've written before, this makes virtually all opening bids in real bidding systems into conventions. (The WBFLC has issued a minute saying, in effect, "That's not what we meant.") While I can't prove it, I'm convinced that any definition of "convention" that is both unambiguous and excludes natural opening bids will have to define bids that show shortness in suits other than the one bid as non-conventional. (If anyone doubts me, I invite you to suggest a definition.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 17 04:27:25 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:27:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <200708152207.l7FM7rg7004516@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708152207.l7FM7rg7004516@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > The new behavior that Henk set up now seems the best way. How does one now send a reply only to the poster (without cutting and pasting)? Sorry, Henk, but I think the new behavior is worse. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 17 04:30:19 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:30:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... In-Reply-To: <200708161821.l7GILPgC005223@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708161821.l7GILPgC005223@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46C5083B.2010207@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > Even so, I still believe that it was a gross > error for E-W to acquiesce to this particular claim, and I don't have > much sympathy for them in their attempt to get their trick back > later. I'm afraid I have quite a different view. The point, though, is that authorities should follow the Laws as written, regardless of sympathy for one side or the other. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 05:26:56 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:26:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C50719.2060303@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >While I can't prove it, I'm convinced that any definition of >"convention" that is both unambiguous and excludes natural >opening bids will have to define bids that show shortness in >suits other than the one bid as non-conventional. (If anyone >doubts me, I invite you to suggest a definition.) Richard Hills: Easy. Try these unambiguous suggested definitions -> Natural - Not a "convention" (see below). Convention - Any partnership understanding that the sponsoring organisation defines as a "convention" is a "convention". For example, the ACBL "Marty Bergen convention" regulation of the 1980s. :-) 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 Aug 17 05:44:16 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:44:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Natural versus Convention, yet again In-Reply-To: <46C50719.2060303@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708162215.l7GMFHwT022651@cfa.harvard.edu> <46C50719.2060303@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46C51990.5030201@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] I am not so sure that _denial_ of length and/or _denial_ of void in side suit(s) makes a bid conventional. [Steve Willner] It does under a literal reading of the present definition: "...a meaning other than..." Of course, as I've written before, this makes virtually all opening bids in real bidding systems into conventions. (The WBFLC has issued a minute saying, in effect, "That's not what we meant.") While I can't prove it, I'm convinced that any definition of "convention" that is both unambiguous and excludes natural opening bids will have to define bids that show shortness in suits other than the one bid as non-conventional. (If anyone doubts me, I invite you to suggest a definition.) [nige1] I don't dare suggest a legal definition; but I feel that, in practice, players use the words *natural* *artificial* and *conventional* as follows... A *natural call* suggests a contract. i.e. If partner has a normal expectation in shape and strength, then, if your call is (i) pass, it suggests we stop bidding. (ii) double, it suggests we defend. (iii) notrump, it suggests we play in notrump. (iv) a suit, it suggests we play in that strain. *artificial* is almost the antonym of *natural* (the sets of artificial and natural bids are almost disjoint) i.e partner should rarely pass an artificial call. An artificial bid can occasionally be natural by accident. e.g To partner's Blackwood, you reply 5D to show one ace, but diamonds is the agreed trump suit and one ace is insufficient so partner passes. To understand the meaning of a *conventional call* you must be privy to a partnership agreement. Most bids, whether natural or artificial, may be conventional. 7NT and subsequent passes, doubles, and redoubles, are examples of calls that are likely to be natural -- although, even here, the double may be *Lightner*. The practical problem with an attempt at definition is that most bridge players regard as "natural" the methods to which they have grown accustomed. The feel natural and comfortable to them. In particular, system-mongers tend to imagine that they fight fair with armaments that are simple and natural whereas everybody else uses artificial poison gas. Many Acol players deceive themselves that cue-bids, trial-bids and the like are "natural". Remarkably, some players who open one club on a three-card suit have managed to delude themselves that the bid is "natural". Similarly, If I were a Pole, I'm sure I'd easily be able to convince myself that a strong pass is "natural". To arrive at a definition that anybody else can understand let alone agree is almost impossibe. Luckily, for legal purposes, there is *no need to try* to define such terms. For the purposes of disclosure, all the WBF need do is to define a system as *standard*; then mandate that you disclose departnures from the *standard system* The main disadvantage of this simple approach is that it would entail scrapping many laws and regulations; but it would mean that ordinary players had less to learn. The standard system would require less work to learn than all the current rules. And it would be an asset for beginners, pick-up partnerships, individual competitions, "n0-fear" competitions, international exhibition matches and so on. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 17 06:22:31 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:22:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... In-Reply-To: <46C5083B.2010207@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708161821.l7GILPgC005223@cfa.harvard.edu> <46C5083B.2010207@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46C52287.2040602@NTLworld.com> [Adam Beneschan] Even so, I still believe that it was a gross error for E-W to acquiesce to this particular claim, and I don't have much sympathy for them in their attempt to get their trick back later. [Steve Willner] I'm afraid I have quite a different view. The point, though, is that authorities should follow the Laws as written, regardless of sympathy for one side or the other. [nigel] Like Steve, I sympathise with the victims of the faulty claim. Their trust in declarer was misplaced but understandable. I also wholeheartedly agree with Steve that players and directors should follow the rules as written but IMO, it it almost impossible for directors to apply current rules fairly. For example, claims law, as currently interpreted, requires the director to assess the skills and intentions of the claimer. If the claim is defective, it is likely that when he made the claim, the claimer nodded off at the wheel or his brain not firing on all cylinders. Hence I agree with David Burn: In a context, where the claimer is disoriented (so that, say, he has even lost count of trumps) it seems mad to expect even a world-class player to choose the best line (a trump squeeze, say). Nevertheless, nowadays a director is allowed to "judge" that missing such a line would be irrational. If a director or committee member falls from grace and his ruling is biased in favour of a friend or compatriot then who can argue effectively with him? The rules are complex, ambiguous and allow enormous scope for judgement. If the result of a competiton depends on the fine tuning of L12C3 weights, it is unlikely that anybody will even remark on the outcome. The trend to sophisticated and subjective rules will subject directors to even more temptation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 08:52:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:52:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C52287.2040602@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>it is almost impossible for directors to >>apply current rules fairly. >> >>For example, claims law, as currently >>interpreted, requires the director to >>assess the skills and intentions of the >>claimer. Richard Hills: The contract is 7NT. After winning the first eleven tricks, declarer claims without making a statement. Dummy K2 --- --- --- LHO RHO Q JT Q --- --- --- --- --- Declarer A3 --- --- --- How would Nigel rule? If Nigel rules "contract made", then Nigel has assessed the skills and intentions of declarer, since declarer might crash the ace and king of spades (one off), or duck a spade (two off). It is draconianly "fair" to rule that all declarers are two off, which is the David Burn Death Penalty for claims. But such Death Penalty rulings do not achieve "equity", the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. Of course, if one assesses skills and intentions to allow the above claim, then the camel's nose has entered the tent. At some stage a Director has to assess that a faulty claim has taken a fork in the road that is a bridge too far. For example, take this claim from the ancient thread "The Red Queen's Race" -> Imps Dummy Dlr E 3 Vul NS 7 AJ862 AT9862 Pard Me K JT65 AQT982 653 KT4 973 KJ7 Q54 M.L.L.A.I. (1) AQ98742 KQJ4 5 3 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass 1S 2H 3C Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass The play was truncated: Ace of hearts; King of spades switch to the Ace; Queen of spades cashed. After that trick, declarer laid his hand on the table, noting that the only remaining tricks he would lose were to my JT of trumps. Declarer is one of the two best players in Canberra, and for him Most Losing Lines Are Irrational. (1) Even so, I decided to summon the TD, since I had noticed that the pip on declarer's Queen of hearts was a little bit too pointy. The TD unimaginatively ruled that 4S was now two off, giving us the additional tricks of the King of diamonds and the Queen of hearts. However, as TD, I would have ruled differently. Firstly, I would rule that it would be irrational for M.L.L.A.I. to mis-sort his cards. The fact that he had actually mis-sorted his cards I would rule irrelevant. This follows the Maastricht precedent where it was ruled irrelevant to the claim on a double squeeze, the inconvenient fact that declarer had actually mistimed his double squeeze. Secondly, I would rule that it would be irrational for declarer to fail in 4S by not taking the diamond finesse, ruffing out the diamonds, crossing to the Ace of clubs, and discarding the losing Jack of hearts on a good diamond. The fact that M.L.L.A.I. had not stated this only logical line of play in his claim was irrelevant, since given his class of player, he is never required to make a complete and comprehensive claim statement.: :-) (1) My friend Brian Thorp naturally wondered who is the second of Canberra's two best players. I responded with this apocryphal anecdote: "About half a century ago, 50 American experts were polled as to who the best American player was. The result was a 50-way tie for first place. But the 50 experts were unanimous in their opinions that Howard Schenken was the second-best American player." :-) 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 Aug 17 09:20:10 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:20:10 +0900 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200708170720.AA10225@geller204.nifty.com> >"About half a century ago, 50 American experts >were polled as to who the best American player >was. The result was a 50-way tie for first >place. But the 50 experts were unanimous in >their opinions that Howard Schenken was the >second-best American player." This must be a lie. I'm sure Schenken got ONE first place vote, and 49 second place votes. :-) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 17 10:17:47 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:17:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000301c7e040$a88de9f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be><001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4675D.5000407@skynet.be><001101c7e018$aca61170$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4852B.30207@skynet.be> <000301c7e040$a88de9f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46C559AB.5010203@skynet.be> Please don't post below the footers - it doesn't come through very well. raija wrote: If I say "milk", is exactly as silly as when I say "ruff" in a NT contract. Of course it is not - if you say milk, you mean nothing, if you say 'ruff', you mean diamond. That is perhaps silly, but not "as silly". So that argument says nothing. The silly one is ignored as invalid. You know the law number yourself that requires declarer to make a valid designation of a card to be played from dummy. Yes, I do know the number - but have you never said "ruff" before, and this was accepted? So that argument does not say anything either. This is my last contribution in this thread. Perfect example of the arrogance of the average blml-er. "I have stated" so that is that. I have not given arguments, or have given refuted arguments, but I refuse to listen to any counterarguments, because I could not possibly be wrong about something that I thought for 2 seconds about. Raija, you are on my kill-list. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:11 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Fw: played or not? > > > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:03 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Fw: played or not? >> >> >>> raija wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>> >>>> (snipped much) >>>> >>>> [Herman DW wrote to Tim W-M] >>>> > whatever your views on that one "ruff" is a complete designation. >>>> >>>> I agree, as does everyone: "ruff" is a complete designation, meaning >>>> the >>>> same as "play the smallest trump". >>>> Also, everyone except Herman agrees that "ruff" is an invalid >>>> designation >>>> when the contract is No Trump. >>>> >>> And what do you do with an invalid designation? >> The invalid designation is ignored. TD asks declarer to give a valid >> designation. >> > > Sorry to be obtuse, but "why?" > Law numbers please. > And definition of "invalid". I happen to believe "ruff" is a valid > designation. I sure as hell won't rule against it in a trump contract. > > Actually, what I'm asking is "how will you rule this case", and why. > Because so far you've not stated anything else than "this is how I rule". > And if you think that's unfair, then consider that I've been telling > you all the time that I'll rule differently (and I've said why), so I > won't accept your unfounded statement. Sorry. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 17 15:02:50 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:02:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Fw=3A__played_or_not=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46C559AB.5010203@skynet.be> References: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be><001501c7e00c$b4e78690$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4675D.5000407@skynet.be><001101c7e018$aca61170$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C4852B.30207@skynet.be> <000301c7e040$a88de9f0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C559AB.5010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5EDC6E58-9C6F-4C40-BFDF-C83CE937707B@starpower.net> On Aug 17, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Please don't post below the footers - it doesn't come through very > well. Better yet, delete the footers when posting a reply. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 17 16:33:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:33:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? Message-ID: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds in a NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on Law 45D: During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated length and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade contract. LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. Declarer says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in the played position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between Declarer and Dummy: Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." Question: Has Declarer now played a spade (trump) or a heart from Dummy? In my opinion there is no doubt that Declarer has played the small spade from Dummy, but I am interested to hear other opinions (preferably with reasons included). Note: There is no "hidden" information to be revealed later, all facts are presented. For the record: Had Declarer asked for a "small heart" instead of a "small trump" I would probably have held him to that call and not let him change it to a call for a small spade unless that change was requested immediately (Law 45C4b). Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 18:09:45 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:09:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708152207.l7FM7rg7004516@cfa.harvard.edu> <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708170909g66ca0050rc8a2341e8c6c782b@mail.gmail.com> [Steve:] > How does one now send a reply only to the poster (without cutting and > pasting)? It takes about five seconds to do the cut and paste, and missent posts should be much rarer. The old way, most or many of us had to cut and paste and delete and delete after pressing the nonintuitive "Reply to All", and *that* was good case when we remembered to do it all right, for otherwise we sent the post to the wrong destination. Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 17 18:25:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:25:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C5CC05.6040606@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds in a > NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on Law 45D: > > During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated length > and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade contract. > > LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. Declarer > says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in the played > position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between > Declarer and Dummy: > > Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" > Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." > Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." > > Question: Has Declarer now played a spade (trump) or a heart from Dummy? > You may not be surprised to learn that I believe he has played a heart. The word "trump" does not appear in the lawbook under L46 (neither does 'ruff') so it has to be interpreted in the way declarer intended it. He wanted to play a heart, he said something which he thought indicated a heart. He has played a heart. Moreover, if the lead were a small club, I would not let him play a high club from his hand, since he thought he was making the trick in dummy and there is UI which tells him that this is not so. > In my opinion there is no doubt that Declarer has played the small spade > from Dummy, but I am interested to hear other opinions (preferably with > reasons included). > In my opinion there is no doubt that Declarer has played the small heart from Dummy, but I am interested to hear other opinions (preferably with reasons included) (*) (*) I wrote this out in full - no cutting and pasting for me. > Note: There is no "hidden" information to be revealed later, all facts are > presented. > > For the record: Had Declarer asked for a "small heart" instead of a "small > trump" I would probably have held him to that call and not let him change it > to a call for a small spade unless that change was requested immediately > (Law 45C4b). > Why only "probably"? And how can such a change be made "immediately"? If he believes he's playing hearts, then he has played the small heart and it will be some time (probably when he decides to play the second trick from dummy) before he's corrected on that. Would you allow him to change the card from dummy from trick one, after already having lead (out of turn) to trick 2? > Regards Sven > PS: Considering you thought the other thread was finished, I don't see what difference this thread makes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 17 18:43:30 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt at t-online.de) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:43:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_45D_-_Was_card_misplayed_by_Dummy=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1IM4v4-0WbwcC0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Hi Sven, I'll give a quick answer and then retire, as I'm too old (or too young or ...) to stand that endless debates about ... about what ? TFLB, Definitions: "Trump Each card of the suit, if any, named in the contract" Law 46 B2: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated." As Spades is the suit named in the contract, it is indicated and designated apart from declarer's intend. Therefore the smallest spades has been played from dummy. Regards Peter > Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds > in a NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question > on Law 45D: > During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated > length and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade > contract. > > LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. > Declarer says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade > in the played position. Immediately the following conversation takes > place between Declarer and Dummy: > > Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" > Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." > Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." > Question: Has Declarer now played a spade (trump) or a heart from > Dummy? > In my opinion there is no doubt that Declarer has played the small > spade from Dummy, but I am interested to hear other opinions > (preferably with reasons included). > > Note: There is no "hidden" information to be revealed later, all facts > are presented. > > For the record: Had Declarer asked for a "small heart" instead of a > "small trump" I would probably have held him to that call and not let > him change it to a call for a small spade unless that change was > requested immediately (Law 45C4b). > > Regards Sven From mustikka at charter.net Fri Aug 17 19:08:21 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:08:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:33 AM Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds in > a > NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on Law > 45D: > > During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated > length > and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade contract. > > LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. Declarer > says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in the > played > position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between > Declarer and Dummy: > > Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" > Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." > Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." IMO this should be ruled the same way, whether Declarer's last comment was "Is it? Sorry.",, or "Oh dear, what was I thinking...", or, what Sven posted. The designation "ruff" or "trump" is clear, complete, and legal in a trump contract, meaning the smallest card in the suit that _is_ trump. That designation was used, therefore a small spade was played. Cheers, Raija From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 17 19:31:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:31:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C5CC05.6040606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c7e0f4$7349b1c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > PS: Considering you thought the other thread was finished, I don't see > what difference this thread makes. In this thread "trump" is a defined and unambiguous denomination independent from the native language used by the players. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 17 19:52:04 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:52:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <1IM4v4-0WbwcC0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000201c7e0f7$52b44bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of PeterEidt at t-online.de > Hi Sven, > > I'll give a quick answer and then retire, as I'm too old (or too > young or ...) to stand that endless debates about ... about what ? > > TFLB, Definitions: > "Trump > Each card of the suit, if any, named in the contract" Thanks Peter, I must admit I had forgotten that "trump" is explicitly defined in TFLB Definitions! I just took the understanding of "trump" for granted. Makes it even clearer doesn't it. Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 21:30:59 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:30:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000201c7e0f7$52b44bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <1IM4v4-0WbwcC0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <000201c7e0f7$52b44bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708171230n711fa99dm9070e0bff95c290@mail.gmail.com> Based on our current laws, I entirely agree with Herman. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 17 22:46:48 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:46:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means > diamonds in a > NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on > Law 45D: > > During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have > indicated length > and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade > contract. > > LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. > Declarer > says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in > the played > position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between > Declarer and Dummy: > > Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" > Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." > Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." > > Question: Has Declarer now played a spade (trump) or a heart from > Dummy? He has played a trump. This is where Herman's logical argument goes awry. Although declarer, when he called for a small trump, may have thought he was calling for a heart, it is clear that he did not "intend" to play a heart. He "intended" to play a trump, notwithstanding his confusion as to what color trumps were on this deal. > In my opinion there is no doubt that Declarer has played the small > spade > from Dummy, but I am interested to hear other opinions (preferably > with > reasons included). Because that's the card he called for. Do we really need to elaborate? OK... Because when there is a trump suit, calling "trump" is manifestly the same as calling the trump suit by name. "Small trump" (when dummy has one or more trumps) unambiguously designates both the suit and the rank of the called card, thus conforming to L46A. L45C4 applies directly. L46B is irrelevant. > Note: There is no "hidden" information to be revealed later, all > facts are > presented. > > For the record: Had Declarer asked for a "small heart" instead of a > "small > trump" I would probably have held him to that call and not let him > change it > to a call for a small spade unless that change was requested > immediately > (Law 45C4b). Of course you would. If declarer unambiguously designates a card that is in dummy, that's the card that gets played from dummy, subject to L45C4. Since I have maintained all along that "ruff" is to be treated as a synonym for "play a small trump", ISTM we are merely retreading ground already covered in the debate over Herman's confused declarer in NT. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 18 15:00:00 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:00:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708171230n711fa99dm9070e0bff95c290@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c7e197$b0011240$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Based on our current laws, I entirely agree with Herman. > > Jerry Fusselman I suppose that you (like me) had overlooked the chapter "Definitions" in TFLB. Look up "trump" there and you will find that this term (when playing in a trump contract) unambiguously defines the denomination exactly as if the player had used the applicable term "Spade", "Heart", "Diamond" or "Club". What might be going on in the mind of the player is completely irrelevant except if he makes a legal correction of an inadvertent designation as permitted in Law 45C4(b). Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 13:44:21 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:44:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e197$b0011240$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e197$b0011240$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C82D15.5090301@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman >> Based on our current laws, I entirely agree with Herman. >> >> Jerry Fusselman > > I suppose that you (like me) had overlooked the chapter "Definitions" in > TFLB. > > Look up "trump" there and you will find that this term (when playing in a > trump contract) unambiguously defines the denomination exactly as if the > player had used the applicable term "Spade", "Heart", "Diamond" or "Club". > > What might be going on in the mind of the player is completely irrelevant > except if he makes a legal correction of an inadvertent designation as > permitted in Law 45C4(b). > So from four declarers, all on the same (wrong) "wavelength": - you rule that a spade has been played from the one that says "trump"; - you rule that a heart has been played from the one that says "heart"; - you rule that a heart has been played from the one that says nothing, but points at the table in the general direction of the heart suit (needing clarification that he pointed a hearts because he believed them to be trumps); - you rule (actually, what?) from the one that says "ruff". All four declarers have the same intent, namely to play a heart which is what they believe to be trumps. Yet the one that says "trump" gets off with his mistake, simply because you find the word "trump" in the definitions? OK, suppose then you are directing in Barcelona, and the declarer uses the Catala' translation of "trump", but the only copy of the lawbooks available are the Castillian and the English versions (if I am mistaken and there is a Catalan translation, please find some other minority language to try this ruling on). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 13:46:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:46:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:33 AM > Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > > >> Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds in >> a >> NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on Law >> 45D: >> >> During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated >> length >> and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade contract. >> >> LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. Declarer >> says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in the >> played >> position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between >> Declarer and Dummy: >> >> Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" >> Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." >> Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." > > IMO this should be ruled the same way, whether Declarer's last comment was > "Is it? Sorry.",, or "Oh dear, what was I thinking...", or, what Sven > posted. > > The designation "ruff" or "trump" is clear, complete, and legal in a trump > contract, meaning the smallest card in the suit that _is_ trump. That > designation was used, therefore a small spade was played. > Even Sven has since tried to use the lawbook definition to prove that "trump" is clear, which makes "ruff unclear, of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 13:47:46 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:47:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C82DE2.6070200@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means >> diamonds in a >> NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on >> Law 45D: >> >> During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have >> indicated length >> and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade >> contract. >> >> LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. >> Declarer >> says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in >> the played >> position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between >> Declarer and Dummy: >> >> Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" >> Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." >> Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." >> >> Question: Has Declarer now played a spade (trump) or a heart from >> Dummy? > > He has played a trump. > > This is where Herman's logical argument goes awry. Although > declarer, when he called for a small trump, may have thought he was > calling for a heart, it is clear that he did not "intend" to play a > heart. He "intended" to play a trump, notwithstanding his confusion > as to what color trumps were on this deal. > Of course it is clear that he intended to play a heart. Ask him, he'll admit it. He also intended to "ruff", but with the wrong suit. Why should you let his one intent primate above his other, more basic intent. If there had been no-one sitting in dummy's seat, he'd have picked up the heart. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 19 15:08:18 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:08:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7e262$03350ff0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > Even Sven has since tried to use the lawbook definition to prove that > "trump" is clear, which makes "ruff unclear, of course. To "ruff" in a trump contract is a generally accepted and unambiguous synonym for attempting to win a trick with a (small) trump when void in the denomination led. There should be nothing unclear with that. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 19 15:12:45 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:12:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C82DE2.6070200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c7e262$a236a0f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > Of course it is clear that he intended to play a heart. Ask him, he'll > admit it. He also intended to "ruff", but with the wrong suit. Why > should you let his one intent primate above his other, more basic > intent. If there had been no-one sitting in dummy's seat, he'd have > picked up the heart. When a player's action is clear and unambiguous his intention only matters if he tries to correct his action as permitted in the relevant laws (L25A and L45C4b). But nowhere in the laws do we find that the player _must_ correct his inadvertent action, only that he _may_ do so. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 19 15:28:42 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:28:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C82D15.5090301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c7e264$dcac6100$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > So from four declarers, all on the same (wrong) "wavelength": > - you rule that a spade has been played from the one that says "trump"; Yes, of course. WTP? > - you rule that a heart has been played from the one that says "heart"; Yes, of course. WTP? > - you rule that a heart has been played from the one that says > nothing, but points at the table in the general direction of the heart > suit (needing clarification that he pointed a hearts because he > believed them to be trumps); If he clearly indicates hearts, then yes, of course. WTP? If there is any doubt where he actually points then he should be requested to clarify it. Again: WTP? > - you rule (actually, what?) from the one that says "ruff". To "ruff" in a trump contract is a generally accepted and unambiguous synonym for attempting to win a trick with a (small) trump when void in the denomination led. He has played a Spade of course. Still again: WTP? > > All four declarers have the same intent, namely to play a heart which > is what they believe to be trumps. If a player makes a clear designation of which card he plays his intention is of course irrelevant (except when Law 45C4(b) applies). > Yet the one that says "trump" gets > off with his mistake, simply because you find the word "trump" in the > definitions? Sure, of course. WTP? > OK, suppose then you are directing in Barcelona, and the declarer uses > the Catala' translation of "trump", but the only copy of the lawbooks > available are the Castillian and the English versions (if I am > mistaken and there is a Catalan translation, please find some other > minority language to try this ruling on). If I were to be directing in Barcelona (or anywhere else in the world) then English will have been declared as the official language of the event. If I were to assist the Director in an event anywhere in the world I would get clarified if the term used is the local translation of the English word "trump" or for that sake the verb "ruff". Frankly I do not see any point in this entire posting from you? Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 15:50:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:50:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e262$03350ff0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e262$03350ff0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C84AAE.7030805@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................ >> Even Sven has since tried to use the lawbook definition to prove that >> "trump" is clear, which makes "ruff unclear, of course. > > To "ruff" in a trump contract is a generally accepted and unambiguous > synonym for attempting to win a trick with a (small) trump when void in the > denomination led. > In the mind of the declarer, to "ruff" means to play the lowest of the suit that declarer thinks is trumps. To him, there is nothing unclear to that. So you cannot say it is an unambiguous synonym, when it means two different things to two different people. > There should be nothing unclear with that. > Well, there is something unclear, and no matter how often you try to say that there is only one possibility, I will continue to argue that there are two possibilities. So this case is far from simple, and your assertion that it is simple means that you have not thought it through. I have thought it through, starting from both possibilities, and I have made my choice. if you think it through from two possibilities, you may reach the same conclusion. But if you continue to wear blinkers, there is nothing we can do. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 16:47:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:47:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000101c7e262$a236a0f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c7e262$a236a0f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C857EC.5060101@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................ >> Of course it is clear that he intended to play a heart. Ask him, he'll >> admit it. He also intended to "ruff", but with the wrong suit. Why >> should you let his one intent primate above his other, more basic >> intent. If there had been no-one sitting in dummy's seat, he'd have >> picked up the heart. > > When a player's action is clear and unambiguous But his action is not clear and unambiguous. He used a non-standard word to denote a suit. He intended one suit, his word indicated another. So his action is not clear. Or if it is clear, then there are two things clear - he intended hearts and he indicated spades. Nothing clear about it. > his intention only matters > if he tries to correct his action as permitted in the relevant laws (L25A > and L45C4b). But nowhere in the laws do we find that the player _must_ > correct his inadvertent action, only that he _may_ do so. > irrelevant since your conditional phrase is not true (IMO). > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 19 17:52:34 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:52:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C857EC.5060101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c7e278$f56be3f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................. > > When a player's action is clear and unambiguous > > But his action is not clear and unambiguous. He used a non-standard > word to denote a suit. He intended one suit, his word indicated > another. So his action is not clear. > Or if it is clear, then there are two things clear - he intended > hearts and he indicated spades. Nothing clear about it. I must assume that you are the only person in the world playing bridge for which there is anything unclear about a player saying "ruff" or calling for a "trump" (or even using the corresponding words in his own native language) that he expresses a desire to play a "trump" as defined in the laws definition on this term. And because of this definition there is not even anything non-standard about using the word "trump" (except when playing in NT) to designate a denomination. Even when a player's original intention is incontrovertibly different from what he has expressed so that he is eligible for the privilege to correct his mistake Laws 45C4(b) and 25A only use the word _may_ to allow him that privilege. I am sure you, as a qualified director, are fully aware that this word _may_ used like that in the laws means that even when a player's different original intention is incontrovertible he is still allowed to let his possibly inadvertent designation or call stand without change if he so prefers? And as always when a player has choices, he has the right to delay his decision until the Director has fully explained all his alternatives. I really do not understand your objective in keeping on with your arguments as you do unless it simply is for some dirty old-fashioned harassment? If you continue to keep on I should appreciate a clarification on this question first of all. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Sun Aug 19 18:19:08 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:19:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP><000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c7e27c$ac2582b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:33 AM >> Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? >> >> >>> Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds >>> in >>> a >>> NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on Law >>> 45D: >>> >>> During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated >>> length >>> and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade contract. >>> >>> LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. Declarer >>> says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in the >>> played >>> position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between >>> Declarer and Dummy: >>> >>> Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" >>> Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." >>> Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." >> >> IMO this should be ruled the same way, whether Declarer's last comment >> was >> "Is it? Sorry.",, or "Oh dear, what was I thinking...", or, what Sven >> posted. >> >> The designation "ruff" or "trump" is clear, complete, and legal in a >> trump >> contract, meaning the smallest card in the suit that _is_ trump. That >> designation was used, therefore a small spade was played. >> > > Even Sven has since tried to use the lawbook definition to prove that > "trump" is clear, which makes "ruff unclear, of course. > > -- No proof needed, everyone (except you, apparently) knows that "ruff" means "play the smallest trump". Nothing unclear about that. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 18:43:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:43:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000201c7e264$dcac6100$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c7e264$dcac6100$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C87325.1000802@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> So from four declarers, all on the same (wrong) "wavelength": >> - you rule that a spade has been played from the one that says "trump"; > > Yes, of course. WTP? > >> - you rule that a heart has been played from the one that says "heart"; > > Yes, of course. WTP? > >> - you rule that a heart has been played from the one that says >> nothing, but points at the table in the general direction of the heart >> suit (needing clarification that he pointed a hearts because he >> believed them to be trumps); > > If he clearly indicates hearts, then yes, of course. WTP? > > If there is any doubt where he actually points then he should be requested > to clarify it. Again: WTP? > >> - you rule (actually, what?) from the one that says "ruff". > > To "ruff" in a trump contract is a generally accepted and unambiguous > synonym for attempting to win a trick with a (small) trump when void in the > denomination led. He has played a Spade of course. Still again: WTP? > >> All four declarers have the same intent, namely to play a heart which >> is what they believe to be trumps. > > If a player makes a clear designation of which card he plays his intention > is of course irrelevant (except when Law 45C4(b) applies). > >> Yet the one that says "trump" gets >> off with his mistake, simply because you find the word "trump" in the >> definitions? > > Sure, of course. WTP? > >> OK, suppose then you are directing in Barcelona, and the declarer uses >> the Catala' translation of "trump", but the only copy of the lawbooks >> available are the Castillian and the English versions (if I am >> mistaken and there is a Catalan translation, please find some other >> minority language to try this ruling on). > > If I were to be directing in Barcelona (or anywhere else in the world) then > English will have been declared as the official language of the event. > > If I were to assist the Director in an event anywhere in the world I would > get clarified if the term used is the local translation of the English word > "trump" or for that sake the verb "ruff". > > Frankly I do not see any point in this entire posting from you? > The point is that your ruling is different according to the words the declarer uses, even if his intention in all cases is exactly the same. That does not strike you as odd? And it does not strike you as possible that another interpretation might exist in which all these cases will be ruled the same? And you would not consider that interpretation to be superior? Strange. Please continue to be misguided. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Aug 19 19:45:42 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:45:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000201c7e264$dcac6100$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C87325.1000802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004a01c7e288$c4a5ac50$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > > The point is that your ruling is different according to the words the > declarer uses, even if his intention in all cases is exactly the same. > That does not strike you as odd? > And it does not strike you as possible that another interpretation > might exist in which all these cases will be ruled the same? > And you would not consider that interpretation to be superior? > > Strange. > > Please continue to be misguided. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > Exactly. You've finally seen it, although you don't get it yet. The ruling is based on the card designated by the player's words or actions, not by whatever thoughts happen to be flitting about in his head. Intention has absolutely nothing to do with any of these rulings. The FLB is silent on what Declarer intended when he designates a card (insert usual disclaimer about Law 45C4(b) here.) The Laws are framed in terms of what Declarer said or did ("otherwise designates" in 45C4(a) covers pointing). Sometimes this might work to Declarer's advantage (the phrase "trump" gets a correct card designated, while an exact naming of a card that Declarer thinks is trump (but actually is not) gets a wrong card played. That's the breaks of the game. It's up to the lawmakers to fix this, if they even think it's a problem. Nothing odd about it. Declarer may have had the same intent in both cases, but L45 is not about intent, except in one and only one place. Herman, if the lawmakers had intended that Declarer's intent had any relevance to the designation of a card, the Laws would say so (and do so in the one place where it does matter). This is probably my first post in over 10 years. I've been off the list, and recently rejoined (I should probably talk to a therapist about that). Nothing's changed, except some faces. A thread that should take about three posts goes on interminably when TFLB is completely clear on the topic. I can see a debate about the wisdom of the laws failing to take Declarer's intent into account (personally I think it's a good thing whenever the Laws do not try to get into a player's head, but I can see why others might think differently), but these rulings are crystal clear under the Laws as they are currently written. Creative "interpretation" of the Laws, on the other hand, is a serious problem. A simple ruling out of TFLB should be the same anywhere in the world. When experienced Directors "interpret", rather than simply read TFLB and rule accordingly, why call it a Law Book? Maybe we should call it a book of "suggestions" instead. Hirsch Davis Rockville MD From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Aug 19 19:54:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: Fw: played or not? In-Reply-To: <46C43B84.3020807@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Well, your interpretation is no better than mine. It is better in the sense that it uses the words in the lawbook without distortion. If the laws said "identify a rank" or "indicate a rank" there might be some reason to suspect that a partial should be accepted. "Designates" is a more specific word. It would be necessary for the laws to contain references to partial designations of rank/suit before your suggested meaning could be linguistically correct. > I agree with that one - but then again, aren't those other > problems? Who cares if someone starts "the A.." and you don't know > yet if he means the eight or the ace - if next he tries to change > it into the three? I'm quite willing to allow him to complete into > A or 8 while refusing him to play the three instead. Under what law? Maybe he was saying "The.." (queen) "..A.." (small one) "..Ten". It really doesn't matter though. Unless a rank has been fully designated we shouldn't be using 46b3. > > But I agree that this is not really important. And not relevant to > the topic of the "ruff", since whatever your views on that one > "ruff" is a complete designation. Yes "ruff" is a complete designation. It means play dummy's smallest trump. On being informed that dummy is bereft of trumps declarer will choose another card. From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 19 20:53:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:53:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C87325.1000802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c7e292$47d6cab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Frankly I do not see any point in this entire posting from you? > > > > The point is that your ruling is different according to the words the > declarer uses, even if his intention in all cases is exactly the same. Of course I must rule according to the words the player uses. At this time his possible intention is irrelevant except for clarification when he has made an incomplete or ambiguous statement. (And the words "trump" and "ruff" are not ambiguous in trump contracts.) But then, if he claims an inadvertent error, I must judge whether or not law 25A or Law 45C4(b) (whichever can be relevant) applies and then rule accordingly. > That does not strike you as odd? No, why should it? The laws leave no options here. > And it does not strike you as possible that another interpretation > might exist in which all these cases will be ruled the same? > And you would not consider that interpretation to be superior? > > Strange. > > Please continue to be misguided. I think it is time for you to point out precisely which law(s) allow the Director to disregard a player's unambiguous statement and rule according to the Director's impression on what was the player's intention rather than what he said or did. You should also include a reference to the law that the Director can use to force a player to play according to his alleged original intention rather than the play he verbally requested by using the word "trump" or "ruff" And please do not again argue that the words "trump" and "ruff" are ambiguous in trump contracts. That may be your understanding, but I bet that you will have great difficulty finding much support. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 21:38:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:38:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <004a01c7e288$c4a5ac50$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000201c7e264$dcac6100$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C87325.1000802@skynet.be> <004a01c7e288$c4a5ac50$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <46C89C53.8040000@skynet.be> Hello Hirsh, and welcome back. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Exactly. You've finally seen it, although you don't get it yet. The ruling > is based on the card designated by the player's words or actions, not by > whatever thoughts happen to be flitting about in his head. > You read that in the laws, I don't. > Intention has absolutely nothing to do with any of these rulings. The FLB is > silent on what Declarer intended when he designates a card (insert usual > disclaimer about Law 45C4(b) here.) The Laws are framed in terms of what > Declarer said or did ("otherwise designates" in 45C4(a) covers pointing). > Intention has everything to do with it - when the words are not the ones the lawbook uses. Sven refuses to see that a card has been designated when declarer says "ruff" in a no-trump contract, but he gladly rules that a spade has been played when declarer says "schnitzel" (a word one of my partners used when indicating he wanted to ruff). > Sometimes this might work to Declarer's advantage (the phrase "trump" gets a > correct card designated, while an exact naming of a card that Declarer > thinks is trump (but actually is not) gets a wrong card played. Well, I think the words "correct" and "wrong" should not be used here. I believe the right card is the one declarer intends. Maybe "advantageous" and "disadvantageous" would be better - but your meaning stays the same. Which begs the question - if player is wrong in his mind, why should he be allowed to get away with the "advantageous" card? > That's the > breaks of the game. It's up to the lawmakers to fix this, if they even think > it's a problem. Nothing odd about it. Declarer may have had the same intent > in both cases, but L45 is not about intent, except in one and only one > place. > > Herman, if the lawmakers had intended that Declarer's intent had any > relevance to the designation of a card, the Laws would say so (and do so in > the one place where it does matter). > Hirsh, if the lawmakers had intended "ruff" to mean, "play the trump suit", the Laws would say so. > This is probably my first post in over 10 years. I've been off the list, > and recently rejoined (I should probably talk to a therapist about that). > Nothing's changed, except some faces. A thread that should take about three > posts goes on interminably when TFLB is completely clear on the topic. I can > see a debate about the wisdom of the laws failing to take Declarer's intent > into account (personally I think it's a good thing whenever the Laws do not > try to get into a player's head, but I can see why others might think > differently), but these rulings are crystal clear under the Laws as they are > currently written. > Well, I know I am not alone in thinking my view is the correct one, hence the laws are not perfectly clear. And as to the 3 posts - who decides who gets the third and final post? > Creative "interpretation" of the Laws, on the other hand, is a serious > problem. A simple ruling out of TFLB should be the same anywhere in the > world. When experienced Directors "interpret", rather than simply read TFLB > and rule accordingly, why call it a Law Book? Maybe we should call it a > book of "suggestions" instead. > "simple ruling out of TFLB" - indeed > Hirsch Davis > Rockville MD > PS: I noticed Ton was amused when this thread started - yet he did not comment - maybe now is the time, Ton? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 21:52:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:52:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000801c7e292$47d6cab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c7e292$47d6cab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C89F72.2000301@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I think it is time for you to point out precisely which law(s) allow the > Director to disregard a player's unambiguous statement and rule according to > the Director's impression on what was the player's intention rather than > what he said or did. > I shall not answer with the simple retort - maybe you should point out the law that says that saying "ruff" means you get to play the true trump suit. I believe we should start with L46A. That one is certainly broken, as declarer did not mention one of the four suits - OK? So we go to L46B. Incomplete is not a real problem, since we agree L46B2 applies to the rank bit of the card. But what about the suit? L46 does not handle this!!!!! Please remember this when stating that this is a simple book ruling. Nowhere does it say that if declarer calls for a ruff, the (real) trump suit is designated. So what is left is the wording of L46B2. If declarer designates a suit. Designates - not names. Indeed we need designates because of all the different ways we know of telling that diamonds is the suit to be played. But how can we know which suit is "designated" by a particular word except by looking in the mind of declarer? So if a declarer calls for a "ruiten", we need to know in which language he's speaking (dutch) and then we can translate. Similarly, if he calls for "trumps" we need to know what he thinks is trumps, before we can "translate". I realize that this last bit is not necessarily true - we can translate his word or his mind, but I see nowhere in the laws that the literal translation must be preferred. And if there are two possible interpretations, I prefer the one that is least advantageous to the person at fault. Look at it this way. You are called at the table where the following has just happened. -"tu coupes" (they're speaking french) -dummy takes a spade -"no, I said ruff!" -"well, so?" -"with a diamond, not a spade, silly" -"you're the silly one, we're playing 4Sp, not 5Di!" -"Director" You have to rule if a diamond or a spade is played. If you rule that it was a diamond, declarer will apologize to his partner, and accept the ruling. He wanted to play a diamond, and he did. But if you rule that a spade is played, you'll have to explain to the opponents why they should not get a trick from a declarer who was obviously mistaken. > You should also include a reference to the law that the Director can use to > force a player to play according to his alleged original intention rather > than the play he verbally requested by using the word "trump" or "ruff" > Well, maybe you can try to explain the law number that translates "tu coupes" into "spades", especially when the speaker intended diamonds. > And please do not again argue that the words "trump" and "ruff" are > ambiguous in trump contracts. That may be your understanding, but I bet that > you will have great difficulty finding much support. > Sorry, but they are ambiguous! Declarer thinks they mean diamonds, four other people think they mean spades. That is ambiguous enough for me. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 21:53:38 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:53:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <001701c7e27c$ac2582b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP><000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be> <001701c7e27c$ac2582b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46C89FC2.1010202@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 4:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Sven Pran" >>> To: "blml" >>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:33 AM >>> Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? >>> >>> >>>> Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds >>>> in >>>> a >>>> NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on Law >>>> 45D: >>>> >>>> During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated >>>> length >>>> and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade contract. >>>> >>>> LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. Declarer >>>> says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in the >>>> played >>>> position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between >>>> Declarer and Dummy: >>>> >>>> Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" >>>> Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." >>>> Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." >>> IMO this should be ruled the same way, whether Declarer's last comment >>> was >>> "Is it? Sorry.",, or "Oh dear, what was I thinking...", or, what Sven >>> posted. >>> >>> The designation "ruff" or "trump" is clear, complete, and legal in a >>> trump >>> contract, meaning the smallest card in the suit that _is_ trump. That >>> designation was used, therefore a small spade was played. >>> >> Even Sven has since tried to use the lawbook definition to prove that >> "trump" is clear, which makes "ruff unclear, of course. >> >> -- > No proof needed, everyone (except you, apparently) knows that "ruff" means > "play the smallest trump". Nothing unclear about that. > Me, and about eight posters who have stated they believe I'm right. But no-one is as patient as me with a few hardheads who allow people off the hook. Please assist me in saying what you think. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 19 21:54:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:54:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000501c7e278$f56be3f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c7e278$f56be3f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C8A003.1030500@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .................. >>> When a player's action is clear and unambiguous >> But his action is not clear and unambiguous. He used a non-standard >> word to denote a suit. He intended one suit, his word indicated >> another. So his action is not clear. >> Or if it is clear, then there are two things clear - he intended >> hearts and he indicated spades. Nothing clear about it. > > I must assume that you are the only person in the world playing bridge for > which there is anything unclear about a player saying "ruff" or calling for > a "trump" (or even using the corresponding words in his own native language) > that he expresses a desire to play a "trump" as defined in the laws > definition on this term. Well, apparently this declarer also thought "ruff" meant "play a diamond". He told you so. But of course, you prefer to disregard the wishes of the player at fault. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 00:03:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:03:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C89F72.2000301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c7e2ac$b8869af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > I think it is time for you to point out precisely which law(s) allow > > the Director to disregard a player's unambiguous statement and rule > > according to the Director's impression on what was the player's > > intention rather than what he said or did. > > > > I shall not answer with the simple retort - maybe you should point out > the law that says that saying "ruff" means you get to play the true > trump suit. I have never stated that the word "ruff" is used anywhere in the laws, I have stated, and still do, that the word "ruff" has (in fact since before the days of Duplicate Contract Bridge) been a universally recognized alias for attempting to win a trick with a trump when the player is void in the suit led. As such it is an unambiguous designation of playing a card in the suit (if any) that is named in the contract. > I believe we should start with L46A. That one is certainly broken, as > declarer did not mention one of the four suits - OK? Law 46A does not require the player to mention one of the four suits, it says: "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card" And in "Definitions" we find: "Trump - Each card of the suit, if any, named in the contract." So when declarer calls for a trump from dummy in a trump contract he has definitely not broken Law 46A by using any incorrect term for the denomination. And when instead he asks for a "ruff" he has although using an incorrect term for the denomination left absolutely no reason for doubt that the denomination he calls is that of a trump. At this stage we have a situation where the denomination called by declarer is unambiguously designated from his words, so what is left for Law 46B is which trump if more than one available shall be played. I have struggled through the rest of you note and have taken the liberty to save space by erasing most of it without further comments as you have made yourself dependent on the single filing argument that declarer has not correctly designated the denomination with his call for a card from Dummy. ......... Leaving only this: > > And please do not again argue that the words "trump" and "ruff" are > > ambiguous in trump contracts. That may be your understanding, but I bet > > that you will have great difficulty finding much support. > > > > Sorry, but they are ambiguous! Declarer thinks they mean diamonds, > four other people think they mean spades. That is ambiguous enough for me. It seems I have to quote from my Oxford dictionary: "Ambiguous - having two or more possible meanings; uncertain." The fact that one person makes a mistake on which denomination is named in his current contract does not make the word "trump" as such ambiguous; it still by definition refers to the denomination named in the contract and nothing else. And the fact that the word "ruff" is not mentioned anywhere in the laws does not make this word ambiguous; it still by tradition refers to attempting to win with a trump a trick in a suit where the player is void and nothing else. All this is elementary to most of us; I am surprised that it is not to you. Or are you just harassing? You never answered my question on what is your objective with all this. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Mon Aug 20 00:05:48 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:05:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP><000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be><001701c7e27c$ac2582b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C89FC2.1010202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c7e2ad$197731d0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 4:46 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? >> >> >>> raija wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Sven Pran" >>>> To: "blml" >>>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:33 AM >>>> Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Following the long discussion on whether or not "trump" means diamonds >>>>> in >>>>> a >>>>> NT contract, a discussion I consider finished, I have a question on >>>>> Law >>>>> 45D: >>>>> >>>>> During the auction both (presumed) Declarer and Dummy have indicated >>>>> length >>>>> and strength in both majors and they have ended up in a spade >>>>> contract. >>>>> >>>>> LHO leads the Ace of clubs, a denomination where Dummy is void. >>>>> Declarer >>>>> says "small trump please" and Dummy places his smallest spade in the >>>>> played >>>>> position. Immediately the following conversation takes place between >>>>> Declarer and Dummy: >>>>> >>>>> Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" >>>>> Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." >>>>> Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." >>>> IMO this should be ruled the same way, whether Declarer's last comment >>>> was >>>> "Is it? Sorry.",, or "Oh dear, what was I thinking...", or, what Sven >>>> posted. >>>> >>>> The designation "ruff" or "trump" is clear, complete, and legal in a >>>> trump >>>> contract, meaning the smallest card in the suit that _is_ trump. That >>>> designation was used, therefore a small spade was played. >>>> >>> Even Sven has since tried to use the lawbook definition to prove that >>> "trump" is clear, which makes "ruff unclear, of course. >>> >>> -- >> No proof needed, everyone (except you, apparently) knows that "ruff" >> means >> "play the smallest trump". Nothing unclear about that. >> > > Me, and about eight posters who have stated they believe I'm right. > But no-one is as patient as me with a few hardheads who allow people > off the hook. Please assist me in saying what you think. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. "Ruff" is a clear designation of a card to be played. The smallest card of whatever suit *is* trump, is the card designated. If there is no trump (because dummy is void in trump, or because the contract is NT) then declarer must make a valid designation. I don't know who the eight posters are that you mention. They must have emailed you directly. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 20 00:55:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:55:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Australia uses written bidding.(Law 80E). An Aussie player intends to open a Multi 2D, thinking that they hold a weak two in hearts. They start writing "2D" on the bidding pad, but have only completed the "2" before they notice an extra ace in their hand - they hold 13 hcp, not 9 hcp. Does a partial designation of a bid mean that the bid must be completed in accordance with the opener's original intention? Or is a partial designation of a bid not a bid as such, merely UI to partner and AI 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 20 01:12:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:12:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C8CE5D.2080208@NTLworld.com> [nigel snipped] It is almost impossible for directors to apply current rules fairly. For example, claims law, as currently interpreted, requires the director to assess the skills and intentions of the claimer. [Richard Hills] The contract is 7NT. After winning the first eleven tricks, declarer claims without making a statement. Dummy K2 --- --- --- LHO RHO Q JT Q --- --- --- --- --- Declarer A3 --- --- --- How would Nigel rule? If Nigel rules "contract made", then Nigel has assessed the skills and intentions of declarer, since declarer might crash the ace and king of spades (one off), or duck a spade (two off). It is draconianly "fair" to rule that all declarers are two off, which is the David Burn Death Penalty for claims. But such Death Penalty rulings do not achieve "equity", the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. [nige1] I beleive that David Burn would happily allow that claim. Of course basic skills assumed when considerig claims should be specified in the current laws but they should obviously include cashing winners from the top down and avoiding simple blocking positions. [Richard Hills] Of course, if one assesses skills and intentions to allow the above claim, then the camel's nose has entered the tent. At some stage a Director has to assess that a faultyclaim has taken a fork in the road that is a bridge too far. For example, take this claim from the ancient thread "The Red Queen's Race" -> Imps Dummy Dlr E 3 Vul NS 7 AJ862 AT9862 Pard Me K JT65 AQT982 653 KT4 973 KJ7 Q54 M.L.L.A.I. (1) AQ98742 KQJ4 5 3 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- Pass 1S 2H 3C Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass The play was truncated: Ace of hearts; King ofspades switch to the Ace; Queen of spades cashed. After that trick, declarer laid his hand on the table, noting that the only remaining tricks he would lose were to my JT of trumps. Declarer is one of the two best players in Canberra, and for him Most Losing Lines Are Irrational. (1) Even so, I decided to summon the TD, since I had noticed that the pip on declarer's Queen of hearts was a little bit too pointy. The TD unimaginatively ruled that 4S was now two off, giving us the additional tricks of the King of diamonds and the Queen of hearts. However, as TD, I would have ruled differently. Firstly, I would rule that it would be irrational for M.L.L.A.I. to mis-sort his cards. The fact that he had actually mis-sorted his cards I would rule irrelevant. This follows the Maastricht precedent where it was ruled irrelevant to the claim on a double squeeze, the inconvenient fact that declarer had actually mistimed his double squeeze. Secondly, I would rule that it would be irrational for declarer to fail in 4S by not taking the diamond finesse, ruffing out the diamonds, crossing to the Ace of clubs, and discarding the losing Jack of hearts on a good diamond. The fact that M.L.L.A.I. had not stated this only logical line of play in his claim was irrelevant, since given his class of player, he is never required to make a complete and comprehensive claim statement.: :-) (1) My friend Brian Thorp naturally wondered who is the second of Canberra's two best players. I responded with this apocryphal anecdote: "About half a century ago, 50 American experts were polled as to who the best American player was. The result was a 50-way tie for first place. But the 50 experts were unanimous in their opinions that Howard Schenken was the second-best American player." :) [nigel[ According to current laws, Richard is probably right to rule according to the many precedents where a normally expert player is assumed to be able to recover from completely losing the place when his claim reveals he has a totally mistaken idea about the state of play. A simpler fairer solution would be to adopt alternatve claim protocols (suggested many times in BLML) that avoid such problems. Unfortunately they substantially reduce the influence of the director on the result of an event becuause they entail little subjective judgement. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 20 02:18:21 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:18:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would say that an incomplete bid is not a bid, just UI. A similar situation occurs with bidding boxes. A player pulls a STOP card out of the box, then realizes that he wants to bid 1H and not 2H. He may still bid 1H, and the fact that he was considering some type of jump is UI. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 6:55 PM Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Australia uses written bidding.(Law 80E). > > An Aussie player intends to open a Multi 2D, thinking > that they hold a weak two in hearts. They start > writing "2D" on the bidding pad, but have only > completed the "2" before they notice an extra ace in > their hand - they hold 13 hcp, not 9 hcp. > > Does a partial designation of a bid mean that the bid > must be completed in accordance with the opener's > original intention? > > Or is a partial designation of a bid not a bid as > such, merely UI to partner and AI to the opponents? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Aug 20 05:14:53 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 23:14:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000801c7e292$47d6cab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C89F72.2000301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004501c7e2d8$47215a90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > > Look at it this way. You are called at the table where the following > has just happened. > -"tu coupes" (they're speaking french) > -dummy takes a spade > -"no, I said ruff!" > -"well, so?" > -"with a diamond, not a spade, silly" > -"you're the silly one, we're playing 4Sp, not 5Di!" > -"Director" > Spade originally designated and legally played. Declarer not allowed to change to a diamond since he was awakened by the play, and has therefore had pause for thought. WTP? Easy ruling. Here's a tougher one, I think. Spades are trump. Declarer says "ruff with a small diamond". Since diamonds are not trump, they obviously cannot be used to ruff. If I'm defending, Declarer's intent to ruff is clear to me, I tell him the correct contract, we have a good laugh, he plays a spade, and the Director never hears about it. Anything else is pure lawyering IMO (in its perjorative sense). But what should a Director rule if a defender calls on this one? The statement has some internal inconsistencies... Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 20 07:06:55 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:06:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <004501c7e2d8$47215a90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000801c7e292$47d6cab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C89F72.2000301@skynet.be> <004501c7e2d8$47215a90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: "Hirsch Davis" writes: > Here's a tougher one, I think. Spades are trump. Declarer says "ruff with > a small diamond". Since diamonds are not trump, they obviously cannot be > used to ruff. If I'm defending, Declarer's intent to ruff is clear to me, I > tell him the correct contract, we have a good laugh, he plays a spade, and > the Director never hears about it. Anything else is pure lawyering IMO (in > its perjorative sense). But what should a Director rule if a defender calls > on this one? The statement has some internal inconsistencies... An inconsistent statement should probably be treated as naming a card not in dummy, just as if declarer said, "Spade deuce" and dummy's only deuce is in diamonds. In your example, declarer should not be penalized for being precise. If he hadn't been precise, he would probably have said, "Ruff small", and dummy would have played a small spade. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 20 07:51:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:51:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004a01c7e288$c4a5ac50$2801a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >>Herman, if the lawmakers had intended that Declarer's intent had any >>relevance to the designation of a card, the Laws would say so (and >>do so in the one place where it does matter). Herman De Wael: >Hirsch, if the lawmakers had intended "ruff" to mean, "play the trump >suit", the Laws would say so. Richard Hills: But Law 46B does say so. The phrase "words of like import" appears three times in that Law. Therefore, the utterance of a synonym does not require determination of declarer's intent. So, to determine if "ruff" is a valid (incomplete) designation of a card by declarer, a director merely has to determine whether "ruff" is a synonym for "play a trump card" - which it is. Ergo, Hirsch's statement that declarer's intent has no relevance is correct. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 20 08:44:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:44:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000901c7e2ac$b8869af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c7e2ac$b8869af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46C93859.7000404@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I have never stated that the word "ruff" is used anywhere in the laws, I > have stated, and still do, that the word "ruff" has (in fact since before > the days of Duplicate Contract Bridge) been a universally recognized alias > for attempting to win a trick with a trump when the player is void in the > suit led. As such it is an unambiguous designation of playing a card in the > suit (if any) that is named in the contract. > No it's not unambiguous. >> I believe we should start with L46A. That one is certainly broken, as >> declarer did not mention one of the four suits - OK? > > Law 46A does not require the player to mention one of the four suits, it > says: > > "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state > both the suit and the rank of the desired card" > > And in "Definitions" we find: > > "Trump - Each card of the suit, if any, named in the contract." > OK so far - but not for the word "ruff". If you want to show definitions from the lawbook in one instance, you cannot rely on "international" meanings in the other. > So when declarer calls for a trump from dummy in a trump contract he has > definitely not broken Law 46A by using any incorrect term for the > denomination. > OK so far. > And when instead he asks for a "ruff" he has although using an incorrect > term for the denomination left absolutely no reason for doubt that the > denomination he calls is that of a trump. > Yes there is reason for doubt. Since he himself wants it to mean a diamond, who are you to go saying that it means a spade. The laws don't tell you to do so, the definitions don't tell you, the WBF don't tell you, and I don't tell you. So how are you going to convince the opponents that your ruling is correct according to the laws of bridge? > At this stage we have a situation where the denomination called by declarer > is unambiguously designated from his words, so what is left for Law 46B is > which trump if more than one available shall be played. > Again, not unambiguous! > I have struggled through the rest of you note and have taken the liberty to > save space by erasing most of it without further comments as you have made > yourself dependent on the single filing argument that declarer has not > correctly designated the denomination with his call for a card from Dummy. > ......... > > Leaving only this: > >>> And please do not again argue that the words "trump" and "ruff" are >>> ambiguous in trump contracts. That may be your understanding, but I bet >>> that you will have great difficulty finding much support. >>> >> Sorry, but they are ambiguous! Declarer thinks they mean diamonds, >> four other people think they mean spades. That is ambiguous enough for me. > > It seems I have to quote from my Oxford dictionary: > > "Ambiguous - having two or more possible meanings; uncertain." > Well, isn't that the case here: diamonds or spades? How can you call something unambiguous if two people can spend seven mails argueing about it? And how can you then use the notion of unambiguity as an argument for your position? I don't use this as an argument - I say that there are 2 interpretations and we should choose. > The fact that one person makes a mistake on which denomination is named in > his current contract does not make the word "trump" as such ambiguous; it > still by definition refers to the denomination named in the contract and > nothing else. > What definition? and OK for "trump", but not for "ruff". > And the fact that the word "ruff" is not mentioned anywhere in the laws does > not make this word ambiguous; it still by tradition refers to attempting to > win with a trump a trick in a suit where the player is void and nothing > else. > You are using "definition" as one argument, and then "tradition" as another. Bad argumentation! > All this is elementary to most of us; I am surprised that it is not to you. > I am surprise you are so narrow-minded as to believe that three posters (against one) means "most of us". > Or are you just harassing? You never answered my question on what is your > objective with all this. > My objective is to get rulings the same the world over. That can only happen if everyone agrees there are two possible interpretations and then chooses which one they find most appealing. If you continue to argue that there is only one possible interpretation, such a discussion cannot go on. I find it amazing that you are so willing to let a person who has a serious misconception about a hand off so lightly - you are playing the contract for him! Imagine if this were a claim and I would let declarer off. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 20 08:45:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:45:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <004501c7e2d8$47215a90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000801c7e292$47d6cab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C89F72.2000301@skynet.be> <004501c7e2d8$47215a90$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <46C938A3.305@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 3:52 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > > >> Look at it this way. You are called at the table where the following >> has just happened. >> -"tu coupes" (they're speaking french) >> -dummy takes a spade >> -"no, I said ruff!" >> -"well, so?" >> -"with a diamond, not a spade, silly" >> -"you're the silly one, we're playing 4Sp, not 5Di!" >> -"Director" >> > > Spade originally designated and legally played. Declarer not allowed to > change to a diamond since he was awakened by the play, and has therefore had > pause for thought. WTP? Easy ruling. > CRAZY !!!!!! Declarer wanted to play a diamond and should not be allowed to change to a spade because he was awakened by partner into the correct contract! CRAZY !!!!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 20 09:02:20 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:02:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C8A003.1030500@skynet.be> References: <000501c7e278$f56be3f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C8A003.1030500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:54:43 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > > Well, apparently this declarer also thought "ruff" meant "play a > diamond". He told you so. But of course, you prefer to disregard the > wishes of the player at fault. > You're putting words into the declarer's mouth (or mind), Herman. I'd expect that if you asked declarer what "ruff" meant, a substantial majority would say "Play a trump". If you accept that as the definition of "ruff", which (IMO, at least) the vast majority of bridge players would do, then declarer has indicated a card, even though he **thinks** he named a different one. It's your insistence on the idea of "ruff" being defined as "Play a card of the suit I *thought* was trumps" which is causing the problem. Or maybe you expect every Dummy, when instructed to ruff, to ask declarer "Which suit do you currently think is trumps"? After all, most players won't claim to be mind readers, and if your definition of "ruff" is the correct one, declarer has NOT unambiguously indicated a card. How far do we take this? What would your reaction be if called to a table and defender (who called you) tells you that declarer asked dummy to ruff, but that declarer doesn't look as if he's giving the game his full attention, so would you please quiz him to confirm what suit he thought was trumps at the moment he said "ruff"? Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGyTx8X39R2QaHMdMRAsACAJ9CNwCNAHkrAQbLyl/czrY9YojX/ACfWVn/ AIRygPO4mkJrGAvxBGkM5Ic= =uEyt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 20 09:09:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:09:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000901c7e2ad$197731d0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP><000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be><001701c7e27c$ac2582b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C89FC2.1010202@skynet.be> <000901c7e2ad$197731d0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46C93E0F.7060508@skynet.be> raija wrote: > I don't know who the eight posters are that you mention. They must have > emailed you directly. > Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Based on our current laws, I entirely agree with Herman. > > Jerry Fusselman and > It is plain to me that Herman is right. Andr? Steffens wrote: > > To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to play a > small diamond. > > Andr? Nigel wrote: > I agree with Andr? Steffens. Assuming that diamonds is the most likely > alternative contract, then declarer seems to have designated a diamond. Steve Wright wrote: > So if in a trump contract, if declarer says "ruff", then according to > Gratten, this does not designate a card and so Law 46B5 applies. This > means that as a defender I can name a non-trump in the dummy to be > played. > > That can't be right! > > Still not sure which of the two convincing arguments convince me more > though. ton wrote: > This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a clear answer. > I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was indicated. > When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the > diamond suit. How can that be ignored? > In my opinion the laws do not tell which of those two is the right approach. > And with my personal lenient approach to the game I would have chosen the > second option. This seems something the laws committee should take a stand > in. Unless it already has done so, or somebody comes up with a more > convincing argument. > > I like it, it made my morning start enjoyable, hurray for Belgium. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who > doesn`t know what the contract is to pay for that, as every director is > also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something stupid > and gets away with it. OK, that's only six. My apologies to the original posters if by quoting them I have branded them Hermanites, probably the worst curse on blml. But I am certain there are more people out there who think "diamond played - WTP?". And please allow me to repeat - I am not certain that my interpretation is the right one - but it is a possible interpretation and the preferable one. And none of the arguments for the other interpretation go beyond literal interpretations that aren't necessary. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Mon Aug 20 09:18:00 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:18:00 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> Message-ID: <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> If there isn' a trump suit (or if there is a trump suit but a trump can't legally be played from dummy) the call is obviously meaningless. If declarer does this all the time a procedural penalty can be imposed. Can't we stop this silly discussion already..... -Bob Brian ????????: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:54:43 +0200 >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> Well, apparently this declarer also thought "ruff" meant "play a >> diamond". He told you so. But of course, you prefer to disregard the >> wishes of the player at fault. >> > >You're putting words into the declarer's mouth (or mind), Herman. I'd >expect that if you asked declarer what "ruff" meant, a substantial >majority would say "Play a trump". If you accept that as the definition >of "ruff", which (IMO, at least) the vast majority of bridge players >would do, then declarer has indicated a card, even though he >**thinks** he named a different one. It's your insistence on the idea of >"ruff" being defined as "Play a card of the suit I *thought* was trumps" >which is causing the problem. > >Or maybe you expect every Dummy, when instructed to ruff, to ask >declarer "Which suit do you currently think is trumps"? After all, most >players won't claim to be mind readers, and if your definition of >"ruff" is the correct one, declarer has NOT unambiguously indicated a >card. > >How far do we take this? What would your reaction be if called >to a table and defender (who called you) tells you that declarer asked >dummy to ruff, but that declarer doesn't look as if he's giving the >game his full attention, so would you please quiz him to confirm what >suit he thought was trumps at the moment he said "ruff"? > > >Brian. > > >- -- > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > >iD8DBQFGyTx8X39R2QaHMdMRAsACAJ9CNwCNAHkrAQbLyl/czrY9YojX/ACfW Vn/ >AIRygPO4mkJrGAvxBGkM5Ic= >=uEyt >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Aug 16 16:59:01 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:59:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not ? References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <001101c7e015$fb447090$0400a8c0@david> Can we go back to basics. Consider 5 declarers who have arrived at 3N after an uncontested auction of 1D - 3D// 3N. Each deluded declarer imagines he is playing in diamonds and attempts to ruff a spade in dummy. Declarer A instructs "ruff" Declarer B instructs "ruff small" Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3" Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds" Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds". Of these only declarers D and E have complied with proper procedure in accordance with L46A. Which declarers have played the 3 of diamonds? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070816/90a75326/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070816/90a75326/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/955 - Release Date: 15/08/2007 16:55 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Aug 16 16:59:01 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:59:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] played or not ? References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <001101c7e015$fb447090$0400a8c0@david> Can we go back to basics. Consider 5 declarers who have arrived at 3N after an uncontested auction of 1D - 3D// 3N. Each deluded declarer imagines he is playing in diamonds and attempts to ruff a spade in dummy. Declarer A instructs "ruff" Declarer B instructs "ruff small" Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3" Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds" Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds". Of these only declarers D and E have complied with proper procedure in accordance with L46A. Which declarers have played the 3 of diamonds? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070816/90a75326/attachment-0002.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/20070816/90a75326/attachment-0002.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/955 - Release Date: 15/08/2007 16:55 From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 07:57:09 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:57:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708152207.l7FM7rg7004516@cfa.harvard.edu> <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 17/08/07, Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > The new behavior that Henk set up now seems the best way. > > How does one now send a reply only to the poster (without cutting and > pasting)? Sorry, Henk, but I think the new behavior is worse. Strongly disagree - the new behavior is better by far. 99.9% of the time I now can just reply and my reply goes to blml - where I want it to go. Before I had to cut and paste all those times. Now I'll have to cut and past 0.1% of the time (probably less....( -- 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/20070817/8b6d6b9e/attachment.htm From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 20 09:58:49 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:58:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20070820035849.5bcd00ee@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:18:00 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > > Can't we stop this silly discussion already..... > "Can't we stop this discussion" posts always irritate the hell out of me. There are mail clients out there which have an "ignore thread" option. Install one(*), learn how to use it, and there you go - you get your wish for just a few clicks of your mouse and no need to try to tell the rest of us what we can or can't write. Brian. (*) From your headers, Bob, you appear to be using a Windows client. If it can't do the job, I'd recommend Forte Agent, http://www.forteinc.com, as one which has the feature that you appear to need. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFGyUm6X39R2QaHMdMRAuWGAJjHYyxO461IhBtLYbziayZ7ciGVAJ9+WXz3 VHzO31b184C84SKiMvpoeA== =V23H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 20 10:04:00 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:04:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: References: <200708152207.l7FM7rg7004516@cfa.harvard.edu> <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46C94AF0.5060909@ripe.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 17/08/07, *Steve Willner* > wrote: > > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > > The new behavior that Henk set up now seems the best way. > > How does one now send a reply only to the poster (without cutting and > pasting)? Sorry, Henk, but I think the new behavior is worse. > > > Strongly disagree - the new behavior is better by far. > 99.9% of the time I now can just reply and my reply goes to blml - where > I want it to go. > Before I had to cut and paste all those times. Now I'll have to cut and > past 0.1% of the time (probably less....( I think most of the time one wants to reply to the list, not the individual poster, so I'm going to leave it as is. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 20 10:10:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:10:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > If there isn' a trump suit (or if there is a trump suit but a trump can't > legally be played from dummy) the call is obviously meaningless. If > declarer does this all the time a procedural penalty can be imposed. > I guess there isn't a single declarer in the world who has not yet called "ruff" to dummy. Of course in 99.999999% of the cases that does not create a problem. Bob's procedural penalty will get every single player into negative percentages ... > Can't we stop this silly discussion already..... > You have not weighed in on either side of this silly discussion - maybe if more than 10 persons showed their hand we would see that this is far from being a silly discussion with the world fairly evenly divided. > -Bob > Of course what we don't need is silly contributions to this worthwhile discussion ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Mon Aug 20 10:10:44 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:10:44 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <20070820035849.5bcd00ee@linuxbox> References: <20070820035849.5bcd00ee@linuxbox> Message-ID: <200708200810.AA10249@geller204.nifty.com> > no need to try to tell the >rest of us what we can or can't write. > >Brian. If this is just a social bulletin board for people who want to kill time then anyone should be able to write whatever he wants, but if this is a serious forum for discussing the laws of bridge we ought to stick (mostly) to serious discussion on the laws of bridge and people who want to just have fun should go someplace else. Which is it? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 20 10:17:24 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:17:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C94E14.1020908@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hirsch Davis: > >>> Herman, if the lawmakers had intended that Declarer's intent had any >>> relevance to the designation of a card, the Laws would say so (and >>> do so in the one place where it does matter). > > Herman De Wael: > >> Hirsch, if the lawmakers had intended "ruff" to mean, "play the trump >> suit", the Laws would say so. > > Richard Hills: > > But Law 46B does say so. The phrase "words of like import" appears > three times in that Law. Therefore, the utterance of a synonym does > not require determination of declarer's intent. So, to determine if > "ruff" is a valid (incomplete) designation of a card by declarer, a > director merely has to determine whether "ruff" is a synonym for "play > a trump card" - which it is. Ergo, Hirsch's statement that declarer's > intent has no relevance is correct. > > What's the problem? > Of course intent has relevance. When Gay Keaveney of Ireland repeated what he said at the table, none of those present, except his partner, could determine whether the "eitch" meant the ace or the eight. The Italian defender swore he had heard the "eight" and had played the queen on it. Gay stated he had said the "ace", his partner confirmed (and defender had played before he had been able to pick up the ace), and the TD and AC ruled the ace had been played. The word "eitch" (you have to hear it to understand how it can be so similar in Western Irish) was ambiguous, the intent decided which one it was. Similarly (IMO), "ruff" is ambiguous, and the intent determines. But yet again, I am merely countering your arguments, not producing any of my own. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Mon Aug 20 10:18:26 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:18:26 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> References: <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200708200818.AA10251@geller204.nifty.com> >Robert Geller wrote: >> If there isn't a trump suit (or if there is a trump suit but a trump can't >> legally be played from dummy) the call is obviously meaningless. If >> declarer does this all the time a procedural penalty can be imposed. >You have not weighed in on either side of this silly discussion - >maybe if more than 10 persons showed their hand we would see that this >is far from being a silly discussion with the world fairly evenly divided. I have indeed weighed in (please reread above), Maybe you don't like my answer..... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 20 10:33:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:33:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46C938A3.305@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis asserted: >>Declarer not allowed to change to a diamond since he was >>awakened by [dummy], and has therefore had pause for thought. Herman De Wael subtly disputed: >CRAZY !!!!!! Richard Hills agrees with Herman De Wael: I agree that a Law 45C4(b) inadvertency, or for that matter a Law 25A inadvertency, cannot in any way be nullified by any player - including partner - pointing out a consequent error. A classic example is a player intending to pull the Alert card out of the bidding box, inadvertently pulling out a Pass card instead, then being told by pard that they have passed out of turn. The inadvertent Pass may still be corrected to an Alert. On the other hand, the WBF LC has ruled extraneous information prevents a player from using Law 25B to _deliberately_ change their call. * * * Other issues with which Herman De Wael and I are in agreement: (1) My pet movement, an Accelerated Swiss for the WBF VP scale, has been proved invalid by Wayne Burrows and Herman De Wael. (2) Debates on blml should stick to exploring interesting differences of opinion, and avoid "ad hominem" abuse, but both myself and Herman sometimes fail to achieve that aim. (3) Any Law can be interpreted in more than one way, but not every interpretation of a Law is equally valid. (4) The principles on which rulings are based should be the same the world over. * * * The major point of disagreement I have with Herman in general, and the De Wael School in particular, is his belief that this is the test for the validity of an interpretation of a Law: "...everyone agrees there are two possible interpretations and then chooses which one they find most appealing." Since different things appeal to different people, Herman's test contradicts item (4) above. Bobby Wolff found Law 69B unappealing, so he used his authority as an Appeals Committee Chairman to define "moral" and "ethical", which effectively nullified Law 69B, since the North-South concerned did not want to be publicly pilloried as "immoral" and "unethical" for insisting upon their Law 69B rights. Rather, the test of a validity of an interpretation of Law should be not "most appealing", but rather "most consistent" with other Laws and with prior WBF LC interpretations. The De Wael School clearly fails this consistency test. The formal legal term for this consistency test is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet". A point that I have been attempting to make for some time, which has perhaps not yet been fully grasped by acolytes of the De Wael School, is that the De Wael School is not only a radical reinterpretation of Law 75D, it is also a radical reinterpretation of the legal policy of "stare decisis". 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 brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 20 10:53:56 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:53:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <200708200810.AA10249@geller204.nifty.com> References: <20070820035849.5bcd00ee@linuxbox> <200708200810.AA10249@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <20070820045356.06f66844@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:10:44 +0900 Robert Geller wrote: > > > no need to try to tell the > >rest of us what we can or can't write. > > > >Brian. > > If this is just a social bulletin board for people who want to kill > time then anyone should be able to write whatever he wants, but if > this is a serious forum for discussing the laws of bridge we ought to > stick (mostly) to serious discussion on the laws of bridge and people > who want to just have fun should go someplace else. > > Which is it? > I'm not advocating off-topic posts, nor have I ever done so, and I suspect that you knew full well what I meant. But OK, let's make it explicit, just for you. **Provided the discussion pertains to the laws of bridge**, then (IMO) post away, and leave it up to the individual reader to decide what/who they do or don't want to read. Is that better? I say again, if you think a thread has outlived its usefulness, tell your mailer to ignore it, and leave the rest of us to make that decision for ourselves. It will take you less time to set the ignore flag than it took you to write your message asking that the thread be curtailed. and the effect will be the same from your point of view. If your mailer doesn't offer that feature, then get yourself a decent mailer. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGyVakX39R2QaHMdMRAtKiAKCfmak1tsDXqfyLZceRMPTg9RWrfQCgjOJc +9O1W8IjlMA/3BsBc03ePbY= =qZiY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 11:16:29 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:16:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C93859.7000404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c7e30a$caf943a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........................... > My objective is to get rulings the same the world over. That can only > happen if everyone agrees (with Herman) there are two possible interpretations Quote from a strip with Haggar the Viking (In a friendly chat with a monk): Monk: "There won't be peace on earth until we all learn to speak together" Haggar: "True, but how can we get everyone to speak Norwegian?" Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Aug 20 11:27:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C89C53.8040000@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Intention has everything to do with it - when the words are not the > ones the lawbook uses. It is not only the lawbook that defines the meaning of words. For some things we must also consult dictionaries. The word "ruff" is indeed ambiguous but given the context we should ignore references to small fish/fluffy collars and focus on the card related meanings (there are three in MW) - in all such cases the word ruff is *defined* as involving a *trump*. Trump IS defined in the lawbook thus any use of the word "ruff" MUST be ruled as if declarer had said "trump". A player who says knave/trey/deuce (in an English club) has designated ranks just as precisely as a player who says Jack/Three/Two. Again the words aren't in the lawbook (and have irrelevant non-bridge meanings). You demean your own argument when you say that "ruff" has no meaning. Those contributors who "agreed" with you would have drawn no distinction between a declarer saying "trump" or "ruff". The "problem" is how to treat a demand to play a trump when dummy (by virtue of a trump void or the contract being NT) cannot comply. That's exactly the same problem as declarer calling for a "spade" when dummy is void in spades. L46b4 covers this (card designated is not in dummy) but that law is subordinate to the test "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". Yes there is some ambiguity *here* but to me the desires of the lawmakers are clear - we apply the "incontrovertible" test ONLY when L46b results in a specific card but THAT card is obviously not what declarer intended. Typical example dummy has KQJxx of spades and declarer calls (in the course of 3 tricks) "Top spade", "And the Queen", "and another one". I would readily be convinced that he intended the SJ rather than the small S technically demanded. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 12:05:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:05:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001601c7e311$9bf89fe0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > Of course what we don't need is silly contributions to this worthwhile > discussion ... Then why on earth do you keep on fighting trying to create a problem where no problem exists? (Except maybe in your own mind) Sven From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Aug 20 13:02:34 2007 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (ciska.zuur at planet.nl) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:02:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not ? References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> <001101c7e015$fb447090$0400a8c0@david> Message-ID: <5F0F9BC233F06246850197E67C73C44AF88290@CPEXBE-EML12.kpnsp.local> It is a very long, very boring and sometimes very unpleasant discussion and both parties are very determined that their own vision is the only very right one. So, their will be no solution in this forum. It could only end in that people will turn their back to this forum, specially those which are only reading the responses to learn, like myself. So let's vote !!! For that purpose I like to react on this direct question and I will not join further discussions. For me, for what's worth, only in D and E the 3 of diamonds is played. Only in the case that there is only one 3 left, C also. (46B3b) It doesn't matter, is not the business of the opps and doesn't give the opps any rights what the declarer is THINKING. The fact that one could deduce from the bidding that Diamonds are trump is for his/her own responsiblity. Perhaps the declarer thinks somewhat sleepy that hearts are trump..... (he was half asleep anyway, wasn't he??) Ciska Zuur The Netherlands ________________________________ Van: David Barton [mailto:david.j.barton at lineone.net] Verzonden: do 16-8-2007 16:59 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List; blml Onderwerp: Re: [blml] played or not ? Can we go back to basics. Consider 5 declarers who have arrived at 3N after an uncontested auction of 1D - 3D// 3N. Each deluded declarer imagines he is playing in diamonds and attempts to ruff a spade in dummy. Declarer A instructs "ruff" Declarer B instructs "ruff small" Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3" Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds" Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds". Of these only declarers D and E have complied with proper procedure in accordance with L46A. Which declarers have played the 3 of diamonds? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070820/7815f4dd/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: faint_grain.jpg Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070820/7815f4dd/attachment.jpeg From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Aug 20 13:02:34 2007 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (ciska.zuur at planet.nl) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:02:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not ? References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> <001101c7e015$fb447090$0400a8c0@david> Message-ID: <5F0F9BC233F06246850197E67C73C44AF88290@CPEXBE-EML12.kpnsp.local> It is a very long, very boring and sometimes very unpleasant discussion and both parties are very determined that their own vision is the only very right one. So, their will be no solution in this forum. It could only end in that people will turn their back to this forum, specially those which are only reading the responses to learn, like myself. So let's vote !!! For that purpose I like to react on this direct question and I will not join further discussions. For me, for what's worth, only in D and E the 3 of diamonds is played. Only in the case that there is only one 3 left, C also. (46B3b) It doesn't matter, is not the business of the opps and doesn't give the opps any rights what the declarer is THINKING. The fact that one could deduce from the bidding that Diamonds are trump is for his/her own responsiblity. Perhaps the declarer thinks somewhat sleepy that hearts are trump..... (he was half asleep anyway, wasn't he??) Ciska Zuur The Netherlands ________________________________ Van: David Barton [mailto:david.j.barton at lineone.net] Verzonden: do 16-8-2007 16:59 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List; blml Onderwerp: Re: [blml] played or not ? Can we go back to basics. Consider 5 declarers who have arrived at 3N after an uncontested auction of 1D - 3D// 3N. Each deluded declarer imagines he is playing in diamonds and attempts to ruff a spade in dummy. Declarer A instructs "ruff" Declarer B instructs "ruff small" Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3" Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds" Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds". Of these only declarers D and E have complied with proper procedure in accordance with L46A. Which declarers have played the 3 of diamonds? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070820/7815f4dd/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: faint_grain.jpg Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070820/7815f4dd/attachment-0001.jpeg From john at asimere.com Mon Aug 20 13:23:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:23:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007e01c7e31c$80124960$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Australia uses written bidding.(Law 80E). > > An Aussie player intends to open a Multi 2D, thinking > that they hold a weak two in hearts. They start > writing "2D" on the bidding pad, but have only > completed the "2" before they notice an extra ace in > their hand - they hold 13 hcp, not 9 hcp. > > Does a partial designation of a bid mean that the bid > must be completed in accordance with the opener's > original intention? > > Or is a partial designation of a bid not a bid as > such, merely UI to partner and AI to the opponents? It's ruled that way in the UK, routinely. John > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities > other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 20 13:54:58 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:54:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007e01c7e31c$80124960$0701a8c0@john> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070820133932.02812cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:23 20/08/2007 +0100, John Probst wrote: >- > > Australia uses written bidding.(Law 80E). > > > > An Aussie player intends to open a Multi 2D, thinking > > that they hold a weak two in hearts. They start > > writing "2D" on the bidding pad, but have only > > completed the "2" before they notice an extra ace in > > their hand - they hold 13 hcp, not 9 hcp. > > > > Does a partial designation of a bid mean that the bid > > must be completed in accordance with the opener's > > original intention? > > > > Or is a partial designation of a bid not a bid as > > such, merely UI to partner and AI to the opponents? > >It's ruled that way in the UK, routinely. John AG : a nd in other countries, too. Note that UI is quite slender : one doesn't know whether the "other" idea was 2D, 2H (whatever it means), 2NT, 4H. And even if it was 2D, is the problem an extra ace, a hand unsuitable for 2D (controls, spades, whatever), a diamond discovered between the hearts, or a sudden doubt about the meaning of 2D ? It would need very specific situations to give partner an opportunity to make any use of it. You can't use Law 25B because the "other" bid isn't know. You can't have them make the first bid, since "2" isn't a bid. (compare with "Qu" in another thread) Imagine the player has a hand totally unsuitable for any 2-bid, and his "2" is just some kind of lapsus. Would you demand that he invent a 2-bid ? Don't tell it can't happen : not far ago, a friend of mine said "stop", then "Why am I saying stop ? I just meant to bid 1S." And you have to believe him, because he had a 15-count 5431 hand, something which isn't anywhere near any 2-bid or more in his system. Best regards Alain From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 20 13:48:44 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:48:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] played or not ? In-Reply-To: <001101c7e015$fb447090$0400a8c0@david> References: <46C416EC.7010104@skynet.be> <46C45D43.000001.14425@CERAP-MATSH1> <001101c7e015$fb447090$0400a8c0@david> Message-ID: <20070820074844.3f0296b8@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:59:01 +0100 "David Barton" wrote: > Can we go back to basics. > > Consider 5 declarers who have arrived at 3N after > an uncontested auction of 1D - 3D// 3N. > Each deluded declarer imagines he is playing in > diamonds and attempts to ruff a spade in dummy. > > Declarer A instructs "ruff" > Declarer B instructs "ruff small" > Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3" > Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds" > Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds". > > Of these only declarers D and E have complied with proper > procedure in accordance with L46A. > > Which declarers have played the 3 of diamonds? > Well, I'd argue that it's only declarer E. Ruff, IMHO, designates a small trump. "With the" qualifies the designation of "ruff", they're all part of the same designation (see below). L46b4 tells us that the call is void if the card is not in dummy, and there are no trumps. It isn't *possible* to ruff wuth the D3. For those of you who think that declarer D has designated two cards, and the second designation stands, perhaps you might like to consider the following three card scenario. The contract is in spades. North is Dummy and has AK2 of spades. East has two small hearts and the singleton Queen of spades. South is on lead and has three small clubs West has three small diamonds. South leads a club, West plays a diamond, South instructs dummy 'ruff with the king of spades'. Are you going to give East his Queen on the grounds that South designated two cards, or are you going to accept that South merely qualified the 'ruff' instruction? If you think that declarer 'D' above designated two cards, then surely my declarer did so too? Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGyX+cX39R2QaHMdMRAtRcAKClha4UP5RAhlMz3Hz88we28O31dgCfXyF6 m6GxTXukwThmmYOa23Iat/M= =kPHU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 14:14:20 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:14:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] played or not ? In-Reply-To: <20070820074844.3f0296b8@linuxbox> Message-ID: <003301c7e323$a3c7f6a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brian ............. > > Declarer A instructs "ruff" > > Declarer B instructs "ruff small" > > Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3" > > Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds" > > Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds". ........... > Well, I'd argue that it's only declarer E. > > Ruff, IMHO, designates a small trump. "With the" qualifies the > designation of "ruff", they're all part of the same designation (see > below). L46b4 tells us that the call is void if the card is not in > dummy, and there are no trumps. It isn't *possible* to ruff wuth the > D3. > > For those of you who think that declarer D has designated two cards, > and the second designation stands, perhaps you might like to consider > the following three card scenario. The contract is in spades. > > North is Dummy and has AK2 of spades. > East has two small hearts and the singleton Queen of spades. > South is on lead and has three small clubs > West has three small diamonds. > > South leads a club, West plays a diamond, South instructs dummy 'ruff > with the king of spades'. Are you going to give East his Queen on the > grounds that South designated two cards, or are you going to accept > that South merely qualified the 'ruff' instruction? If you think that > declarer 'D' above designated two cards, then surely my declarer did so > too? Very correct reasoned. (Any call for "ruff" when dummy has no trumps is void under Law 46B4) Regards Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Aug 20 14:49:59 2007 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:49:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C93E0F.7060508@skynet.be> References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP><000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be><001701c7e27c$ac2582b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C89FC2.1010202@skynet.be> <000901c7e2ad$197731d0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C93E0F.7060508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C98DF6.7020609@t-online.de> I do not think that a card is played because declarer thinks it should be played. The laws are clear about the conditions for a card to be played. I _do_ think that it would be nice to make declarer play a card he thought he would play, but since I cannot for the life of me find a way to do that consistently I would rather stick to the current situation. Herman De Wael schrieb: > raija wrote: > > >> I don't know who the eight posters are that you mention. They must have >> emailed you directly. >> >> > > snipped > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who > > doesn`t know what the contract is to pay for that, as every > director is > > also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something > stupid > > and gets away with it. > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 20 15:21:07 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:21:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C84AAE.7030805@skynet.be> References: <000001c7e262$03350ff0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C84AAE.7030805@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 19, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > In the mind of the declarer, to "ruff" means to play the lowest of the > suit that declarer thinks is trumps. To him, there is nothing unclear > to that. Nonsense. Imagine a declarer describing his misplay to his teammates after he called for a heart in 4S thinking he was ruffing: "Sorry, I meant to ruff but got confused and discarded." "Sorry, I should have ruffed with a trump but got confused and ruffed with a heart." (Wha...?) Do you think declarer really thinks he "ruffed" the trick, because "I ruffed" means "I played the suit I thought was trump" rather than "I played a trump"? I think the unlucky declarer who played a heart in 4S thinking he was ruffing would be the first to explain to Herman that he doesn't think he ruffed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 20 15:38:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:38:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C99969.4050008@skynet.be> Hello Richard, it's good to see that not all sense has disappeared from blml: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hirsch Davis asserted: > >>> Declarer not allowed to change to a diamond since he was >>> awakened by [dummy], and has therefore had pause for thought. > > Herman De Wael subtly disputed: > >> CRAZY !!!!!! > > Richard Hills agrees with Herman De Wael: > > I agree that a Law 45C4(b) inadvertency, or for that matter a > Law 25A inadvertency, cannot in any way be nullified by any > player - including partner - pointing out a consequent error. > Richard may well agree with me, but I don't think he got the correct end of the craziness. Hirsh states that a declarer should not be allowed to change his inadvertent designation. I agree with that as well, but let's for a small moment see how this applies to this case: Example 1: Declarer thinks he is in 5Di, so he ruffs by playing a diamond from the table himself. When they point out to him that spades are trumps, he asks the director (anyone) if he is allowed to change his card to a spade, thus making the trick. Chorus: declarer is not allowed to change his inadvertent designation! Contract one off. Example 2: Declarer thinks he is in 5Di, so he ruffs by saying "ruff", and dummy plays a spade. When declarer points out that he intended to do this with a diamond, the opponents ask the TD if the spade or the diamond is played - two possibilities: Example 2A (TD Sven): spade is played, contract made, opponents unhappy. Comment by Hirsh: declarer is not allowed to change his inadvertent designation ! WHY THE H**L WOULD HE WANT TO? Example 2A (TD Herman): diamond is played, contract one off, declarer embarassed. Comment by ???: declarer is not allowed to change his inadvertent designation ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 20 15:44:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:44:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C99AB2.5020208@skynet.be> Post of Richard split in two: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Other issues with which Herman De Wael and I are in agreement: > > (1) My pet movement, an Accelerated Swiss for the WBF VP scale, > has been proved invalid by Wayne Burrows and Herman De Wael. > indeed > (2) Debates on blml should stick to exploring interesting > differences of opinion, and avoid "ad hominem" abuse, but both > myself and Herman sometimes fail to achieve that aim. > indeed, and apologies when I do fail. > (3) Any Law can be interpreted in more than one way, but not > every interpretation of a Law is equally valid. > indeed > (4) The principles on which rulings are based should be the > same the world over. > indeed > * * * > > The major point of disagreement I have with Herman in general, > and the De Wael School in particular, is his belief that this > is the test for the validity of an interpretation of a Law: > > "...everyone agrees there are two possible interpretations and > then chooses which one they find most appealing." > > Since different things appeal to different people, Herman's > test contradicts item (4) above. Bobby Wolff found Law 69B > unappealing, so he used his authority as an Appeals Committee > Chairman to define "moral" and "ethical", which effectively > nullified Law 69B, since the North-South concerned did not want > to be publicly pilloried as "immoral" and "unethical" for > insisting upon their Law 69B rights. > > Rather, the test of a validity of an interpretation of Law > should be not "most appealing", but rather "most consistent" > with other Laws and with prior WBF LC interpretations. perhaps the word is badly chosen, but the discussion I am having with Sven has him stating there is only one alternative interpretation, while I maintain there are two. I am certain that if polled, the majority of declarers would prefer to suffer the consequences of their mistake rather than have a TD rescue them by some strange combination of definitions. > The De > Wael School clearly fails this consistency test. > I don't agree with that. I believe my interpretation is more consistent with the current wording of L75D2 than the majority interpretation. In fact, Grattan agreed with me on that and has put in his agenda if L75D2 ought not to be changed instead. > The formal legal term for this consistency test is "stare > decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and > do not move that which is quiet". A point that I have been > attempting to make for some time, which has perhaps not yet > been fully grasped by acolytes of the De Wael School, is that > the De Wael School is not only a radical reinterpretation of > Law 75D, it is also a radical reinterpretation of the legal > policy of "stare decisis". > I do not agree that I should not rock the boat. If I believe in something, I will go ahead with it and not bother if I'm in a minority. > > Best wishes > Thanks for listening. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 20 15:55:40 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:55:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C93859.7000404@skynet.be> References: <000901c7e2ac$b8869af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46C93859.7000404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3886FCD1-667F-4B0F-8607-EA2F35DFC07A@starpower.net> On Aug 20, 2007, at 2:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> And when instead he asks for a "ruff" he has although using an >> incorrect >> term for the denomination left absolutely no reason for doubt that >> the >> denomination he calls is that of a trump. > > Yes there is reason for doubt. Since he himself wants it to mean a > diamond, who are you to go saying that it means a spade. The laws > don't tell you to do so, the definitions don't tell you, the WBF don't > tell you, and I don't tell you. So how are you going to convince the > opponents that your ruling is correct according to the laws of bridge? This again exposes the flaw in Herman's argument. "He himself" did *not* "want" to play a diamond. He called for a "ruff" because *he wanted to play a trump*. He may have been mistaken as to what the trump suit was, he may have had no clue as to what the trump suit was, he may have been playing a NT contract, but the one thing we can be sure of -- because he clearly and unambiguously said so -- is that he wanted to trump that trick! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 20 16:09:08 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:09:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <200708200810.AA10249@geller204.nifty.com> References: <20070820035849.5bcd00ee@linuxbox> <200708200810.AA10249@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <8DEDECB0-7471-46F2-B238-C7C5AC829179@starpower.net> On Aug 20, 2007, at 4:10 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > If this is just a social bulletin board for people who want to kill > time then > anyone should be able to write whatever he wants, but if this is a > serious > forum for discussing the laws of bridge we ought to stick (mostly) > to serious > discussion on the laws of bridge and people who want to just have > fun should go > someplace else. > > Which is it? If our bridge clubs and tournaments can simultaneously serve both as a venue for those who want to engage in serious competition and, simultaneously, as a way for others to pass the time having some fun -- which they do quite nicely -- why not BLML too? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Mon Aug 20 16:13:57 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:13:57 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <8DEDECB0-7471-46F2-B238-C7C5AC829179@starpower.net> References: <8DEDECB0-7471-46F2-B238-C7C5AC829179@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200708201413.AA10257@geller204.nifty.com> Eric Landau writes: >If our bridge clubs and tournaments can simultaneously serve both as >a venue for those who want to engage in serious competition and, >simultaneously, as a way for others to pass the time having some fun >-- which they do quite nicely -- why not BLML too? Up to a point (10-20% of totals posts?), sure. But these kinds of topics seem lately to form a majority of posts. This will (already has?) kill (killed?) BLML as a place for serious discussion of the laws of bridge. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Aug 20 17:52:33 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:52:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: Message-ID: <000701c7e342$1f284cf0$0600a8c0@david> My take on this:- L46A when playing from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and rank of the desired card. This means ANY variation from this is a deviation from correct procedure and hence an irregularity (see definitions). (Ruff, high, deuce, a diamond etc are ALL irregularities) If attention is called to this irregularity the director must rule in accordance with L46B1 to L46B5 which card has been designated. However, and this I believe is the crux of the issue, such determination is subject to the condition "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". My belief is that declarer's intention should be determined by asking "What card would have been nominated if declarer had used the correct (L46A) procedure instead of his deficient nomination" in circumstances identical to the original nomination. It is of course still for the TD to judge whether this determination is "incontrovertible". It is clear to me that in Herman's No Trump case, Declarer would have nominated "3 of diamonds", and in Sven's 4H/4S case Declarer would have nominated "3 of hearts". In both cases I would judge the intention to be "incontrovertible". Yes, Declarer would have nominated differently if he had been aware of the actual contract but this I believe is not relevant. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/961 - Release Date: 19/08/2007 07:27 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 20 18:09:07 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:09:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] You have not weighed in on either side of this silly discussion - maybe if more than 10 persons showed their hand we would see that this is far from being a silly discussion with the world fairly evenly divided. [nige1] Declarer says "ruff" and explains that he thinks diamonds are trumps. In fact the contract is notrump. Has he specified no card or has he disignated a diamond? For naive players like me, there are two opposing considerations... [A] Declarer has not pointed to a card or touched it or named its suit or rank; furtermore there are no trumps; hence, how can you claim that he's played a card? [B] Had declarer conformed with the law about specifying dummy-play, he would admit that he would have designated a diamond. How can you allow more latitude to a player who habitually makes such crude and sloppy designations than to a a player who rigidly adhers to the law about dummy-play? Are we really arguing about a specific case? or are we are arguing that here, as in most areas, the law requires radical simplification and clarification. Here it would suffice that the law... ... not only specify that, to play a card from dummy, declarer must touch it or unambiguously name it by suit or rank ... but also specify a penalty for an attempt to designate a card from dummy in an illegal way. From john at asimere.com Mon Aug 20 18:35:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:35:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000001c7e0db$9ed07630$6400a8c0@WINXP><000c01c7e0f1$36ff9c50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C82D79.6050402@skynet.be><001701c7e27c$ac2582b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <46C89FC2.1010202@skynet.be> <000901c7e2ad$197731d0$f8065e47@DFYXB361><46C93E0F.7060508@skynet.be> <46C98DF6.7020609@t-online.de> Message-ID: <003a01c7e348$28fc43c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? >I do not think that a card is played because declarer thinks it should > be played. The laws are clear about the conditions for a card to be > played. I _do_ think that it would be nice to make declarer play a card > he thought he would play, but since I cannot for the life of me find a > way to do that consistently I would rather stick to the current situation. I strongly agree. I dislike finding out a player's intention as it's open door to Probst cheats, and that's bad news. John > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> raija wrote: >> >> >>> I don't know who the eight posters are that you mention. They must have >>> emailed you directly. >>> >>> >> >> > > snipped > >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> > There is no doubt in my mind that every director wants a declarer who >> > doesn`t know what the contract is to pay for that, as every >> director is >> > also a player, and players are pissed off when opp does something >> stupid >> > and gets away with it. >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 20 20:56:52 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:56:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <20070820145652.1ca25803@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:09:07 +0100 Nigel wrote: > > Here it would suffice that the law... > ... not only specify that, to play a card from dummy, declarer must > touch it or unambiguously name it by suit or rank > ... but also specify a penalty for an attempt to designate a card > from dummy in an illegal way. > In order for that suggestion to be even close to workable, you are going to have to expand the list of valid designations. Either that, or hand out a gazillion penalties before you've taught everyone that they can't say "ruff" any more. The secretary birds would have a field day (month, year, decade...) Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGyeP0X39R2QaHMdMRAoPLAKCaMYlEsXd9E5lm1nqwxqOrDbfOOwCgrI5L cD3SnS1eDqP56kwverB+cuY= =RG7h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 20 22:14:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:14:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Aug 20, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Nigel wrote: > Here it would suffice that the law... > ... not only specify that, to play a card from dummy, declarer must > touch it or unambiguously name it by suit or rank > ... but also specify a penalty for an attempt to designate a card from > dummy in an illegal way. What a good idea. If declarer tells dummy to "ruff", let's not play a trump, let's not let Herman worry about what suit declarer might think is trump, let's just give the man a penalty for having the temerity to assume that the other three players at the table know what "ruff" means! That will surely improve the ambience of our games and bring more players out to the club. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Aug 20 23:49:39 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:49:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46C99969.4050008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b501c7e374$0299bdd0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Example 1: Declarer thinks he is in 5Di, so he ruffs by playing a > diamond from the table himself. When they point out to him that spades > are trumps, he asks the director (anyone) if he is allowed to change > his card to a spade, thus making the trick. Chorus: declarer is not > allowed to change his inadvertent designation! Contract one off. > > Example 2: Declarer thinks he is in 5Di, so he ruffs by saying "ruff", > and dummy plays a spade. When declarer points out that he intended to > do this with a diamond, the opponents ask the TD if the spade or the > diamond is played - two possibilities: > Example 2A (TD Sven): spade is played, contract made, opponents > unhappy. Comment by Hirsh: declarer is not allowed to change his > inadvertent designation ! WHY THE H**L WOULD HE WANT TO? > Example 2A (TD Herman): diamond is played, contract one off, declarer > embarassed. Comment by ???: declarer is not allowed to change his > inadvertent designation ! > > -- Example 1: Correct. Declarer has legally designated a diamond and may not retract the play (usual considerations apply). Note that Declarer is not making an inadvertent designation here. He has deliberately selected a diamond, even if based on an incorrect assumption. Play stands. Example 2A (TD Sven): Correct. Declarer has legally designated a spade, whether he knew it or not. Example 2A (TD Herman): Incorrect. Declarer has still legally designated a spade whether he knew it or not. Play stands. In 2A, either version, one could argue that the spade play was inadvertent. In that case, if it was felt that the play met the conditions of 45C4(b), the Declarer would be allowed to change his spade designation to a diamond. However, my guess, which is encapsulated in the question Herman so elegantly asked, is that Declarer would not choose to change his play. Remember, it's the player's *option* to change an inadvertent designation if allowed by the TD. The TD cannot force a player to change a legal designation of a card to be played, even if it was inadvertent. The key phrase in law, quoted in full below is "A player may". Nothing in this section indicates that he must do so, or that the TD has any say in the matter beyond determining whether the original designation was advertent or not. "(b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47E). " Hirsch Davis Rockville MD From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 21 02:57:50 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:57:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? In-Reply-To: <200708201902.l7KJ2akc015529@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708201902.l7KJ2akc015529@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46CA388E.5050005@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > An Aussie player intends to open a Multi 2D, thinking > that they hold a weak two in hearts. They start > writing "2D" on the bidding pad, but have only > completed the "2" before they notice... This would depend on the Aussie regulations in effect. I thought at least one jurisdiction (maybe NZ) required one or more slashes to be written before the call is complete. Anyway, if the call is incomplete, it can be changed freely. Once it's completed, L25 applies. As others have written, I'd be surprised if "2" standing alone is a complete call. If that's what the regulations say, they need to specify how to determine the denomination. In spoken bidding, "Two... no, wait..." is not a call. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Aug 21 02:59:34 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:59:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Tim West-Meads" wrote: > The "problem" is how to treat a demand to play a trump when dummy (by > virtue of a trump void or the contract being NT) cannot comply. That's > exactly the same problem as declarer calling for a "spade" when dummy is > void in spades. L46b4 covers this (card designated is not in dummy) but > that law is subordinate to the test "declarer's different intention is > incontrovertible". Yes there is some ambiguity *here* but to me the > desires of the lawmakers are clear - we apply the "incontrovertible" test > ONLY when L46b results in a specific card but THAT card is obviously not > what declarer intended. > > Typical example dummy has KQJxx of spades and declarer calls (in the > course of 3 tricks) "Top spade", "And the Queen", "and another one". > I would readily be convinced that he intended the SJ rather than the > small S technically demanded. Another example (discussed on a very old BLML thread): Dummy's last three cards are AJ of diamonds and J of spades. Dummy wins the DA, and everyone at the table knows that the SJ is good but the DJ is not. Declarer says "Jack". The TD ruled that the good SJ, rather than the losing DJ, was incontrovertibly declarer's intention. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 21 03:03:10 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:03:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200708202051.l7KKpLRB012765@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708202051.l7KKpLRB012765@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46CA39CE.7050500@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Richard may well agree with me, but I don't think he got the correct > end of the craziness. The problem is that there are two important principles in seeming conflict here. They are: 1. A player who follows the Laws exactly should never be worse off than a player who is sloppy. 2. Ordinary rulings (as opposed to conduct issues) should never depend on mind reading. Herman emphasizes 1; (almost) everyone else emphasizes 2. As will surprise no one, I'm a "2" supporter. The conflict can be reduced by recognizing that the careless player's designation "trump" will not always be advantageous. Regardless of that, having an unambiguous ruling on which card is played seems to me the most important aspect. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 21 03:10:29 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:10:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> [Brian Meadows] In order for that suggestion to be even close to workable, you are going to have to expand the list of valid designations. Either that, or hand out a gazillion penalties before you've taught everyone that they can't say "ruff" any more. The secretary birds would have a field day (month, year, decade...) [Eric Landau] What a good idea. If declarer tells dummy to "ruff", let's not play a trump, let's not let Herman worry about what suit declarer might think is trump, let's just give the man a penalty for having the temerity to assume that the other three players at the table know what "ruff" means! That will surely improve the ambience of our games and bring more players out to the club. [Nige1] Hilarious stuff :) To provide an apt context for their coruscating wit, both Brian and Eric snipped the first part of my post, which explained the *current* alternative which seems to be... To punish a declarer who legally specifies the wrong card by mistake but to allow a declarer who illegally employs a sloppy designation to change his mind about the card he intended to play. I can understand how hardened BLMLers, who've managed to stomach the WBF concept of "Equity" would have no qualms about this state of affairs; but I'd expect Brian Meadows to be overcome by nausea. What would you suggest Brian? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 21 06:47:16 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:47:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Favourable at pairs, you pick up: Q86 K5 KQ842 1062 You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ and C6). Cheers Stefanie Rohan From geller at nifty.com Tue Aug 21 07:01:16 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:01:16 +0900 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200708210501.AA10265@geller204.nifty.com> I'd lead the HK. But if my partner is known habitually to preempt with terrible suits (not the case with my usual partners) I'd lead a diamond (low, not an honor). -Bob Stefanie Rohan ????????: >Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > >Q86 >K5 >KQ842 >1062 > >You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. >Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What >do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > >(Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ >and C6). > >Cheers > >Stefanie Rohan > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 21 08:00:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:00:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > >Q86 >K5 >KQ842 >1062 > >You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. >Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. >What do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > >(Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ >and C6). Richard Hills: This question reminds me of the slogan that one of Australia's two major parties had in the 1990 election: "The answer is Liberal". The slogan backfired when humorists on the other side of Aussie politics noted, "If the answer is Liberal, then it must have been a bloody silly question!" :-) I feel very strongly that if the opposing diamonds break 3-3, and if pard holds Ax in diamonds, I should not let 3NT make merely because a blocking DQ is the answer to a systemically silly question. :-) Note that I am *not* saying that Stefanie is silly. No doubt the point of this question is that UI to South encouraged South to break system with a lead of a low diamond, and the question is whether such a violation of system is the only logical alternative. I reiterate a point that I have made many times before, that it is difficult to determine what logical alternatives exist for the class of players who happen to use illogical methods. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 21 09:42:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:42:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46CA39CE.7050500@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708202051.l7KKpLRB012765@cfa.harvard.edu> <46CA39CE.7050500@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46CA9773.8000307@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Richard may well agree with me, but I don't think he got the correct >> end of the craziness. > > The problem is that there are two important principles in seeming > conflict here. They are: > 1. A player who follows the Laws exactly should never be worse off than > a player who is sloppy. > > 2. Ordinary rulings (as opposed to conduct issues) should never depend > on mind reading. > Only a "seeming" conflict! Consider the two cases we discussed: in one - the player said "ruff" in a NT contract. No mind reading required to know that declarer was off his trolley. In the other - declarer is surprised to see a spade played, when he intended a diamond. Don't you think that we can detect most cases of this kind? And when we find that declarer thought he was playing some other trump, don't you think it is very likely that wxe shall find out what the trump was that declarer had in mind? I do not believe that there is a lot of mind reading required in these kinds of deals. And then I want to formulate my rule 2a. 2a. Opponents who know something for certain should not be brushed off by TD's who say they don't know what is in declarer's mind - especially not when the TD also knows for certain! > Herman emphasizes 1; (almost) everyone else emphasizes 2. > No, I have heard Sven emphasise it and I've corrected him - he no longer uses this argument. My opponents in this issue emphasise that words are more important than intent. They do not believe that the intent shall be unknown. Or if they do, please allow me to correct them > As will surprise no one, I'm a "2" supporter. The conflict can be > reduced by recognizing that the careless player's designation "trump" > will not always be advantageous. Regardless of that, having an > unambiguous ruling on which card is played seems to me the most > important aspect. > Why do you believe my interpretation is ambiguous? All my examples are about declarers who honestly admit to their mistakes. I don't care if a clever declarer gets through - I care about the feelings of the opponents of the honest declarer who says "I wanted to play a diamond but luckily I said ruff so the nice TD allowed me to play a spade instead". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 20 15:24:47 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:24:47 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__played_or_not__=3F?= References: <20070820074844.3f0296b8@linuxbox> Message-ID: <46C9961E.000004.19341@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Brian Date : 20/08/2007 13:48:56 A : blml at amsterdamned.org Sujet : Re: [blml] played or not ? > Declarer A instructs "ruff" > Declarer B instructs "ruff small" > Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3" > Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds" > Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds". > > Of these only declarers D and E have complied with proper > procedure in accordance with L46A. > > Which declarers have played the 3 of diamonds? > Well, I'd argue that it's only declarer E. Ruff, IMHO, designates a small trump. "With the" qualifies the designation of "ruff", they're all part of the same designation (see below). L46b4 tells us that the call is void if the card is not in dummy, and there are no trumps. It isn't *possible* to ruff wuth the D3. AG : I concur. Saying that any sentence including the words "3 of diamonds" means "play the 3 of diamonds" is untenable ; think of the following : - is that the 3 of diamonds under the deuce ? - would you please put the 3 of diamonds where it belongs, rather than with the hearts ? Now those are perfectly easy-to-understand sentences ; "impossible" sentences should be even more suspect. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070820/117a46bd/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/20070820/117a46bd/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/20070820/117a46bd/attachment-0001.gif From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 09:15:04 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:15:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: On 21/08/07, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > > Q86 > K5 > KQ842 > 1062 > > You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. > Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What > do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > > (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ > and C6). There's only two alternatives for me - HK or a systemic LOW diamond, depending og partners preemting style. Leading a diamond honour can't possibly be correct (I know it might turn out to be "right", but that's not the issue). -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070821/f57a5f37/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 21 10:38:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:38:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070821103357.028027e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:47 21/08/2007 +0100, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > >Q86 >K5 >KQ842 >1062 > >You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. >Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What >do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > >(Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ >and C6). To avoid leading in partner's internally-solid suit (at least, it should be), I'd need more than a mere KQ. The HK stands out, if only to preserve partnership confidence. Also, this is pairs, RHO might hold only one stopper in hearts, and this might be the best way to hold them to 9 (or 10) tricks. I admit that this depends a little on our overcall style, but I'm the kind of guy who believes his partner rather than his opponents. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Aug 21 10:30:26 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:30:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <00d001c7e3cd$88c2ff30$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:47 AM Subject: [blml] Lead Problem > Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > > Q86 > K5 > KQ842 > 1062 > > You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. > Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What > do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > HK - everything else is sheer idiocy. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Najseksowniejsi chlopcy, najladniejsze dziewczyny, sprawdz i ocen >>>http://link.interia.pl/f1b42 From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Aug 21 10:36:28 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:36:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <20070821043628.53171eed@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:10:29 +0100 Nigel wrote: > > [Nige1] > > Hilarious stuff :) To provide an apt context for their coruscating > wit, both Brian and Eric snipped the first part of my post, which > explained the *current* alternative which seems to be... > Well, good for you if you found humour in there, Nigel. It was meant to be constructive criticism of your suggestion for remedying things. As such, I didn't think your description of the *current* alternative was relevant. that wasn't the part I was commenting on. I can't speak for Eric, but that's why I snipped it. Maybe those of us who quote properly are a small enough minority these days that it looks unusual. > To punish a declarer who legally specifies the wrong card by mistake > but to allow a declarer who illegally employs a sloppy designation > to change his mind about the card he intended to play. > > I can understand how hardened BLMLers, who've managed to stomach the > WBF concept of "Equity" would have no qualms about this state of > affairs; but I'd expect Brian Meadows to be overcome by nausea. > > What would you suggest Brian? > I don't think your suggestion is that bad an idea *provided* the set of definitions is expanded - and this is one area which would obviously better handled by local regulation rather than the laws, but NCBOs HAVE to be compelled (if necessary) to do it before the law is introduced. Penalising sloppy designations on the current definitions would be an unmitigated disaster, I'm in 100% agreement with Eric on that point. Which is really the point I was making in my previous post. If you don't want to give the lawyering types an advantage that will last for years, you have to cover the terms which have become common usage. I'll certainly plead guilty to using "ruff" rather than "trump with the lowest " myself - but of all the MANY bridge mistakes I've made, I honestly can't remember my trying to ruff when playing NT. And as regards the current Laws, as you will have seen if you read my reply to David's post, then yes, I think that the person who names a specific card when wanting to trump, with no mention of the words "trump" or "ruff", is on a loser compared with the "sloppy designation". It isn't ideal, but that's the way things are at the moment. I certainly think that far less players will be disadvantaged under the current setup than if you introduce your requirement for naming specific cards without expanding the definitions, so I can accept the current setup as the lesser of those two particular evils. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGyqQMX39R2QaHMdMRAhCIAKCTPKiyjcY3TJ0SDSNvQnrE30HTdQCfV/2Q TMZcU4u7/5xBkgtMkarLVwk= =NfJn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 21 10:48:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:48:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46CA9773.8000307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c7e3d0$184646b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Herman emphasizes 1; (almost) everyone else emphasizes 2. > > > > No, I have heard Sven emphasise it and I've corrected him - he no > longer uses this argument. I am not sure what you are referring to here, but do me a favour and don't automatically take my possible silence as some kind of consent. The more likely reason for silence in discussions with you involved is that I do not want to waste my time any further. Sven From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Aug 21 11:59:52 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:59:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <46CAB798.7080604@cs.elte.hu> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > >Q86 >K5 >KQ842 >1062 > >You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. >Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What >do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > >(Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ >and C6). > >Cheers > >Stefanie Rohan > > > I would lead small diamond (the systemic). Of course I consider the small spade, the K of hearts or the diamond honeur lead as well. It's not a situation when I 'm sure about my decision, but It seems to be the best. I do not like heart lead, cos the half of the strength of of the defence is in my hand and i cannot help more to partner, to establish his suit. The spade is more sympatic, but it's a neutral lead, do not think that any of the players has more then four spades. In MP pairs it can be good if we could estabilish partners four card suit or our Q os spades as well, but I rather lokk after an active lead. It seems there are about 20 points both side, so 3N contract is not surely popular and in tis case we are not so good with restricting the overtricks :) I have two reason two chose small diamond lead instead of an honeur. The first reason is the fact I hate lead the Queen from KQ, so if our systemic lead is the Q I often choose another lead. The othr reason is that my plan is establishing my 5 card suit and if partner has doubleton (or singleton) honeur it's better to start with small card. cheers Laci From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 21 12:04:22 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:04:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000c01c7e3da$a59b42e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > > Q86 > K5 > KQ842 > 1062 > > You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. > Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What > do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > > (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ > and C6). I am so strong that I suspect even if we raise partner's hearts he will never be able to collect them. He cannot have much of an entry to his hand. Seriously my choices are HK and D2. HK can protect the partnership confidence. D2 can protect the defense. If I suspect (maximum) two diamonds to the Jack at my LHO then DK (or DQ) is also a possible choice. Spades and Clubs are definitely off. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 21 11:33:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:33:18 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Lead_Problem?= References: <46CAB798.7080604@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <46CAB15D.000001.59807@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Laszlo Hegedus Date : 21/08/2007 11:00:24 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Lead Problem I rather lokk after an active lead. It seems there are about 20 points both side AG : I don't know what Hungarian standards are for a WJO at green, but surely, to expect a ten-count is an overstatement ? My partners, even the most conservative ones, might hold QJ10xxx and a King. Some might hold Q9xxx and out, which means the Heart lead won't necessarily work, but a Diamond won't always work either - and there is some reason to believe that RHO's suit is diamonds. Give me KQxxx in spades and I'll reconsider. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070821/cc1002e0/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/20070821/cc1002e0/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/20070821/cc1002e0/attachment-0001.gif From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Aug 21 15:05:15 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:05:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Lead_Problem?= In-Reply-To: <46CAB15D.000001.59807@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46CAB798.7080604@cs.elte.hu> <46CAB15D.000001.59807@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46CAE30B.1050200@cs.elte.hu> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > /*De :*/ Laszlo Hegedus > /*Date :*/ 21/08/2007 11:00:24 > /*A :*/ Bridge Laws Mailing List > /*Sujet :*/ Re: [blml] Lead Problem > > I rather lokk after an active lead. It seems there are about > 20 points both side > > AG : I don't know what Hungarian standards are for a WJO at green, but > surely, to expect a ten-count is an overstatement ? > My partners, even the most conservative ones, might hold QJ10xxx and a > King. Some might hold Q9xxx and out, which means the Heart lead won't > necessarily work, but a Diamond won't always work either - and there > is some reason to believe that RHO's suit is diamonds. Give me KQxxx > in spades and I'll reconsider. > > Best regards > > Alain > > > > > Binettes GRATUITES pour vos courriels - par IncrediMail! Cliquez ici! > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > I did not realize that my partner preempted. Othervise in this case I have more reason to lead small diamond, instead of the K of hearts From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 21 14:07:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000701c7e342$1f284cf0$0600a8c0@david> Message-ID: David wrote: > My take on this:- > > L46A when playing from dummy declarer should clearly > state both the suit and rank of the desired card. > > This means ANY variation from this is a deviation from > correct procedure and hence an irregularity (see definitions). > (Ruff, high, deuce, a diamond etc are ALL irregularities) Just to clarify that while "deuce" is an irregularity "spade deuce" would not be. I'd estimate that in over 95% of cases when dummy is following to a trick the declarer *doesn't* state the suit. That's an irregularity every time but not one we penalise or expect declarer to suffer for perpetrating. Also worth noting that "Ruff with the 5" (assuming dummy has a 5 in the trump suit and a void in the suit led) probably *isn't* an irregularity. 99.999% of bridge players would tell us that "ruff" clearly states that a trump be played (and consider us idiots were we to rule otherwise). Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 21 14:24:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:24:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c7e3d0$184646b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c7e3d0$184646b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46CAD970.9090101@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >>> Herman emphasizes 1; (almost) everyone else emphasizes 2. >>> >> No, I have heard Sven emphasise it and I've corrected him - he no >> longer uses this argument. > > I am not sure what you are referring to here, but do me a favour and don't > automatically take my possible silence as some kind of consent. > > The more likely reason for silence in discussions with you involved is that > I do not want to waste my time any further. > I did not say anything of the sort - I just said you stopped using that particular argument. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 21 14:33:22 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:33:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <20070821043628.53171eed@linuxbox> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox><200708200718.AA10244@geller20 4.nifty.com><46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <20070821043628.53171eed@linuxbox> Message-ID: <46CADB92.9030209@meteo.fr> Brian a ?crit : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:10:29 +0100 > Nigel wrote: > >> [Nige1] >> >> Hilarious stuff :) To provide an apt context for their coruscating >> wit, both Brian and Eric snipped the first part of my post, which >> explained the *current* alternative which seems to be... >> > > Well, good for you if you found humour in there, Nigel. It was meant to > be constructive criticism of your suggestion for remedying things. As > such, I didn't think your description of the *current* alternative was > relevant. that wasn't the part I was commenting on. I can't speak for > Eric, but that's why I snipped it. Maybe those of us who quote properly > are a small enough minority these days that it looks unusual. > >> To punish a declarer who legally specifies the wrong card by mistake >> but to allow a declarer who illegally employs a sloppy designation >> to change his mind about the card he intended to play. >> >> I can understand how hardened BLMLers, who've managed to stomach the >> WBF concept of "Equity" would have no qualms about this state of >> affairs; but I'd expect Brian Meadows to be overcome by nausea. >> >> What would you suggest Brian? >> > > I don't think your suggestion is that bad an idea *provided* the set of > definitions is expanded - and this is one area which would obviously > better handled by local regulation rather than the laws, but NCBOs HAVE > to be compelled (if necessary) to do it before the law is introduced. > Penalising sloppy designations on the current definitions would be an > unmitigated disaster, I'm in 100% agreement with Eric on that point. > > Which is really the point I was making in my previous post. If you > don't want to give the lawyering types an advantage that will last for > years, you have to cover the terms which have become common usage. I'll > certainly plead guilty to using "ruff" rather than "trump with the > lowest " myself - but of all the MANY bridge mistakes I've > made, I honestly can't remember my trying to ruff when playing NT. > > And as regards the current Laws, as you will have seen if you read my > reply to David's post, then yes, I think that the person who > names a specific card when wanting to trump, with no mention of the > words "trump" or "ruff", is on a loser compared with the "sloppy > designation". It isn't ideal, but that's the way things are at the > moment. I certainly think that far less players will be disadvantaged > under the current setup than if you introduce your requirement for > naming specific cards without expanding the definitions, so I can > accept the current setup as the lesser of those two particular evils. > i find it very disconcerting that one advocates breaking the laws because many people use to do so. one could also recommend claiming without saying anything, ignoring the stop procedure, exceeding motorway speed limits, eluding taxes... for one thing, this lengthy thread will have reinforced the benefits of L46A and the dangers of irregular designations with words such as ruff, trump or other ones. jpr > > Brian. > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 21 15:10:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:10:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CAE44D.6020500@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > David wrote: > >> My take on this:- >> >> L46A when playing from dummy declarer should clearly >> state both the suit and rank of the desired card. >> >> This means ANY variation from this is a deviation from >> correct procedure and hence an irregularity (see definitions). >> (Ruff, high, deuce, a diamond etc are ALL irregularities) > > Just to clarify that while "deuce" is an irregularity "spade deuce" would > not be. I'd estimate that in over 95% of cases when dummy is following > to a trick the declarer *doesn't* state the suit. That's an irregularity > every time but not one we penalise or expect declarer to suffer for > perpetrating. > > Also worth noting that "Ruff with the 5" (assuming dummy has a 5 in the > trump suit and a void in the suit led) probably *isn't* an irregularity. > 99.999% of bridge players would tell us that "ruff" clearly states that a > trump be played (and consider us idiots were we to rule otherwise). > But we are not talking about a normal case - we are talking about a person with a mistake in his mind. If such a person asks you "I thought I was playing diamonds and I said ruff, is the diamond or the spade played?", he will not consider you an idiot if you answer "if you intended to play a diamond, then you have played a diamond". He will thank you, apologize to his partner, and play on. > Tim -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 21 15:18:45 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:18:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <9F0FB425-D43C-4CC3-8B4E-66C9F0D13331@starpower.net> On Aug 21, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > > Q86 > K5 > KQ842 > 1062 > > You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, > opens 1C. > Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on > lead. What > do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > > (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, > HK, DQ > and C6). if I must choose among those four cards, I'd lead the HK. But, depending on who's at the table, I might well lead a small diamond. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 21 16:16:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:16:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46CAD970.9090101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c7e3fd$e57bdf00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>> Herman emphasizes 1; (almost) everyone else emphasizes 2. > >>> > >> No, I have heard Sven emphasise it and I've corrected him - he no > >> longer uses this argument. > > > > I am not sure what you are referring to here, but do me a favour and > don't > > automatically take my possible silence as some kind of consent. > > > > The more likely reason for silence in discussions with you involved is > that > > I do not want to waste my time any further. > > > > I did not say anything of the sort - I just said you stopped using > that particular argument. REALLY ! ! ! ! Are you claiming that when you wrote: "I've corrected him - he no longer uses this argument." the second part was not intended to indicate a result of your activity described in the first part?? I shall refrain from commenting on such a claim from you, anything I can say will necessarily be taken as a gross (but justified) insult. Sven From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 21 17:28:08 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:28:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:38:18 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20070821103357.028027e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200708211514.IAA15651@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > At 05:47 21/08/2007 +0100, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > > > >Q86 > >K5 > >KQ842 > >1062 > > > >You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. > >Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What > >do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > > > >(Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ > >and C6). > > To avoid leading in partner's internally-solid suit (at least, it should > be), I'd need more than a mere KQ. The HK stands out, if only to preserve > partnership confidence. It depends on who your partner is. At this vulnerability, *my* partner might have T98762, but for him that would be "internally solid" since it has a straight flush in it :-). It's really impossible to answer this without knowing who you're playing with. With some partners I'd lead the HK, expect it to win, and perhaps shift after looking at dummy. With my regular partner (or with myself as a partner), the HK could well blow a trick or two. Leading something different wouldn't destroy partnership confidence, in our partnership; I'm confident that partner can make a weak jump overcall on garbage, and partner is confident that I'm aware that he often makes weak jump overcalls on garbage. -- Adam From jrmayne at mindspring.com Tue Aug 21 18:27:42 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:27:42 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [blml] Lead Problem Message-ID: <11974062.1187713662208.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Beneschan >Sent: Aug 21, 2007 8:28 AM >To: blml at amsterdamned.org > > >Alain wrote: > >> At 05:47 21/08/2007 +0100, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >Favourable at pairs, you pick up: >> > >> >Q86 >> >K5 >> >KQ842 >> >1062 >> > >> >You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. >> >Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What >> >do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? >> > >> >(Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ >> >and C6). >> >> To avoid leading in partner's internally-solid suit (at least, it should >> be), I'd need more than a mere KQ. The HK stands out, if only to preserve >> partnership confidence. > >It depends on who your partner is. At this vulnerability, *my* >partner might have T98762, but for him that would be "internally >solid" since it has a straight flush in it :-). Your partner is a wimp. In JRM Standard, nv. v. v at pairs, after P-1C, well, six to the ten is a three-bid with any outside shape at all and some purity: 4 T98764 8432 43 is bidding 3H. Sue me. Less dramatically, 94 Q9874 J432 94 bids 2H routinely in this situation without a qualm. This is not some wild deviation from agreements or flyer; this is just the low end of what a 2H bid > >It's really impossible to answer this without knowing who you're >playing with. With some partners I'd lead the HK, expect it to win, >and perhaps shift after looking at dummy. With my regular partner (or >with myself as a partner), the HK could well blow a trick or two. Yeah, but I'd still lead it unless the 3N bidder were a known coward or very solid citizen. I'd lead a diamond if I had the ten. Nothing is seriously *wrong* with a diamond in the JRM-preempting style. >Leading something different wouldn't destroy partnership confidence, >in our partnership; I'm confident that partner can make a weak jump >overcall on garbage, and partner is confident that I'm aware that he >often makes weak jump overcalls on garbage. I agree with this entirely. If you can't play bridge because you have to lead whatever stupid thing partner wants you to lead, I quit. I once played with Carl Hudecek online and failed to lead his suit twice in one session. Both times, I was right. I'm not sure what bothered him more; that I didn't lead his suit or that I was right not to. --JRM From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 21 18:29:32 2007 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:29:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <46CB12EC.2010003@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] Favourable at pairs, you pick up: S:Q86 H:K5 D:KQ842 C:T62 You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ and C6). [nige1] IMO S6 = 9, DQ = 7, HK = 6, C6 = 1 With plenty of room for exploration, your RHO is unlikely to leap to 3NT without club honours and hearts well stopped. The position of HK may come as an unwelcome surprise to declarer. Given partner's bid and your high-card strength, opponents appear to be stretching, hence LHO probably has club length rather than 15+flat. With four spades, RHO might make a negative double, so you may slightly prefer a spade to a diamond. If Stefanie allows us to us to depart from her lead standards then... SQ = 10, S6 = 9, D4 = 8, DQ = 7, HK = 6, C6 = 1. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 21 18:35:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:35:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c7e3fd$e57bdf00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001b01c7e3fd$e57bdf00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46CB146D.2090504@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ............... >>>>> Herman emphasizes 1; (almost) everyone else emphasizes 2. >>>>> >>>> No, I have heard Sven emphasise it and I've corrected him - he no >>>> longer uses this argument. >>> I am not sure what you are referring to here, but do me a favour and >> don't >>> automatically take my possible silence as some kind of consent. >>> >>> The more likely reason for silence in discussions with you involved is >> that >>> I do not want to waste my time any further. >>> >> I did not say anything of the sort - I just said you stopped using >> that particular argument. > > REALLY ! ! ! ! > > Are you claiming that when you wrote: > > "I've corrected him - he no longer uses this argument." > > the second part was not intended to indicate a result of your activity > described in the first part?? > Yes it did. And you don't use the argument any more. Let's recap: 2. Ordinary rulings (as opposed to conduct issues) should never depend on mind reading. While that is true, and you do believe it (so do I), it was used as an argument for your interpretation of this particular problem. I have told the list (and you) that this argument is of no great use to promote your side of the interpretation barrier, since it will hardly ever be necessary to do mind reading in the cases that we're talking about - declarer will tell you what he was thinking. Thus, that argument should no longer be used for your interpretation. And in fact - correct me if I'm wrong - you have no longer used that argument. Which does not mean you have agreed with me on the interpretation. If you still believe that "mind reading" is a valid argument then there is no use discussing this any further. > I shall refrain from commenting on such a claim from you, anything I can say > will necessarily be taken as a gross (but justified) insult. > I shall refrain from commenting too, as the insults would be equally justified. > 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 john at asimere.com Tue Aug 21 18:40:41 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:40:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <006201c7e412$037e46a0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:47 AM Subject: [blml] Lead Problem > Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > > Q86 > K5 > KQ842 > 1062 I held this hand (from brighton) I led a SMALL diamond. John > > You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. > Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What > do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > > (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ > and C6). > > Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 21 20:39:47 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:39:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Richard agrees with Herman (was Law 45D) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46CB146D.2090504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7e422$a6d6bb60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> ............... > >>>>> Herman emphasizes 1; (almost) everyone else emphasizes 2. > >>>>> > >>>> No, I have heard Sven emphasise it and I've corrected him - he no > >>>> longer uses this argument. > >>> I am not sure what you are referring to here, but do me a favour and > >> don't > >>> automatically take my possible silence as some kind of consent. > >>> > >>> The more likely reason for silence in discussions with you involved is > >> that > >>> I do not want to waste my time any further. > >>> > >> I did not say anything of the sort - I just said you stopped using > >> that particular argument. > > > > REALLY ! ! ! ! > > > > Are you claiming that when you wrote: > > > > "I've corrected him - he no longer uses this argument." > > > > the second part was not intended to indicate a result of your activity > > described in the first part?? > > > > Yes it did. And you don't use the argument any more. Good that you admit that, because only an imbecile could understand your statement in any other way. And whatever argument I have ceased using towards you (except when admitting a mistake on my part) is not because I have conceded in your argumentation but mainly because I do not bother to waste more of my time on you. So there is no "credit" for you to collect here. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Tue Aug 21 21:21:19 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:21:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000701c7e428$74351890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:47 PM Subject: [blml] Lead Problem > Favourable at pairs, you pick up: > > Q86 > K5 > KQ842 > 1062 > > You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. > Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. What > do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? > > (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ > and C6). > > Cheers > > Stefanie Rohan Hearts is the suit declarer has stopped (or double stopped, more likely) 100% of the time. Partner doesn't have entries and I have only two hearts, therefore leading hearts is close to curling up dead and conceding, particularly if the overcall is in modern style/less restricted, favorable at pairs. Small diamond. From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Aug 21 22:43:40 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:43:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com><07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000701c7e428$74351890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <073501c7e433$f560df20$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:47 PM > Subject: [blml] Lead Problem > > >> Favourable at pairs, you pick up: >> >> Q86 >> K5 >> KQ842 >> 1062 >> >> You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. >> Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. >> What >> do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? >> >> (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ >> and C6). >> >> Cheers >> >> Stefanie Rohan > > > Hearts is the suit declarer has stopped (or double stopped, more likely) > 100% of the time. Partner doesn't have entries and I have only two > hearts, > therefore leading hearts is close to curling up dead and conceding, > particularly if the overcall is in modern style/less restricted, favorable > at pairs. Small diamond. Have you seen that it is pairs? So your #1 aim should be not to beat the contract (a chance that, though possible, looks pretty small on the bidding) but to avoid blowing a trick? Small diamond can strike gold sometimes but most of the time it will give a free overtrick to declarer. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Gorace i zmyslowe (tylko dla doroslych) >>>http://link.interia.pl/f1b13 From mustikka at charter.net Wed Aug 22 00:20:26 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:20:26 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com><07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie><000701c7e428$74351890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <073501c7e433$f560df20$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <000501c7e441$79d5a440$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:47 PM > Subject: [blml] Lead Problem > > >> Favourable at pairs, you pick up: >> >> Q86 >> K5 >> KQ842 >> 1062 >> >> You pass, and LHO, playing ACOL with 4-card majors and weak NT, opens 1C. >> Partner bids 2H, weak. RHO bids 3NT, and you find yourself on lead. >> What >> do you lead, and how strongly do you feel about it? >> >> (Please restrict your answer to your systemic leads, which are S6, HK, DQ >> and C6). >> >> Cheers >> >> Stefanie Rohan > > > Hearts is the suit declarer has stopped (or double stopped, more likely) > 100% of the time. Partner doesn't have entries and I have only two > hearts, > therefore leading hearts is close to curling up dead and conceding, > particularly if the overcall is in modern style/less restricted, favorable > at pairs. Small diamond. Have you seen that it is pairs? So your #1 aim should be not to beat the contract (a chance that, though possible, looks pretty small on the bidding) but to avoid blowing a trick? Small diamond can strike gold sometimes but most of the time it will give a free overtrick to declarer. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland My concern is exactly that, ie. wish to avoid blowing a trick. Declarer *has* announced he has hearts 100% controlled with most likely two stoppers, therefore heart lead is going to blow a trick or two. There is no knowledge whether a diamond lead blows a trick or not, nor whether it sets the contract, but I would rather not make a lead that I already KNOW will blow a trick. Raija From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Aug 22 01:10:44 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:10:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com><07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie><000701c7e428$74351890$f8065e47@DFYXB361><073501c7e433$f560df20$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> <000501c7e441$79d5a440$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <077401c7e448$80f38650$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" >My concern is exactly that, ie. wish to avoid blowing a trick. Declarer >*has* announced he has hearts 100% controlled Yes, he has. So? >with most likely two stoppers, You mean partner "most likely" jumped to 2H with six to the jack or six to the queen? What for? Why would he do that? Who are we playing with? Sure, anything is possible in bridge, but what are the odds? How often do you see people jump do 2H with Qxxxxx? The assumption about declarer's two sure stoppers is only a step below being absurd. Considering partner's WJO declarer will hold a single stopper about 90% of the time. After a WJO a single stopper is usually more than enough to shut out the pre-emptor - especially holdings like Axx which allow you to duck twice and in most cases the pre-emptor won't have a side entry. Of all possible holdings the heart layout QJxxxx xx Axx Kx is the most likely. There are many hands where declarer had no option but to bid NT - with hands like xx Axx AJxx KQxx xxx Axx AJxx KQx he can hardly bid anything else than 3NT. He cannot make a T/O dbl (that would be a huge risk - if the 2H pre-empt is raised opener might keep overbidding them with spades) and 3H will get us past 3NT if opener fails to deliver a H stopper. >therefore heart lead is going to blow a trick or two. There is no >knowledge >whether a diamond lead blows a trick or not, nor whether it sets the >contract, but I would rather not make a lead that I already KNOW will blow >a >trick. This is nonsense. If the 2H overcall has any sense at all the heart lead will almost never blow a trick. Sometimes it will but not very often. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprawdz czy Ty i Twoj partner pasujecie do siebie emocjonalnie i seksualnie >>>http://link.interia.pl/f1b14 From adam at irvine.com Wed Aug 22 01:17:47 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:17:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:10:44 +0200." <077401c7e448$80f38650$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > You mean partner "most likely" jumped to 2H with six to the jack > or six to the queen? What for? Why would he do that? > Who are we playing with? > Sure, anything is possible in bridge, but what are the odds? > How often do you see people jump do 2H with > Qxxxxx? Lots!!! Konrad, maybe you don't see it that much in Poland, but at favorable vulnerability it's not at all uncommon over here in the US. I suspect that in England and Australia it's even more common---they seem to be maniacs when it comes to preempting. It's a matter of style and culture, which is why you need to be careful when saying things like: > The assumption about declarer's two sure stoppers is only a step below > being absurd. In some places, it would be absurd. Not in others. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 22 02:15:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:15:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46CA388E.5050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >As others have written, I'd be surprised if "2" standing >alone is a complete call. If that's what the regulations >say, they need to specify how to determine the denomination. ABF Bidding Regulations, clauses 3.1 and 7.1: >>3.1 Players must decide their call before commencing to >>write or to touch the bidding box. Any vacillation among >>calls may convey unauthorised information and restrict >>partner's actions according to Laws 16A and 73C. >>..... >>7.1 A call is not made until the player has written the >>appropriate numeral, if necessary, with the appropriate >>symbol. Each call should be written in the next vacant box >>working from left to right of that player's segment of the >>bidding slip. The symbols are: >> >>The numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 >>C for clubs >>D for diamonds >>H for hearts >>S for spades >>NT for no trumps >> / for pass >>Either / or // for the concluding pass of the auction >>X for double >>XX for redouble Richard Hills: My point is that since the ABF has ruled that "2" is not a bid, by analogy an ABF Director should rule that a declarer who says "the Qu" has not called a card from dummy. Steve Willner: >In spoken bidding, "Two... no, wait..." is not a call. Richard Hills: In the absence of a Spoken Bidding Regulation created by the sponsoring organisation, Herman De Wael might well argue that Steve is begging the question, petitio principii. Given that Herman argues that a declarer's request to "play a trump" in a 3NT contract should be interpreted as "play a diamond", if that was declarer's original intent, Herman may well argue that "Two... no, wait..." should be interpreted as a bid of 2D, if that was the bidder's original intent. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Aug 22 09:06:20 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:06:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <079001c7e48a$f4223210$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem > > Konrad wrote: > >> You mean partner "most likely" jumped to 2H with six to the jack >> or six to the queen? What for? Why would he do that? >> Who are we playing with? >> Sure, anything is possible in bridge, but what are the odds? >> How often do you see people jump do 2H with >> Qxxxxx? > > Lots!!! Konrad, maybe you don't see it that much in Poland, but at > favorable vulnerability it's not at all uncommon over here in the US. > I suspect that in England and Australia it's even more common---they > seem to be maniacs when it comes to preempting. If partner has Qxxxxx and nothing more chances are that a diamond lead won't do any good either. The diamond lead will most likely blow a trick, too. Declarer will usually end up with 12 tricks after both red suit leads. This scenario is not very likely anyway - the opponents never made a slam try and with 28 HCP between them they would usually do. If, on the other hand, partner holds Qxxxxx and some side honors (say Kxx Qxxxxx Axx x) then it will mean that a jump overcall was plain stupidity. Pre-empting on a weak suit with side defensive tricks - so that when they nail us and collect 800 they have no contract to make of their own. That some people do it nonetheless doesn't make it any less idiotic. Especially that a pre-empt was made in front of an unpassed partner. To sum up - even if your style is aggressive then in most cases partner will deliver a suit of some quality. Partner has 6+H with at least one honor, right? So the odds that he has some other honor in hearts, his longest suit, overwhelm the odds of that other honor being in diamonds. By far. As I said - it is possible for partner to have some help in diamonds and relatively weak hearts and a diamond lead will be a killer (xxx Q1098xx Jx xx and HAJx in declarer's hand with diamonds split 3-3) but it is simply a wildly anti-percentage action. At IMPs I can understand the diamond lead because if partner has strong hearts then he rarely will have a side entry so we won't beat the contract. But at pairs a diamond lead is a typical case of junior bridge - an action against the odds in an attempt to strike gold. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rozwiazania Informatyczne dla Twojej firmy. >>>http://link.interia.pl/f1b4d From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 10:20:15 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:20:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <000701c7e428$74351890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070822101607.02143080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:21 21/08/2007 -0700, raija wrote: >Hearts is the suit declarer has stopped (or double stopped, more likely) >100% of the time. Partner doesn't have entries and I have only two hearts, >therefore leading hearts is close to curling up dead and conceding, >particularly if the overcall is in modern style/less restricted, favorable >at pairs. Small diamond. AG : what's wrong, at pairs, with conceding 9 tricks when there are 9 ? While declarer will surely stop hearts, his 3NT (if it's a stretch, which depends on our style, indeed) he could well hold a diamond suit. I still think a heart is less likely to blow a trick. Anyway, since this is surely a LA problem, the main lesson is that we don't agree. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 10:25:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:25:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem In-Reply-To: <000501c7e441$79d5a440$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller204.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworld.com> <07f601c7e3ae$59720dd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000701c7e428$74351890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <073501c7e433$f560df20$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070822102106.02142ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:20 21/08/2007 -0700, raija wrote: >My concern is exactly that, ie. wish to avoid blowing a trick. Declarer >*has* announced he has hearts 100% controlled with most likely two stoppers, AG : so he has AJxx facing a singleton. Note that leading from Ax would be more dangerous. One of the most interesting cases would be when partner holds Ace-empty in hearts, or QJxxx(x), or Q10xxxx, and not much on the side. Then it would be better to lead a Heart or Diamond honor than a small diamond. Which means I don't agree with everyone's declaration that a small Diamond is a good lead *at pairs*. Best regards Alain From mustikka at charter.net Wed Aug 22 11:12:59 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:12:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com> <079001c7e48a$f4223210$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <000d01c7e49c$a317b720$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem To sum up - even if your style is aggressive then in most cases partner will deliver a suit of some quality. Partner has 6+H with at least one honor, right? Wrong. Meaning, that is not guaranteed. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 22 11:16:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CAE44D.6020500@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > But we are not talking about a normal case - we are talking about a > person with a mistake in his mind. Herman it just doesn't matter. Declarer has said one of the following: "Small fish with the 5" "Frilly collar with the 5" "Trump with the 5". None of those designates a card in dummy if the trump 5 is not there. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 22 11:16:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CADB92.9030209@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Jean-pierre wrote: > for one thing, this lengthy thread will have reinforced the > benefits of L46A and the dangers of irregular designations with > words such as ruff, trump or other ones. "trump" is most certainly NOT an irregular word (at least in situations where there is a defined trump suit) - it is defined in law and clearly designates a specific suit. My personal view is that "ruff" is as widely understood in the English-speaking world as "trump" and can be used as an interchangeable synonym (just as one may use two/deuce or three/trey as unambiguous designations of rank). We do not "enforce" L46a - and indeed I doubt that many more than a quarter of dummy calls are L46a compliant. We have 46a purely so that we can blame declarer in the tiny tiny fraction of cases where there is confusion as to the card called and his RHO makes a mistake as a result. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 22 11:37:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:37:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CC03BF.3030706@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner: > > [snip] > >> As others have written, I'd be surprised if "2" standing >> alone is a complete call. If that's what the regulations >> say, they need to specify how to determine the denomination. > > ABF Bidding Regulations, clauses 3.1 and 7.1: > >>> 3.1 Players must decide their call before commencing to >>> write or to touch the bidding box. Any vacillation among >>> calls may convey unauthorised information and restrict >>> partner's actions according to Laws 16A and 73C. >>> ..... >>> 7.1 A call is not made until the player has written the >>> appropriate numeral, if necessary, with the appropriate >>> symbol. Each call should be written in the next vacant box >>> working from left to right of that player's segment of the >>> bidding slip. The symbols are: >>> >>> The numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 >>> C for clubs >>> D for diamonds >>> H for hearts >>> S for spades >>> NT for no trumps >>> / for pass >>> Either / or // for the concluding pass of the auction >>> X for double >>> XX for redouble > > Richard Hills: > > My point is that since the ABF has ruled that "2" is not a > bid, by analogy an ABF Director should rule that a declarer > who says "the Qu" has not called a card from dummy. > > Steve Willner: > >> In spoken bidding, "Two... no, wait..." is not a call. > > Richard Hills: > > In the absence of a Spoken Bidding Regulation created by > the sponsoring organisation, Herman De Wael might well > argue that Steve is begging the question, petitio > principii. Given that Herman argues that a declarer's > request to "play a trump" in a 3NT contract should be > interpreted as "play a diamond", if that was declarer's > original intent, Herman may well argue that "Two... no, > wait..." should be interpreted as a bid of 2D, if that was > the bidder's original intent. > > You should know better than to mix examples from bidding and play. "Two, no wait" is no more than UI. "ruff" is a full designation of a card one intends to play. We are unsure of how to rule if the intent does not match the literal word, but I doubt if many will rule that no card has been played. Just to prove that one point: If declarer says "ruff" in a spade contract, when believing he's playing diamonds - how many of you would allow him to play the club 2 now? No-one, yes? So that means a card has been played, and all we need to do is to agree on which one it is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 22 11:32:09 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:32:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200708170720.AA10225@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <009201c7e4a1$f0707d40$b69487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Specialized meaninglessness has come to be regarded, in some circles, as a kind of hall mark of true science." {Aldous Huxley} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>"About half a century ago, 50 American experts >>were polled as to who the best American player >>was. The result was a 50-way tie for first >>place. But the 50 experts were unanimous in >>their opinions that Howard Schenken was the >>second-best American player." > > This must be a lie. I'm sure Schenken got ONE first place vote, > and 49 second place votes. :-) > > -Bob > +=+ Oh, not necessarily. Did the pollster consider Schenken an 'American expert'? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 22 11:42:08 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:42:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standards Message-ID: <009301c7e4a1$f16145e0$b69487d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "The first point of courtesy must always be truth." ~ Emerson. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ I suggest that it sets an undesirable tone when a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible but wrong, is described as 'an imbecile'. The views may be sincerely held. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 22 12:00:18 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:00:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] British bridge terminology In-Reply-To: <20070821115144.57591319@linuxbox> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox><200708200718.AA10244@geller20 4.nifty.com><46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLworl d.com><20070821043628.53171eed@linuxbox><46CADB92.9030209@meteo.fr> <20070821115144.57591319@linuxbox> Message-ID: <46CC0932.1070201@meteo.fr> Brian a ?crit : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:33:22 +0200 > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> i find it very disconcerting that one advocates breaking the laws >> because many people use to do so. > > I'm just recognising reality. I know nothing of bridge in France, but > in my 25 years experience of British club bridge (up until I emigrated, > 10 years ago) the use of "ruff" rather than "trump" is at the very least > overwhelming. Bridge books use it, TDs use it, players use it, everyone > knows that "ruff" means "trump". > > All this hoo-hah about a player trying to ruff in a No Trump contract, > my view is that you should deal with him in exactly the same way as if > he'd said "trump" rather than "ruff" - and as has been noted, the word > "trump" IS defined for the purposes of L46A. At least at an English > bridge club, the two terms are equivalent, at least in my opinion and > experience. it's not what i meant. i agree to see ruff and trump as equivalent: both are irregularities in reference to L46A. the appearence of the word "suit" in the definition of "trump" doesn't make a suit of trump. in order to know what are the elements of the set "suits" i think we need to see the definition of "suit", in which there are only 4 elements. i agree the use of trump will seldom make any difference but sometimes it will and i think the wording of L46A is accurate. sometimes the use of "trump" could be a mess: declarer is mistaken about the contract or dummy is not paying attention and doesn't play the card declarer asked. the same can be said about the rank. it seldom makes any difference when declarer doesn't name it and players mechanically apply L46B but sometimes... once piotr gawrys was declarer in a desperate NT contract. the lead was in dummy who had something like KQ875 in spades without any further entry and rho J943, and no other spades in both other hands. he called high spade (dummy played K, rho 3), then "spade" and rho carelessly played the 4, unable to imagine declarer playing anything other than Q. this was reported as a clever play from gawrys. it would not have been successfull if he had called "5 of spades". who is to blame? declarer, rho, L46, common usage? jpr > > > Brian. > > - -- -- _______________________________________________ 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 cibor at poczta.fm Wed Aug 22 12:05:02 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:05:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com><079001c7e48a$f4223210$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> <000d01c7e49c$a317b720$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <07b501c7e4a3$e926e130$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:06 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem > > > To sum up - even if your style is aggressive then in most > cases partner will deliver a suit of some quality. > Partner has 6+H with at least one honor, right? > > Wrong. > Meaning, that is not guaranteed. > This is a _bridge_ group. If even one honor is not guaranteed, that is if partner might have xxxxxx in hearts then the question should have been asked on rec.russian.roulette or somewhere. I'm glad you're not considering the possibility of partner having a heart void. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko czego potrzebujesz latem: kremy do opalania, stroje kapielowe, maly romans >>>http://link.interia.pl/f1b15 From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 22 12:50:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:50:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standards In-Reply-To: <009301c7e4a1$f16145e0$b69487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000201c7e4aa$3790d3c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > +=+ I suggest that it sets an undesirable tone when > a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible > but wrong, is described as 'an imbecile'. The views > may be sincerely held. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I fully agree. That is why I didn't use the word until the person admitted that his statement was intended the only way it would make any sense (implying an insult) so that I could write: "Good that you admit that, because only an imbecile could understand your statement in any other way." Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 12:58:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:58:13 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Lead_Problem?= References: <000d01c7e49c$a317b720$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46CC16C4.000001.26515@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : raija Date : 08/22/07 11:11:25 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Lead Problem ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem To sum up - even if your style is aggressive then in most cases partner will deliver a suit of some quality. Partner has 6+H with at least one honor, right? Wrong. Meaning, that is not guaranteed. AG : neither is the presence of a Diamond honor. I'd say the presence of a heart suit that makes the lead right is more probable than the presence of diamond honor. After all, he bid hearts, didn t he ? Of course, it is less probable, in that case, that the contract go down, but that's not our main purpose in selecting a lead against such a sequence. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070822/3259ee15/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/20070822/3259ee15/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/20070822/3259ee15/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 13:05:03 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:05:03 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__British_bridge_terminol?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ogy?= References: <46CC0932.1070201@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <46CC185E.000004.26515@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Jean-Pierre Rocafort Date : 22/08/2007 12:00:47 A : blml at amsterdamned.org Sujet : Re: [blml] British bridge terminology once piotr gawrys was declarer in a desperate NT contract. the lead was in dummy who had something like KQ875 in spades without any further entry and rho J943, and no other spades in both other hands. he called high spade (dummy played K, rho 3), then "spade" and rho carelessly played the 4, unable to imagine declarer playing anything other than Q. this was reported as a clever play from gawrys. it would not have been successfull if he had called "5 of spades". who is to blame? declarer, rho, L46, common usage? AG : declarer, the TD that didn't apply L73D and L72B1 (there was in irregularity in naming the card, wasn't there ?), and the guy who called this "clever". IMOBO, "sharp practice" would have been more appropriate. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070822/ac3a0104/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/20070822/ac3a0104/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/20070822/ac3a0104/attachment-0001.gif From joanandron at worldnet.att.net Wed Aug 22 13:16:31 2007 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:16:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Standards References: <009301c7e4a1$f16145e0$b69487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <007001c7e4ad$e86ed040$bf324c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi Grattan, Well put... There is definitely a screw loose with some of these people. Luv, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:42 AM Subject: [blml] Standards > > Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ************************* > "The first point of courtesy must > always be truth." ~ Emerson. > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > +=+ I suggest that it sets an undesirable tone when > a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible > but wrong, is described as 'an imbecile'. The views > may be sincerely held. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 22 13:49:14 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:49:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) References: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com><079001c7e48a$f4223210$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> <000d01c7e49c$a317b720$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <0b3901c7e4b2$76cdf830$0100a8c0@stefanie> I am surprised by the number of heart leaders; there was a smaller proportion of them when a face-to-face poll of experts was taken, but then again these experts were all English, and there seem to be cultural differences in the style of the 2H overcall at these colours facing a partner who could not open an 11-point NT. Low diamond leaders may be surprised to learn that, according to extensive analysis by my partner, this was the least successful of the suggested leads in pairs, having the greatest chance of giving up a(n) (extra) overtrick. But in practice, it did not matter which diamond you led, because partner's hand was: 93 1097432 A63 83 I led QD, and all was well. Oh, wait a minute, I seem to have mistyped partner's hand. His majors were actually reversed. Now what? Does anyone think much of categorising this as an amber psyche? Red maybe? Cheers Stefanie Rohan From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 22 14:07:39 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:07:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standards In-Reply-To: <007001c7e4ad$e86ed040$bf324c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> References: <009301c7e4a1$f16145e0$b69487d9@Hellen> <007001c7e4ad$e86ed040$bf324c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Message-ID: <46CC270B.1080408@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] ************************* "The first point of courtesy must always be truth." ~ Emerson. +=+ I suggest that it sets an undesirable tone when a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible but wrong, is described as 'an imbecile'. The views may be sincerely held. [Joan Gerrard] Well put... There is definitely a screw loose with some of these people. Luv, Joan [nige1] Grattan and Joan are right. IMO, descent to invective is usually an admission that you have lost the rational argument. Grattan implies that Herman's views are "at best, plausible but wrong". I feel that is of doubtful relevance. Anyway, an ex cathedra statement, without supporting argument also falls short of the standards to which we should aspire. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 22 14:20:08 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:20:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CC29F8.4050605@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> But we are not talking about a normal case - we are talking about a >> person with a mistake in his mind. > > Herman it just doesn't matter. > Tim it does matter. > Declarer has said one of the following: > > "Small fish with the 5" > "Frilly collar with the 5" > "Trump with the 5". > > None of those designates a card in dummy if the trump 5 is not there. > One of these might designate a card in dummy if the D5 is there and declarer thinks diamonds are trumps. So yet again, you come up with an argument which is easily refuted. You cannot say "since small fish does not designate anything, neither does trump". Because trump can designate something, whereas small fish cannot. Mind you, I am merely attacking your argumentation, not necessarily your interpretation. But I would like you to conclude that my interpretation is not invalid. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 22 15:35:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CC29F8.4050605@skynet.be> Message-ID: > *From:* Herman De Wael > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Date:* Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:20:08 +0200 > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Herman wrote: > >> But we are not talking about a normal case - we are talking > about a >> person with a mistake in his mind. > > Herman it just doesn't matter. > > > > Tim it does matter. > > > Declarer has said one of the following: > > > > "Small fish with the 5" > > "Frilly collar with the 5" > > "Trump with the 5". > > > > None of those designates a card in dummy if the trump 5 is not > > there. > > > > One of these might designate a card in dummy if the D5 is there and > declarer thinks diamonds are trumps. > > So yet again, you come up with an argument which is easily refuted. > You cannot say "since small fish does not designate anything, > neither does trump". Because trump can designate something, whereas > small fish cannot. That is not what I said. I said that Ruff=Trump (in plain English, having discarded the other English meanings as irrelevant) and that Trump has a specific meaning in law. It is one of the 5 valid suit designations listed in the lawbook. Calling for the "Trump 5" when there is no "Trump 5" in dummy is the exact equivalent of declarer calling "Spade 5" when there is no S5 in dummy. We may, or may not, be *able* to establish what card declarer *intended* when he said "5 of spades" but it doesn't matter because if there is no 5 of spades L46b4 gives declarer the free choice of any legal play. It doesn't even matter if we establish that declarer had the *incontrovertible* intention of playing the diamond 5 because the there is no card nominated *in dummy* to which the D5 can be deemed "different" thus rendering the introductory qualifier of L46 as inapplicable. > But I would like you to conclude that my interpretation is not > invalid. You might like it but sadly your efforts continue to be garbage. You are trying to apply "when declarer?s different intention is incontrovertible" to a situation with no referent. Basically you are ignoring the presence of the key word "different" in that sentence. Tim From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Aug 22 14:48:54 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:48:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] British bridge terminology In-Reply-To: <20070822064353.7a34bff9@linuxbox> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox><200708200718.AA10244@geller20 4.nifty.com><46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLwo rl d.com><20070821043628.53171eed@linuxbox><46CADB92.9030209@meteo.fr><2007 0821115144.57591319@linuxbox><46CBEF02.2090205@meteo.fr> <20070822064353.7a34bff9@linuxbox> Message-ID: <46CC30B6.6070005@meteo.fr> Brian a ?crit : > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:08:34 +0200 > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> it's not what i meant. i agree to see ruff and trump as equivalent: >> both are irregularities in reference to L46A. the appearence of the >> word "suit" in the definition of "trump" doesn't make a suit of >> trump. > > And there's our difference. I would argue that it does exactly that for > the duration of a single hand played in a suit contract. Judging by > what I have read on BLML, I'm far from being the only one with > that point of view. i agree to be in a minority. my reading of the definitions of "suit" and "trump" makes me think trump is no a suit but, under certain circonstances, a temporary propriety of some suit. > > >> in order to know what are the elements of the set "suits" i >> think we need to see the definition of "suit", in which there are >> only 4 elements. i agree the use of trump will seldom make any >> difference but sometimes it will and i think the wording of L46A is >> accurate. sometimes the use of "trump" could be a mess: declarer is >> mistaken about the contract or dummy is not paying attention and >> doesn't play the card declarer asked. > > We know how to deal with dummy playing the wrong card, that's easy. Law > 45D. exact but it causes inconveniences and they would be avoided if common usage didn't go against L46A which is designed to limit inconveniences to the strict minimum. > > If declarer is in a suit contract then "trump" names the trump suit. If > "trump" is all he says, Law 46B2 applies. L46B is a law designed to rectify irregularities. the less we have to use it, the better. > > If declarer is in NT, then "trump" is just a noise, and the > whole attempted designation is invalid and is ignored. maybe, but if we could educate players to avoid useless noises that consume time, nerves, saliva, bandwidth... > >> the same can be said about the >> rank. it seldom makes any difference when declarer doesn't name it >> and players mechanically apply L46B but sometimes... once piotr >> gawrys was declarer in a desperate NT contract. the lead was in dummy >> who had something like KQ875 in spades without any further entry and >> rho J943, and no other spades in both other hands. he called high >> spade (dummy played K, rho 3), then "spade" and rho carelessly played >> the 4, unable to imagine declarer playing anything other than Q. this >> was reported as a clever play from gawrys. it would not have been >> successfull if he had called "5 of spades". who is to blame? >> declarer, rho, L46, common usage? >> > > RHO takes at least a large chunk of the blame. If I understand you > correctly, he's played out of turn, i.e. without seeing dummy's card > actually be played. it was not out of turn, according to L45B, unless i failed to understand the meaning of "after which". > The suit of KQ875 is manifestly not a solid suit, so > any provisions about playing from the top down (it's in the EBU > regulations, or at least, it was) don't apply, and RHO has no business > assuming that it was a high spade that was played. Declarer is deemed to > have named the lowest card of the suit, Law 46B2. agreed > If RHO genuinely > doesn't know this, then he's going nowhere against the likes of Gawrys > anyway. > > > The more interesting question is whether declarer was seeking to profit > from a deliberate irregularity. I admit right now that I'd hate to be > faced with this one. :-) Law 46 does deal with irregularities in > procedure, at least according to the English section title, so the > naming of the suit only *is* an irregularity, albeit a very common one. > > The easy part first - RHO keeps his score. His fault for not paying > attention and/or not waiting for a card to be played from dummy and/or > not knowing the rules of the game he's playing. > > > I think that if I was convinced that declarer had done this > deliberately in an attempt to get opponent to make an error, then I'm > going to hit declarer with a PP for infringing Law 72B2, and the PP > will be as close as I can get to (but NOT less than) the amount needed > so that declarer gets the score he was most likely to get if he'd named > the card correctly, and RHO hadn't been deceived. he will tell you that he never names the rank, that all his fellows do likewise, that it's common usage > > Yes, I would expect all hell to break loose after this decision. :-). > That's life. How did I do against what actually happened (I'd not heard > the story before)? score stands. rho was laughed at. i don't remember very well. i read the report in a bridge magazine and i think it was about 15 years ago in an invitational individual tournament. maybe somebody can give more precise information jpr > > > Brian. > -- _______________________________________________ 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Aug 22 16:36:28 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:36:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Question Message-ID: <46CC49EC.3080508@aol.com> Hola Henk! I am puzzled. Recently I discovered a new icon on the desktop of my PC. It was entitled "2006-December.txt.gz". Very difficult to open it but my local computer guru managed. It turned out that it was from blml with a list of the abbreviations and the number of postings for the members, probably for Dec. 2006. Also many emails, possibly the entire correspondence for Dec. 2006. Very puzzling. Why was this sent to me, and why as an icon and not a normal email as is usual? Ciao, JE Postscriptum: It arrived (was dated) on Aug. 17th, 2007. From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Aug 22 16:51:48 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:51:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] British bridge terminology In-Reply-To: <46CC30B6.6070005@meteo.fr> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox> <200708200718.AA10244@geller20 4.nifty.com> <46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com> <46CA3B85.6000300@NTLwo rl d.com> <20070821043628.53171eed@linuxbox> <46CADB92.9030209@meteo.fr> <2007 0821115144.57591319@linuxbox> <46CBEF02.2090205@meteo.fr> <20070822064353.7a34bff9@linuxbox> <46CC30B6.6070005@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <20070822105148.28db0e27@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:48:54 +0200 Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > he will tell you that he never names the rank, that all his fellows > do likewise, that it's common usage > Very interesting. Unless running a solid suit, that sounds to me like dummy assisting with determining the play. Maybe things really are that different at Gawrys's level, I'm just a player who got suckered into doing a club TD job for a decade or so, so I have no idea what goes on up in the higher echelons. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGzE2EX39R2QaHMdMRAtBrAJ9Yll7onVvbw+aktgYoZ3vKmw1eOQCfW7zJ QB7NaD2/Pu2naT94iZYC5Fk= =KdfE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 22 16:51:42 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:51:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005901c7e4cb$f3d3da70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem > > Konrad wrote: > >> You mean partner "most likely" jumped to 2H with six to the jack >> or six to the queen? What for? Why would he do that? >> Who are we playing with? >> Sure, anything is possible in bridge, but what are the odds? >> How often do you see people jump do 2H with >> Qxxxxx? Good lord, Why do you need 6? 5 is quite enough. John > > Lots!!! Konrad, maybe you don't see it that much in Poland, but at > favorable vulnerability it's not at all uncommon over here in the US. > I suspect that in England and Australia it's even more common---they > seem to be maniacs when it comes to preempting. It's a matter of > style and culture, which is why you need to be careful when saying > things like: > >> The assumption about declarer's two sure stoppers is only a step below >> being absurd. > > In some places, it would be absurd. Not in others. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Aug 22 17:51:06 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:51:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] bizarre? Message-ID: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> Two hands from a recent tournament. Fairly large tournament, about 80-100 tables per session, players from many countries, not a small club tournament. Hand 1: Dealer South, all vul. AK8 AJ4 J7 AKJ72 J1074 Q952 986 K1032 104 A6 10983 Q54 63 Q75 KQ98532 6 Bidding: S ps ps 2NT ps 3sp ps 3NT ps 6di all pass (ps=pass; no alerts) Before opening lead West asks if 3sp. demands response of 3NT No! He then asks what 3sp. meant. No idea! Lead was club; contract fulfilled. EW present two arguments. (1) 3sp. was not alerted although conventional (explained later); did South use this UI (nonalert showing that partner did not understand the bid) in bidding 6di? (2) With proper info would have West had a somewhat better chance of finding the killing heart lead? (Should South have explained trhe 3sp. bid before the opening lead?) TD checked CC of EW. 3sp. was noted as "Niemeyer Jacobi". On enquiry this was explained as showing both or one minor. North explained that he thought that they didn't play this over openings of 2NT, at least he was unsure. Supplementary question: if 3sp. is alerted, must South than take 3NT to be to play; no interest in a minor suit contract? Your input? Hand 2 West dealer, all vul. 10742 J82 1064 J95 KQJ63 A985 7654 AKQ3 9 KQ87 A43 6 -- 109 AJ532 KQ10872 Bidding W ps ps 1di ps *splinter 1sp ps 4cl* dbl ? first round control redbl? ps 4sp? ps ? after agreed hesitation 6sp all pass East claimed that they had agreed to use splinters only with hands of at least 18 HCPs. No note of this on CC and no confirmation by partner, at least a suspicion of a self-serving statement. TD asked if 4sp. had a conventional meaning, such as controls in both red suits. No! No further explanation of the 4sp. bid. NS protest, say that 4sp. is to play, denies controls in both red suits, West overrides this after the 4sp. bid is made after long hesitation. Extraneous comments. 4sp seems to be to play but pass seems hardly a logical alternative for West with her hand with which she could reasonably have opened 1sp. But, of course, if she believes that first round controls in both red suits are missing there would seem little reason not to pass. 4sp. is surely a bizarre bid, impossible to understand. (Would he have retreated to a spade partial with a negative response -- no first round control -- by his partner?!!!!!) After the session in conversation with West: she said she had realised during the first part of the session not to trust the bids of her partner (who apparently had been drinking but was not drunk). Examining the 4sp. bid we can well understand this I think. She bid 6sp. because she was apparently afraid he might pass 4NT or a cuebid. Your opinions? Ciao, JE From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 22 19:39:13 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:39:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] bizarre? In-Reply-To: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> References: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> Message-ID: <46CC74C1.6070808@ntlworld.com> Two hands from a recent tournament. Fairly large tournament, about 80-100 tables per session, players from many countries, not a small club tournament. Hand 1: Dealer South, all vul. AK8 AJ4 J7 AKJ72 J1074 Q952 986 K1032 104 A6 10983 Q54 63 Q75 KQ98532 6 Bidding: S ps ps 2NT ps 3sp ps 3NT ps 6di all pass (ps=pass; no alerts) Before opening lead West asks if 3sp. demands response of 3NT No! He then asks what 3sp. meant. No idea! Lead was club; contract fulfilled. EW present two arguments. (1) 3sp. was not alerted although conventional (explained later); did South use this UI (nonalert showing that partner did not understand the bid) in bidding 6di? (2) With proper info would have West had a somewhat better chance of finding the killing heart lead? (Should South have explained trhe 3sp. bid before the opening lead?) TD checked CC of EW. 3sp. was noted as "Niemeyer Jacobi". On enquiry this was explained as showing both or one minor. North explained that he thought that they didn't play this over openings of 2NT, at least he was unsure. Supplementary question: if 3sp. is alerted, must South than take 3NT to be to play; no interest in a minor suit contract? Your input? [nigel1] [1A] North suspects 3S was conventional, so should alert. If asked he should reply "don't know for sure but will guess if you like". If asked to guess, he should divulge that it may be "Niemeyer Jacobi *and* explain what that means. [1B] South should volunteer this information, anyway, before the opening lead. [1C] If 3N can be conventionally interpreted as no interest in diamonds, then South should pass because the failure to alert is unauthorised information to him. [1D] Hence, even if you consider the favourable North-South result to be "the rub of the green", you may still consider a procedural penalty for disclosure violations. Hand 2 West dealer, all vul. 10742 J82 1064 J95 KQJ63 A985 7654 AKQ3 9 KQ87 A43 6 -- 109 AJ532 KQ10872 Bidding ps ps 1di ps *splinter 1sp ps 4cl* dbl ? first round control redbl? ps 4sp? ps ? after agreed hesitation 6sp all pass East claimed that they had agreed to use splinters only with hands of at least 18 HCPs. No note of this on CC and no confirmation by partner, at least a suspicion of a self-serving statement. TD asked if 4sp. had a conventional meaning, such as controls in both red suits. No! No further explanation of the 4sp. bid. NS protest, say that 4sp. is to play, denies controls in both red suits, West overrides this after the 4sp. bid is made after long hesitation. Extraneous comments. 4sp seems to be to play but pass seems hardly a logical alternative for West with her hand with which she could reasonably have opened 1sp. But, of course, if she believes that first round controls in both red suits are missing there would seem little reason not to pass. 4sp. is surely a bizarre bid, impossible to understand. (Would he have retreated to a spade partial with a negative response -- no first round control -- by his partner?!!!!!) After the session in conversation with West: she said she had realised during the first part of the session not to trust the bids of her partner (who apparently had been drinking but was not drunk). Examining the 4sp. bid we can well understand this I think. She bid 6sp. because she was apparently afraid he might pass 4NT or a cuebid. Your opinions? Ciao, JE [nige1] [2A] In absence of confirmation from convention card, system-notes or other source, you should disregard West's claim that splinters show 18+ HCP -- a peculiar agreement that would make them virtually slam-forcing. [2B] The hesitation could convey unauthorised information. IMO it's likely to show that East is thinking of going on. [2C] In spite of East's denial, I feel that West should show a red-suit control over the redouble. East may well have leapt to 6S to avoid West making more drunken mistakes. IMO, however, all that is of marginal relevance. [2D] The unauthorised information seems to have facilitated East's bid of 6S, so that North-South were damaged [2E] If 6S makes, then the director should rule 4S+2. From mustikka at charter.net Wed Aug 22 19:59:17 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:59:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem References: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com><079001c7e48a$f4223210$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344><000d01c7e49c$a317b720$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <07b501c7e4a3$e926e130$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <001901c7e4e6$28fb7e50$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > To sum up - even if your style is aggressive then in most > cases partner will deliver a suit of some quality. > Partner has 6+H with at least one honor, right? > > Wrong. > Meaning, that is not guaranteed. > This is a _bridge_ group. If even one honor is not guaranteed, that is if partner might have xxxxxx in hearts then the question should have been asked on rec.russian.roulette or somewhere. I'm glad you're not considering the possibility of partner having a heart void. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland I get the joke :) I do not get that you consider different styles than your own as inferior, not worthy of blml. For a long time, I have been a lurker here, seldom posting on law matters. But this was a leading poll, I gave my vote, that is all. Cheers, Raija From henk at ripe.net Wed Aug 22 17:18:37 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:18:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Question In-Reply-To: <46CC49EC.3080508@aol.com> References: <46CC49EC.3080508@aol.com> Message-ID: <46CC53CD.3080107@ripe.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Henk! I am puzzled. Recently I discovered a new icon on the > desktop of my PC. It was entitled "2006-December.txt.gz". Very > difficult to open it but my local computer guru managed. 2006-December.txt.gz is the compressed archive of all mails sent on the list in Dec 2006. It should be opened with gzip. > Why was this sent to me, I've no idea, the list software didn't do this. Do you still have the mail that contained it? If so, can you send me the headers? Of course, it could be that you went to the archives and downloaded it yourself. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 22 23:08:49 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:08:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] bizarre? In-Reply-To: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> References: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> Message-ID: On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Two hands from a recent tournament. Fairly large tournament, about > 80-100 tables per session, players from many countries, not a small > club > tournament. > > Hand 1: Dealer South, all vul. > > AK8 > AJ4 > J7 > AKJ72 > J1074 Q952 > 986 K1032 > 104 A6 > 10983 Q54 > 63 > Q75 > KQ98532 > 6 > > Bidding: S > ps ps 2NT ps > 3sp ps 3NT ps > 6di all pass (ps=pass; no alerts) > > Before opening lead West asks if 3sp. demands response of 3NT No! He > then asks what 3sp. meant. No idea! > Lead was club; contract fulfilled. > EW present two arguments. (1) 3sp. was not alerted although > conventional (explained later); did South use this UI (nonalert > showing > that partner did not understand the bid) in bidding 6di? (2) With > proper info would have West had a somewhat better chance of finding > the > killing heart lead? (Should South have explained trhe 3sp. bid before > the opening lead?) > TD checked CC of EW. 3sp. was noted as "Niemeyer Jacobi". On enquiry > this was explained as showing both or one minor. North explained that > he thought that they didn't play this over openings of 2NT, at > least he > was unsure. Supplementary question: if 3sp. is alerted, must South > than > take 3NT to be to play; no interest in a minor suit contract? > Your input? I've never heard of "Niemeyer Jacobi" by name, but this sounds a lot like a convention I play often. 3S promises one or both minors with slam-try or better values, opener almost always bids 3NT (a higher response says responder has a good hand for slam opposite any of the 3S bidder's possible hand types), and responder clarifies (naturally, in my method, although there are variants with artificial rebids). South's hand is classic for 3S followed by 4D. It certainly looks like South "used" the UI from partner's failure to alert 3S to select his call: 3NT was a noise, and he could have bid 6D directly over 2NT; I suspect that he was simply worried that 4D would confuse partner further and so decided to take an obviously final action. That said, I don't see a case for E-W having been damaged. 3S is the start of a two-step; responder cannot pass 3NT, and will always reach slam opposite the North hand (the bidding panel probably asks for key cards directly over 4D, signing off at 6D when one is missing). Given that, I don't see how a different auction might have led West to lead a heart when he chose a club here, nor is there anything to suggest that a full and accurate explanation of the actual auction might have done so. I'd let the result stand. > Hand 2 West dealer, all vul. > > 10742 > J82 > 1064 > J95 > KQJ63 A985 > 7654 AKQ3 > 9 KQ87 > A43 6 > -- > 109 > AJ532 > KQ10872 > > Bidding W > ps ps 1di ps *splinter > 1sp ps 4cl* dbl ? first round control > redbl? ps 4sp? ps ? after agreed > hesitation > 6sp all pass > > East claimed that they had agreed to use splinters only with hands > of at > least 18 HCPs. No note of this on CC and no confirmation by > partner, at > least a suspicion of a self-serving statement. TD asked if 4sp. had a > conventional meaning, such as controls in both red suits. No! No > further explanation of the 4sp. bid. > NS protest, say that 4sp. is to play, denies controls in both red > suits, > West overrides this after the 4sp. bid is made after long hesitation. > > Extraneous comments. 4sp seems to be to play but pass seems hardly a > logical alternative for West with her hand with which she could > reasonably have opened 1sp. But, of course, if she believes that > first > round controls in both red suits are missing there would seem little > reason not to pass. 4sp. is surely a bizarre bid, impossible to > understand. (Would he have retreated to a spade partial with a > negative response -- no first round control -- by his partner?!!!!!) > > After the session in conversation with West: she said she had realised > during the first part of the session not to trust the bids of her > partner (who apparently had been drinking but was not drunk). > Examining > the 4sp. bid we can well understand this I think. She bid 6sp. > because > she was apparently afraid he might pass 4NT or a cuebid. Your > opinions? N-S's contention that 4S should deny a control in either red suit may have merit for N-S, but has nothing to do with the E-W agreements and is entirely specious. Absent any such agreement, which E-W have denied, passing 4S with the West hand is not IMO an LA. East (who is under no UI constraint) would presumably not reject any slam try (note that slam is excellent despite the massive undiagnosed duplication in diamonds). West may have taken account of East's long hesitation in choosing 6S insofar as it revealed East's state of inebriation as opposed to anything about his hand, but I don't think letting partner know you're drunk (or nearly so) is actionable UI! I wouldn't adjust this one either. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 23 00:13:44 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:13:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <07b501c7e4a3$e926e130$0a01a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >This is a _bridge_ group. > >If even one honor is not guaranteed, that is if >partner might have > >xxxxxx > >in hearts then the question should have been asked >on rec.russian.roulette or somewhere. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950): "Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." Richard Hills: In the ACBL in the 1980s, the partnership of Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen was so successful that the ACBL Board of Directors created a special "Marty Bergen" regulation of dubious legality to reduce the frequency with which Marty opened weak twos. On one occasion a weak two in hearts by Marty gained a slam swing in an unusual way. It was in _hearts_ that the opponents could make slam, a contract easily found at the other table, but 6H was more difficult to achieve for Marty's opponents once Marty had opened the suit first. :-) A partnership agreement to play ultra-aggressive pre-empts is a valid bridge style (although not my personal cup of tea, since I like to be able to confidently raise pard's pre-empts with length in pard's suit). For example, the second-best player in the Canberra Bridge Club, a person with impeccable analytical ability, has found that he gains more than he loses with these pre-emptive agreements about weak twos. 2D = weak, at least 4/4 in spades and diamonds 2H = weak, at least 4/4 in spades and hearts 2S = weak, at least 4/4 in spades and clubs 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 adam at irvine.com Thu Aug 23 00:19:44 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:19:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:13:44 +1000." Message-ID: <200708222206.PAA29933@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > For example, the second-best player in the Canberra > Bridge Club, a person with impeccable analytical > ability, has found that he gains more than he loses > with these pre-emptive agreements about weak twos. > > 2D = weak, at least 4/4 in spades and diamonds > 2H = weak, at least 4/4 in spades and hearts > 2S = weak, at least 4/4 in spades and clubs "Second-best" being a reference to a previous post about Schenken, I presume? :) :) :) -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 23 01:10:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:10:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0b3901c7e4b2$76cdf830$0100a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: [snip] >Oh, wait a minute, I seem to have mistyped partner's >hand. His majors were actually reversed. > >Now what? Does anyone think much of categorising >this as an amber psyche? Red maybe? Richard Hills: If the only logical alternative lead was a heart, and if a heart was not led, and if pard had allegedly psyched 2H when actually holding spades, then under EBU rules that would be defined as a Red Psyche. [For pedants such as myself, a Red "Psyche" is a misnomer. It should be Red "Alleged Psyche", since what is defined is actually a Concealed Partnership Understanding. A CPU is not a psyche, since the Lawbook's Definitions state that a psych is a "gross misstatement". One cannot grossly misstate one's partnership understandings if one has made a call which _belongs_ to one's concealed (or revealed) partnership understandings.] But, on the hand in question, although a heart was a logical alternative lead, other non-heart leads were also LAs. So the evidence is insufficient to classify the alleged psyche of 2H as a Red Psyche. If I was an EBU TD, I would assess the evidence (no heart lead, when a heart was a LA) as sufficient to classify the alleged psyche of 2H as an Amber Psyche. On the other hand, if the LA of a heart had been chosen at the table, then as an EBU TD I would classify the alleged psyche of 2H as a Green Psyche. 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 Aug 23 02:01:37 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:01:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] bizarre? In-Reply-To: References: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708221701x170e0f1fq8c5ebdd6c1daf65@mail.gmail.com> On 8/22/07, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > Two hands from a recent tournament. Fairly large tournament, about > > 80-100 tables per session, players from many countries, not a small > > club > > tournament. > > > > Hand 1: Dealer South, all vul. > > > > AK8 > > AJ4 > > J7 > > AKJ72 > > J1074 Q952 > > 986 K1032 > > 104 A6 > > 10983 Q54 > > 63 > > Q75 > > KQ98532 > > 6 > > > > Bidding: S > > ps ps 2NT ps > > 3sp ps 3NT ps > > 6di all pass (ps=pass; no alerts) > > > > Before opening lead West asks if 3sp. demands response of 3NT No! He > > then asks what 3sp. meant. No idea! > > Lead was club; contract fulfilled. > > EW present two arguments. (1) 3sp. was not alerted although > > conventional (explained later); did South use this UI (nonalert > > showing > > that partner did not understand the bid) in bidding 6di? (2) With > > proper info would have West had a somewhat better chance of finding > > the > > killing heart lead? (Should South have explained trhe 3sp. bid before > > the opening lead?) > > TD checked CC of EW. 3sp. was noted as "Niemeyer Jacobi". On enquiry > > this was explained as showing both or one minor. North explained that > > he thought that they didn't play this over openings of 2NT, at > > least he > > was unsure. Supplementary question: if 3sp. is alerted, must South > > than > > take 3NT to be to play; no interest in a minor suit contract? > > Your input? > > I've never heard of "Niemeyer Jacobi" by name, but this sounds a lot > like a convention I play often. 3S promises one or both minors with > slam-try or better values, opener almost always bids 3NT (a higher > response says responder has a good hand for slam opposite any of the > 3S bidder's possible hand types), and responder clarifies (naturally, > in my method, although there are variants with artificial rebids). > South's hand is classic for 3S followed by 4D. It certainly looks > like South "used" the UI from partner's failure to alert 3S to select > his call: 3NT was a noise, and he could have bid 6D directly over > 2NT; I suspect that he was simply worried that 4D would confuse > partner further and so decided to take an obviously final action. > Excellent so far, but any competent director should rule that 6D was motivated by UI and cannot be allowed. I would give a PP to South for that egregious call. Unless South is a real beginner, he must be taught to clearly understand why it is so wrong. > That said, I don't see a case for E-W having been damaged. 3S is the > start of a two-step; responder cannot pass 3NT, and will always reach > slam opposite the North hand (the bidding panel probably asks for key > cards directly over 4D, signing off at 6D when one is missing). > Given that, I don't see how a different auction might have led West > to lead a heart when he chose a club here, nor is there anything to > suggest that a full and accurate explanation of the actual auction > might have done so. I'd let the result stand. > Banging out 6D with that obvious UI must be disallowed. But what is NS's range for 2NT? Suppose it is 21--22. South, had he not been tipped off, may well have thought 6NT is worth considering, and is usually is opposite 21--22 (I imagine a computer simulation would back that up when the partnership holds adequate key cards). If not for the immediate 6D, the auction would have been longer, with several chances for lead-directing doubles: Thus, it is quite possible something else would have been led. Though a total NS disaster is possible, the probable contract is 4, 5, or 6 D or NT (probably after South bids D or North bids a negative NT again). But I think 6D and 6NT are the two most likely results that were likely had the irregularity not occurred. Therefore, the *kindest* result NS deserve is 6NT -1. Plus the PP for South. Personally, I would give 6NT-1 to EW as well ("the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred"), but I leave the fun with Law 12C3 to those who like it---good luck convincing anyone you are right. I think it is seriously bad to say that 6D making was "most unfavourable result that was at all probable"---South's own bidding proved that he did not think so. And it is seriously bad not to award South with a PP. You cannot use UI to bang out a close-out bid to prevent the wheels from falling off of your auction. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 23 03:52:30 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:52:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0d8b01c7e528$43fdaf60$0100a8c0@stefanie> I do not think that the criterion of the existence of logical alternatives can be applied to psyches. Rather, a psyche is said to have been fielded when the psycher's partner has done something unusual, which leading a diamond is not. Many of the people here, and many more in real life, chose to lead a diamond on the basis that partner might have a suit of the quality that can be set up, and might have an entry in order to enjoy them, but the chance of his having both when you have the majority of your side's assets is vanishingly small. To categorise this psyche as anything but green would require one to ALWAYS lead the suit partner has bid (no matter what lead is suggested by bridge logic) just on the off-chance that he has psyched. Cheers Stefanie Rohan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Stefanie Rohan: > > [snip] > >>Oh, wait a minute, I seem to have mistyped partner's >>hand. His majors were actually reversed. >> >>Now what? Does anyone think much of categorising >>this as an amber psyche? Red maybe? > > Richard Hills: > > If the only logical alternative lead was a heart, and > if a heart was not led, and if pard had allegedly > psyched 2H when actually holding spades, then under > EBU rules that would be defined as a Red Psyche. > > [For pedants such as myself, a Red "Psyche" is a > misnomer. It should be Red "Alleged Psyche", since > what is defined is actually a Concealed Partnership > Understanding. A CPU is not a psyche, since the > Lawbook's Definitions state that a psych is a "gross > misstatement". One cannot grossly misstate one's > partnership understandings if one has made a call > which _belongs_ to one's concealed (or revealed) > partnership understandings.] > > But, on the hand in question, although a heart was a > logical alternative lead, other non-heart leads were > also LAs. So the evidence is insufficient to classify > the alleged psyche of 2H as a Red Psyche. > > If I was an EBU TD, I would assess the evidence (no > heart lead, when a heart was a LA) as sufficient to > classify the alleged psyche of 2H as an Amber Psyche. > > On the other hand, if the LA of a heart had been > chosen at the table, then as an EBU TD I would > classify the alleged psyche of 2H as a Green Psyche. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities > other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 23 06:16:47 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:16:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) In-Reply-To: <0b3901c7e4b2$76cdf830$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200708212304.QAA19259@mailhub.irvine.com><079001c7e48a$f4223210$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> <000d01c7e49c$a317b720$f8065e47@DFYXB361> <0b3901c7e4b2$76cdf830$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <46CD0A2F.7030201@ntlworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] I am surprised by the number of heart leaders; there was a smaller proportion of them when a face-to-face poll of experts was taken, but then again these experts were all English, and there seem to be cultural differences in the style of the 2H overcall at these colours facing a partner who could not open an 11-point NT. Low diamond leaders may be surprised to learn that, according to extensive analysis by my partner, this was the least successful of the suggested leads in pairs, having the greatest chance of giving up a(n) (extra) overtrick. But in practice, it did not matter which diamond you led, because partner's hand was: S:93 H:1097432 D:A63 C:83 I led QD, and all was well. Oh, wait a minute, I seem to have mistyped partner's hand. His majors were actually reversed. Now what? Does anyone think much of categorising this as an amber psyche? Red maybe? [nige1] Hilarious stuff Stefanie :) :) :) I did wonder where all the spades had gone :( :( :( I suppose that if a majority (of your peers?) would lead a heart then it is a red psych. IMO, It's probably amber at worst. From Gampas at aol.com Thu Aug 23 02:05:29 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:05:29 EDT Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) Message-ID: > If I was an EBU TD, I would assess the evidence (no > heart lead, when a heart was a LA) as sufficient to > classify the alleged psyche of 2H as an Amber Psyche. I cannot agree with this. We are not talking about UI here, so the LA requirement is not appropriate. For a psyche to be classified as Amber, there would be need to be "some evidence of an unauthorised understanding" - the wording in the EBU Orange Book. In other words, the top diamond lead would have to be unusual and therefore provide evidence that the opening leader expected his or her partner to have psyched. This is clearly not the case here; the opening leader has selected a lead based on the assumption that his or her partner would have a poor jump overcall in hearts, or a reasonable one but no entry; the notion that the leader has thought his or her partner has psyched is a reductio ad absurdum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070822/53a7782c/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 23 08:56:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:56:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0d8b01c7e528$43fdaf60$0100a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: EBU Orange Book, Regulation 6B4: >>A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an >>unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to >>justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber psyche. >>In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then a >>classification of at least Amber is likely to be justified. Stefanie Rohan asserted: [snip] >To categorise this psyche as anything but green would require one >to ALWAYS lead the suit partner has bid (no matter what lead is >suggested by bridge logic) just on the off-chance that he has >psyched. Richard Hills quibbles: I would be willing to receive an _occasional_ ruling of "Amber Psyche" in order to _always_ choose, from amongst my Law 16 permitted logical alternatives, a legal logical alternative that I consider the best lead. Of course, merely because an Amber Psyche is applied to me does not necessarily mean that I (or Stefanie) am doomed to rot in hell. A ruling of Amber Psyche sweeps up simple coincidences, such as two saintly partners happening to choose two pure-as-the-driven-snow psyches on the same board. EBU Orange Book, Regulation 6A2: >>A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it contains the >>same element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for >>the opponents. Richard Hills quibbles: On the principle of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis", an attempt at a psychic bid is not a legitimate ploy if partner is less surprised than the opponents. If Stefanie's pard had perpetrated similar missorts of their hand in the recent past, frequently carelessly opening a weak two in hearts when holding a weak two in spades, then Stefanie and her pard would have an implicit partnership understanding. If this implicit partnership understanding does in fact exist, then the understanding would always be illegal if concealed (Law 40B), and sometimes be an illegal convention if revealed (Law 40D). This is not to say that Stefanie's pard is in fact such a cowboy. Nor am I saying that Stefanie's lead was in fact influenced by her partner's previous hypothetical cowboy antics. But..... A non-lead of partner's non-heart suit may be a pure-as-the-driven- snow coincidence, but _because_ it is such a coincidence the EBU Orange Book regulation 6B4 clearly defines the bid of 2H-without- hearts as an Amber Psyche. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 23 10:57:45 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:57:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CD4C09.60503@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: >> *From:* Herman De Wael >> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Date:* Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:20:08 +0200 >> >> Tim West-Meads wrote: >>> Herman wrote: >>>> But we are not talking about a normal case - we are talking >> about a >> person with a mistake in his mind. >>> Herman it just doesn't matter. >>> >> Tim it does matter. >> >>> Declarer has said one of the following: >>> >>> "Small fish with the 5" >>> "Frilly collar with the 5" >>> "Trump with the 5". >>> >>> None of those designates a card in dummy if the trump 5 is not >>> there. >>> >> One of these might designate a card in dummy if the D5 is there and >> declarer thinks diamonds are trumps. >> >> So yet again, you come up with an argument which is easily refuted. >> You cannot say "since small fish does not designate anything, >> neither does trump". Because trump can designate something, whereas >> small fish cannot. > > That is not what I said. I said that Ruff=Trump (in plain English, > having discarded the other English meanings as irrelevant) and that Trump > has a specific meaning in law. It is one of the 5 valid suit > designations listed in the lawbook. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that declarer said "ruff", not "trump", and that ruff is no so treated in the lawbook (which means you need two steps for your 'literal' interpretation, so that won't really work. > Calling for the "Trump 5" when there > is no "Trump 5" in dummy is the exact equivalent of declarer calling > "Spade 5" when there is no S5 in dummy. Again: no, it is not. Not the exact equivalent. Because if declarer calls for the Spade 5, there is no ambiguity. But if declarer calls for the trump 5, there is ambiguity. And even more so if he just calls for a small trump, since we then not even have the "5" as a hold-on. > We may, or may not, be *able* to > establish what card declarer *intended* when he said "5 of spades" but it > doesn't matter because if there is no 5 of spades L46b4 gives declarer > the free choice of any legal play. > Yes, but that applies to the spade 5, not to the trump 5. L64b4 applies only to designated cards that are not in dummy. You cannot apply that to "small trump", because either you know which card is meant, and then that card is in dummy - or you don't (want to) know which card is meant, and then no cad is designated, and L46b4 is not of application. > It doesn't even matter if we establish that declarer had the > *incontrovertible* intention of playing the diamond 5 because the there > is no card nominated *in dummy* to which the D5 can be deemed "different" > thus rendering the introductory qualifier of L46 as inapplicable. > And why should that not matter? What law number do you want to cite for that? Again Tim, I am merely trying to make you see that your arguments are flawed, not that your final conclusion may or may not be wrong. >> But I would like you to conclude that my interpretation is not >> invalid. > > You might like it but sadly your efforts continue to be garbage. Sorry? Is that a better way of insulting than calling people imbecile? > You are trying to apply "when declarer?s different intention is > incontrovertible" to a situation with no referent. Basically you are > ignoring the presence of the key word "different" in that sentence. > I am not, you are! I am not using that sentence - I am trying to make you see that the laws do not support your claim that my interpretation is garbage. Intent is important - take the Irish "eitch" example for one. Or a declarer speaking some different language. If I say "blekke tien", that means the ten of diamonds (trust me). And if I say "ruff", that means the three of diamonds, if such is the lowest card of the suit I think are trumps. The only difference of interpretation is whether we interpret the word "ruff" as the real trump or the intended trump. Nothing in the laws tells me it's the former. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 23 11:04:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:04:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] bizarre? In-Reply-To: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> References: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> Message-ID: <46CD4D8D.9040006@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Two hands from a recent tournament. Fairly large tournament, about > 80-100 tables per session, players from many countries, not a small club > tournament. > > Hand 1: Dealer South, all vul. > > AK8 > AJ4 > J7 > AKJ72 > J1074 Q952 > 986 K1032 > 104 A6 > 10983 Q54 > 63 > Q75 > KQ98532 > 6 > > Bidding: S > ps ps 2NT ps > 3sp ps 3NT ps > 6di all pass (ps=pass; no alerts) > > Before opening lead West asks if 3sp. demands response of 3NT No! He > then asks what 3sp. meant. No idea! > Lead was club; contract fulfilled. > EW present two arguments. (1) 3sp. was not alerted although > conventional (explained later); did South use this UI (nonalert showing > that partner did not understand the bid) in bidding 6di? (2) With > proper info would have West had a somewhat better chance of finding the > killing heart lead? (Should South have explained trhe 3sp. bid before > the opening lead?) > TD checked CC of EW. 3sp. was noted as "Niemeyer Jacobi". On enquiry > this was explained as showing both or one minor. North explained that > he thought that they didn't play this over openings of 2NT, at least he > was unsure. Supplementary question: if 3sp. is alerted, must South than > take 3NT to be to play; no interest in a minor suit contract? > Your input? > I have no knowledge of what a 3NT response to a 3Sp for a minor might mean, so if they tell me it's weak(ish), then the non-alert might suggest that opener is not minimal, and 6Di might be suggested by the UI. OTOH, if South believes his 3Sp to be conventional, he should says so before the opening lead. But West has nothing whatsoever to go on, so he cannot claim damage for the non-correction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 23 11:00:45 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:00:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) References: Message-ID: <008901c7e565$01b141c0$a99b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: Gampas at aol.com To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:05 AM Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) I cannot agree with this. We are not talking about UI here, so the LA requirement is not appropriate. For a psyche to be classified as Amber, there would be need to be "some evidence of an unauthorised understanding" - the wording in the EBU Orange Book. In other words, the top diamond lead would have to be unusual and therefore provide evidence that the opening leader expected his or her partner to have psyched. This is clearly not the case here; the opening leader has selected a lead based on the assumption that his or her partner would have a poor jump overcall in hearts, or a reasonable one but no entry; the notion that the leader has thought his or her partner has psyched is a reductio ad absurdum. +=+ At one time in my bridge career, for a decade or more, I played overcalls at the one level announced as potentially abysmally weak and could be only four cards. We largely ignored such overcalls for the purposes of the opening lead and led the card we would choose in a silent auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 23 11:07:12 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:07:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standards References: <009301c7e4a1$f16145e0$b69487d9@Hellen><007001c7e4ad$e86ed040$bf324c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> <46CC270B.1080408@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <008a01c7e565$029d2860$a99b87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Standards > [Grattan Endicott] > ************************* > "The first point of courtesy must > always be truth." ~ Emerson. > +=+ I suggest that it sets an undesirable tone when > a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible > but wrong, is described as 'an imbecile'. The views > may be sincerely held. > > [Joan Gerrard] > Well put... There is definitely a screw loose with some of these > people. Luv, Joan > > [nige1] > Grattan and Joan are right. IMO, descent to invective is usually an > admission that you have lost the rational argument. > > Grattan implies that Herman's views are "at best, plausible but > wrong". I feel that is of doubtful relevance. Anyway, an ex cathedra > statement, without supporting argument also falls short of the > standards to which we should aspire. > +=+ However, I am sure than no-one, least of all Herman, would suggest that I have not expressed my position exhaustively - or that I have any need to repeat myself. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 23 11:09:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:09:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] bizarre? In-Reply-To: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> References: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> Message-ID: <46CD4EB9.7030403@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hand 2 West dealer, all vul. > > 10742 > J82 > 1064 > J95 > KQJ63 A985 > 7654 AKQ3 > 9 KQ87 > A43 6 > -- > 109 > AJ532 > KQ10872 > > Bidding W > ps ps 1di ps *splinter > 1sp ps 4cl* dbl ? first round control > redbl? ps 4sp? ps ? after agreed hesitation > 6sp all pass > > East claimed that they had agreed to use splinters only with hands of at > least 18 HCPs. No note of this on CC and no confirmation by partner, at > least a suspicion of a self-serving statement. TD asked if 4sp. had a > conventional meaning, such as controls in both red suits. No! No > further explanation of the 4sp. bid. > NS protest, say that 4sp. is to play, denies controls in both red suits, > West overrides this after the 4sp. bid is made after long hesitation. > > Extraneous comments. 4sp seems to be to play but pass seems hardly a > logical alternative for West with her hand with which she could > reasonably have opened 1sp. But, of course, if she believes that first > round controls in both red suits are missing there would seem little > reason not to pass. 4sp. is surely a bizarre bid, impossible to > understand. (Would he have retreated to a spade partial with a > negative response -- no first round control -- by his partner?!!!!!) > > After the session in conversation with West: she said she had realised > during the first part of the session not to trust the bids of her > partner (who apparently had been drinking but was not drunk). Examining > the 4sp. bid we can well understand this I think. She bid 6sp. because > she was apparently afraid he might pass 4NT or a cuebid. Your opinions? It would indeed seem very strange to assume that East does not have a single control in the red suits, if he has at most the SA in the blacks, and a non-minimal hand (I don't believe the 18 HCP either, but East does not have 11, has he?). I accept the explanation, "my partner has been drinking so I bid what I thought was the contract". After all, he need not have AK KQ, and then six is a bad bet. What was he thinking of? Maybe simply what the redouble meant. Score stands. > Ciao, JE > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 23 11:34:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > A non-lead of partner's non-heart suit may be a pure-as-the-driven- > snow coincidence, but _because_ it is such a coincidence the EBU > Orange Book regulation 6B4 clearly defines the bid of 2H-without- > hearts as an Amber Psyche. That's not what 6B4 says: "A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding..." A diamond lead isn't any sort of "evidence of unauthorised understanding" it is a perfectly normal lead opposite a partner who often makes shoddy pre-empts. We should not tolerate TDs/ACs ruling green psychs as amber (there was another case from Brighton where they did so) which will probably now have go to the EBU L&E. Tim From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Aug 23 11:06:47 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:06:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] British bridge terminology In-Reply-To: <20070822105148.28db0e27@linuxbox> References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox><200708200718.AA10244@geller20 4.nifty.com><46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be> <46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLwo rl d.com><20070821043628.53171eed@linuxb ox> <46CADB92.9030209@meteo.fr><2007 0821115144.57591319@linuxbox> <46CBEF02.2090205@meteo.fr><20070822064353.7a34bff9@linuxbox> <46CC30B6.6070005@meteo.fr> <20070822105148.28db0e27@linuxbox> Message-ID: <46CD4E27.7000100@meteo.fr> Brian a ?crit : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:48:54 +0200 > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> he will tell you that he never names the rank, that all his fellows >> do likewise, that it's common usage >> > > Very interesting. Unless running a solid suit, that sounds to me like > dummy assisting with determining the play. i don't think: declarer routinely breaks L46A with incomplete designations and expects to routinely fall back on L46B2. dummy following the same common usage, places played cards according to his intentions. as you said, common usage takes precedence over obsolete laws. > > Maybe things really are that different at Gawrys's level, I'm just a > player who got suckered into doing a club TD job for a decade or so, so > I have no idea what goes on up in the higher echelons. my own experience is that all "champions" i have seen, so act (only naming suit when playing a low card from dummy), many other players also by mimicry; and they categorize as palookas those following L46A. jpr > > Brian. > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 23 12:45:39 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:45:39 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__bizarre=3F?= References: <46CC5B6A.3030501@aol.com> Message-ID: <46CD6551.000001.07735@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Hand 1: Dealer South, all vul. AK8 AJ4 J7 AKJ72 J1074 Q952 986 K1032 104 A6 10983 Q54 63 Q75 KQ98532 6 Bidding: S ps ps 2NT ps 3sp ps 3NT ps 6di all pass (ps=pass; no alerts) Before opening lead West asks if 3sp. demands response of 3NT No! He then asks what 3sp. meant. No idea! Lead was club; contract fulfilled. EW present two arguments. (1) 3sp. was not alerted although conventional (explained later); did South use this UI (nonalert showing that partner did not understand the bid) in bidding 6di? AG : even in those circumstances, with 3NT meaning "no minors, thanks", bidding some number of diamonds is obvious. Perhaps the non-alert convinced South to bid 6 straightaway to avoid any further misunderstanding, but I guess 4D would have resulted in NS going to 6D anyway. Perhaps this is the right moment for a L12C2 split score, not reaching 6D being unprobable but marginally possible. (2) With proper info would have West had a somewhat better chance of finding the killing heart lead? (Should South have explained trhe 3sp. bid before the opening lead?) AG : what did West state that would go this way ? I fail to see how it would have changed the situation to know that South had a one-suiter rather tnah 56 in the pointed suits. Hand 2 West dealer, all vul. 10742 J82 1064 J95 KQJ63 A985 7654 AKQ3 9 KQ87 A43 6 -- 109 AJ532 KQ10872 Bidding W ps ps 1di ps *splinter 1sp ps 4cl* dbl ? first round control redbl? ps 4sp? ps ? after agreed hesitation 6sp all pass East claimed that they had agreed to use splinters only with hands of at least 18 HCPs. No note of this on CC and no confirmation by partner, at least a suspicion of a self-serving statement. Indeed, and they should be told this isn't the way to defend themselves. But anyway, as West, after a splinter, I don't see how I could imagine passing 4S (5C would be my choice, but there would be votes for 5D and 6S, I guess). Over either 5C or 5D, East has an obvious 6S bid (at least). Conclusion : pass isn't a LA, and other LAs would have produced the same final contract. Score stands. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070823/6c532c82/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/20070823/6c532c82/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/20070823/6c532c82/attachment-0001.gif From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 23 14:32:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CD4C09.60503@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Let's set aside for the moment the fact that declarer said "ruff", > not "trump", and that ruff is no so treated in the lawbook (which > means you need two steps for your 'literal' interpretation, so that > won't really work. English is the official language of the laws. Ruff means "play a trump". That is unambiguous and undisputed by 99.99% of English-speaking bridge players. Just accept that not every word is defined in the laws (infraction/understanding/ruff being examples) and that we examine the English meaning of those words when necessary. While both "infraction" and "understanding" are open to a degree of interpretation "Ruff" is NOT. It is defined by the word "trump". > > > Calling for the "Trump 5" when there > > is no "Trump 5" in dummy is the exact equivalent of declarer > > calling > > "Spade 5" when there is no S5 in dummy. > > Again: no, it is not. > Not the exact equivalent. > Because if declarer calls for the Spade 5, there is no ambiguity. > But if declarer calls for the trump 5, there is ambiguity. No, there isn't. At least there can only be ambiguity if nobody can agree in what denomination the contract is being played. If the denomination is known then "trump" is unambiguous (which includes the possibility of being unambiguously no-existent). > And even more so if he just calls for a small trump, since we then > not even have the "5" as a hold-on. "Small Trump" is an irregularity because of the word "Small", just as "Small Spade" is an irregularity. In either case declarer has stated a denomination but not a rank. > > We may, or may not, be *able* to > > establish what card declarer *intended* when he said "5 of > > spades" but it > > doesn't matter because if there is no 5 of spades L46b4 gives > > declarer > > the free choice of any legal play. > > > > Yes, but that applies to the spade 5, not to the trump 5. > L64b4 applies only to designated cards that are not in dummy. You > cannot apply that to "small trump", because either you know which > card is meant, and then that card is in dummy Once again, Spade 5/Trump 5. Small Spade/Small Trump. It is a matter of *fact* whether dummy contains the designated card - intent/ judgement are irrelevant unless, and until, we know which specific card has been designated. > > It doesn't even matter if we establish that declarer had the > > *incontrovertible* intention of playing the diamond 5 because the > > there > > is no card nominated *in dummy* to which the D5 can be deemed > > "different" thus rendering the introductory qualifier of L46 as > > inapplicable. > > And why should that not matter? What law number do you want to cite > for that? It's not a matter of law numbers it's the b**dy language. Different *requires* a referent. There is no referent so the "different" clause *cannot* be applied. That's English grammar not a Law. > > sadly your efforts continue to be garbage. > > Sorry? Is that a better way of insulting than calling people > imbecile? Herman, you refuse to apply the basic English meanings and grammar to the laws. > Intent is important - take the Irish "eitch" example for one. Or a > declarer speaking some different language. There is no "eitch" in dummy (whatever declarer intended it to mean), I don't *care* what he intended - if he confused his opp by failing to designate clearly I will adjust the score. > If I say "blekke tien", that means the ten of diamonds (trust me). Sure, but if you say it in *my* local club and your opponent is confused because he thinks you said "Black Ten" (of which there is but one in dummy) I'll adjust the score against you. > And if I say "ruff", that means the three of diamonds, if such is > the lowest card of the suit I think are trumps. Your thoughts on the trump suit are irrelevant. "Ruff" demands a trump and the lack of a qualifier invokes L46b2. The lowest Trump in dummy is the designated card. > The only difference of interpretation is whether we interpret the > word "ruff" as the real trump or the intended trump. Nothing in the > laws tells me it's the former. Then for chrissake check a bleeding dictionary. Ruff just means "play a trump". Not an imaginary trump, not a surreal trump, or a trump on the contract 3 hands ago. A Trump. TRUMP TRUMPETY TRUMP, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. Tim From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 23 15:22:59 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:22:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) References: <008901c7e565$01b141c0$a99b87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <001e01c7e588$b9a72380$0701a8c0@john> > her partner has psyched is a reductio ad absurdum. > > +=+ At one time in my bridge career, for a decade or more, > I played overcalls at the one level announced as potentially > abysmally weak and could be only four cards. We largely > ignored such overcalls for the purposes of the opening lead > and led the card we would choose in a silent auction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ AH Yes, the infamous "Liverpool style" overcalls. I was always in trouble in London for those :) John > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 23 15:36:15 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:36:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) References: Message-ID: <003901c7e58a$94270060$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:05 AM Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) >> If I was an EBU TD, I would assess the evidence (no >> heart lead, when a heart was a LA) as sufficient to >> classify the alleged psyche of 2H as an Amber Psyche. > > I cannot agree with this. We are not talking about UI here, so the LA > requirement is not appropriate. For a psyche to be classified as Amber, > there would > be need to be "some evidence of an unauthorised understanding" - the > wording > in the EBU Orange Book. In other words, the top diamond lead would have > to > be unusual and therefore provide evidence that the opening leader > expected his > or her partner to have psyched. This is clearly not the case here; the > opening leader has selected a lead based on the assumption that his or > her partner > would have a poor jump overcall in hearts, or a reasonable one but no > entry; > the notion that the leader has thought his or her partner has psyched is > a > reductio ad absurdum. Yeah, it's a greem psyche; I'd rule it as such and I'd be howled down by many who don't play bridge. I was amused by one of my peers (and we've exchanged thousands of pounds at the table) who spotted some soi-disant bridge players playing non-penalty doubles, So he gave them a ferdinand strong NT on a 5-5 pointy 3-count. The 24-count sitting over him made it perfectly clear to the rest of the table my friend had psyched before making a ludicrous overcall. When my friend called in the NYPD to moan about the UI all that happened was that he collected another green psyche. His comment to me encapsulated everything. "They play with all these internationals and they just don't have a f*****g clue!" He plays a lot in my games too and has impeccable ethics (as one does if one plays for high stakes). John > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 23 18:13:00 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:13:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CD4C09.60503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c7e5a0$79e16090$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > Sorry? Is that a better way of insulting than calling people imbecile? As this statement implies me I have to repeat: I never called anybody "imbecile". Read again what I wrote: "Good that you admit that, because only an imbecile could understand your statement in any other way." That this is an accusation of you being imbecile goes far beyond me. In fact it is a clear statement that because you admitted to my assumption you are not. What you admitted to was that you indeed had abused my name in a very offending way (making unfounded statements on my opinions). Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 23 18:31:26 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:31:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CDB65E.9020600@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Then for chrissake check a bleeding dictionary. Ruff just means "play a > trump". Not an imaginary trump, not a surreal trump, or a trump on the > contract 3 hands ago. A Trump. TRUMP TRUMPETY TRUMP, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. > You can shout it all you like. When the player pronounced it, he meant "play the diamond 3" DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND. There is no law which tells you that this intent is less important than the words and their bridge meaning. There is one thing I find absolutely strange. Why do you want to let this person off the hook? Have you imagined the reaction of his opponents? Have you imagined what he will say if you just rule he's played a diamond? Why should you want to rule in his favour? If this were a claim, you'd be jumping down his neck - but here? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 23 19:21:14 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:21:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) In-Reply-To: <008901c7e565$01b141c0$a99b87d9@Hellen> References: <008901c7e565$01b141c0$a99b87d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <46CDC20A.2060604@ntlworld.com> [Gampas] I cannot agree with this. We are not talking about UI here, so the LA requirement is not appropriate. For a psyche to be classified as Amber, there would be need to be "some evidence of an unauthorised understanding" - the wording in the EBU Orange Book. In other words, the top diamond lead would have to be unusual and therefore provide evidence that the opening leader expected his or her partner to have psyched. This is clearly not the case here; the opening leader has selected a lead based on the assumption that his or her partner would have a poor jump overcall in hearts, or a reasonable one but no entry; the notion that the leader has thought his or her partner has psyched is a reductio ad absurdum. [Grattan Endicott] "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} +=+ At one time in my bridge career, for a decade or more, I played overcalls at the one level announced as potentially abysmally weak and could be only four cards. We largely ignored such overcalls for the purposes of the opening lead and led the card we would choose in a silent auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [nige1] Grattan's example would be relevant if Stefanie Rohan (pre-)alerted her partner's 2H overcall as "potentially abysmally weak and only four cards" :) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 23 19:34:56 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:34:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) References: <008901c7e565$01b141c0$a99b87d9@Hellen> <46CDC20A.2060604@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <0ebb01c7e5ab$ecd7ea50$0100a8c0@stefanie> I would be very surprised if it were four cards; this is not our agreement and I have never seen it. As for being abysmally weak, I think that the colours and the fact that I am a passed hand would make that possibility a matter of bridge logic. Cheers Stefanie Rohan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) > [Gampas] > I cannot agree with this. We are not talking about UI here, so > the LA requirement is not appropriate. For a psyche to be > classified as Amber, there would be need to be "some evidence > of an unauthorised understanding" - the wording in the EBU > Orange Book. In other words, the top diamond lead would > have to be unusual and therefore provide evidence that the > opening leader expected his or her partner to have psyched. > This is clearly not the case here; the opening leader has > selected a lead based on the assumption that his or her partner > would have a poor jump overcall in hearts, or a reasonable > one but no entry; the notion that the leader has thought his or > her partner has psyched is a reductio ad absurdum. > > [Grattan Endicott] > "Progress is not an accident but > a necessity." > {Herbert Spencer} > +=+ At one time in my bridge career, for a decade or more, > I played overcalls at the one level announced as potentially > abysmally weak and could be only four cards. We largely > ignored such overcalls for the purposes of the opening lead > and led the card we would choose in a silent auction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [nige1] > Grattan's example would be relevant if Stefanie Rohan (pre-)alerted > her partner's 2H overcall as "potentially abysmally weak and only four > cards" :) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Aug 23 19:53:43 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:53:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] British bridge terminology References: <20070820030220.7ffa5741@linuxbox><200708200718.AA10244@geller20 4.nifty.com><46C94C78.4050509@skynet.be><46C9BCA3.5050904@NTLworld.com><46CA3B85.6000300@NTLwo rl d.com><20070821043628.53171eed@linuxb ox><46CADB92.9030209@meteo.fr><2007 0821115144.57591319@linuxbox><46CBEF02.2090205@meteo.fr><20070822064353.7a34bff9@linuxbox><46CC30B6.6070005@meteo.fr> <20070822105148.28db0e27@linuxbox> <46CD4E27.7000100@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <004601c7e5af$9f798fd0$81c787d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] British bridge terminology Brian a ?crit : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:48:54 +0200 > Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> he will tell you that he never names the rank, that all his fellows >> do likewise, that it's common usage >> > > Very interesting. Unless running a solid suit, that sounds to me like > dummy assisting with determining the play. i don't think: declarer routinely breaks L46A with incomplete designations and expects to routinely fall back on L46B2. dummy following the same common usage, places played cards according to his intentions. as you said, common usage takes precedence over obsolete laws. > > Maybe things really are that different at Gawrys's level, I'm just a > player who got suckered into doing a club TD job for a decade or so, so > I have no idea what goes on up in the higher echelons. my own experience is that all "champions" i have seen, so act (only naming suit when playing a low card from dummy), many other players also by mimicry; and they categorize as palookas those following L46A. jpr > > Brian. > +=+ In Law 46B2 we provide s crutch and those short of breath use it. ~ G ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 24 00:53:14 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:53:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? Message-ID: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> [John Probst and Mathias Schueller published 2 interesting Bridge law problems in the Brighton Bulletin] Q1 is setting you up so beware You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner hesitated over the 1N opener? Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and the auction is as follows (1N 12-14) AP You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have been the fate of 2S had you bid it. Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx As the TD, do you see a problem? [nigel] We discussed these questions over breakfast and our conclusions were Q1. Partner's hesitation does make it safer to bid because it is less likely that opponents will wake up and double you or bid game with say 14HCP opposite 11HCP. Nevertheless it is a bit daft to bid because if partner does have the expected 14+HCP and a spade fit, we may well get too high ..... unless partner decides to put on the brakes because he imagines that he's already advertised a good hand with his hesitation :) Q2. No. I presume partner hesitated again but it's hard to understand why -- unless he is a player who (almost) always doubles on 15+HCP. I suppose you *could* argue that partner's hesitation shows that he must be strong but something deterred him from bidding and that something could be short spades. That argument seems flawed, however. The main danger of protecting is that partner will get excited. If partner has less than four spades, it is *safer* for you to bid because you are less likely to be raised. You have enough trumps to play happily opposite 1-3 spades. If you bid 2S and partner does have short spades then only a void opposite is likely to earn you a poor score. I'm surprized that 1N was defeated. Anyway, unless partner was gagged in some way for the rest of the auction, I'd pass, whether or not he hesitated. I can guess John's answer to Q1 but I've no idea what is the right answer to Q2 so would be interested in BLML views. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 24 01:44:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:44:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901c7e58a$94270060$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Probst: >I was amused by one of my peers (and we've exchanged thousands of >pounds at the table) who spotted some soi-disant bridge players >playing non-penalty doubles, So he gave them a ferdinand strong >NT on a 5-5 pointy 3-count. The 24-count sitting over him made it >perfectly clear to the rest of the table my friend had psyched >before making a ludicrous overcall. When my friend called in the >NYPD to moan about the UI..... Richard Hills: But any UI to pard is also AI to the opponents. In a Tasmanian selection trial in 1983, my partner and I agreed to play Forcing Pass Relay. The opponents duly prepared a series of whizz-bang conventional gadgets to pre-empt over our Forcing Pass. This super-scientific auction ensued: Pard RHO Me LHO Pass(1) Pass(2) Pass(3) Pass(4) (1) 13+ hcp, forcing for one round. (2) After picking up a balanced 24 hcp, RHO realised to his horror that his whizz-bang conventional gadgets over a Forcing Pass only showed weak and pre-emptive hands, not strong ones. After long thought, RHO decided to wait until the next round of this forcing auction. (3) The first sentence of Law 16 states, "Players are authorised to base their calls ..... on information from ..... mannerisms of opponents." So, holding a yarborough, I had no difficulty choosing to violate system. (4) Only 3 hcp. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, Tassie Devil 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 mustikka at charter.net Fri Aug 24 02:06:11 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:06:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c7e5e2$949809b0$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:53 PM Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? > [John Probst and Mathias Schueller published 2 interesting Bridge law > problems in the Brighton Bulletin] > > Q1 is setting you up so beware > You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx > (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? > You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner hesitated > over the 1N opener? > > Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and the > auction is as follows > (1N 12-14) AP > You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have > been the fate of 2S had you bid it. > Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx > As the TD, do you see a problem? > > [nigel] > We discussed these questions over breakfast and our conclusions were > > Q1. Partner's hesitation does make it safer to bid because it is less > likely that opponents will wake up and double you or bid game with say > 14HCP opposite 11HCP. Nevertheless it is a bit daft to bid because if > partner does have the expected 14+HCP and a spade fit, we may well get > too high ..... unless partner decides to put on the brakes because he > imagines that he's already advertised a good hand with his hesitation :) > > Q2. No. I presume partner hesitated again but it's hard to understand > why -- unless he is a player who (almost) always doubles on 15+HCP. I > suppose you *could* argue that partner's hesitation shows that he must > be strong but something deterred him from bidding and that something > could be short spades. > That argument seems flawed, however. The main danger of protecting is > that partner will get excited. If partner has less than four spades, > it is *safer* for you to bid because you are less likely to be raised. > You have enough trumps to play happily opposite 1-3 spades. If you bid > 2S and partner does have short spades then only a void opposite is > likely to earn you a poor score. I'm surprized that 1N was defeated. > > Anyway, unless partner was gagged in some way for the rest of the > auction, I'd pass, whether or not he hesitated. > > I can guess John's answer to Q1 but I've no idea what is the right > answer to Q2 so would be interested in BLML views. Q1, after hesitation, Pass. There is no right answer to Q2. Depends on vulnerability, agreements with partner, and defensive methods in direct seat. Maybe other criteria. IMO protecting should *NOT* get a thinking partner excited. Partner *KNOWS* the 2S bid is protecting and he won't hang the protector even with a better hand than given in the examples. He also knows that the protector is able to count HCP and is already bidding the direct seat's assumed values. If the partnership has agreed that protector needs an agreed-upon amount of either playing strength or HCP, then it would be foolish to protect with Qxxxxx spades and out when partner has the right and responsibility to get excited with a good, fitting hand. It is probably wise to be conservative against a weak NT opening where opener's partner can have significant values just short of combined 25. But living dangerously, it is nice to get +110 or +140, even -50, instead of -90 that most others get. It works surprisingly often, but when it doesn't, massacre. If one starts guessing with close to same hands when to protect and when not to, the bad guessers could be guessing wrong near 100% of the time while consistent protectors (who play with partners who share the same philosophy of why we must protect!!!) show a clear profit or at least break even in the long run. The risky style works even better against strong NT openings where the HCP range of opener's partner is limited to 0-7. Cheers, Raija From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 24 02:24:02 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:24:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c7e5e5$12b594f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [John Probst and Mathias Schueller published 2 interesting Bridge law > problems in the Brighton Bulletin] > > Q1 is setting you up so beware > You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx > (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? > You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner hesitated > over the 1N opener? > > Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and the > auction is as follows > (1N 12-14) AP > You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have > been the fate of 2S had you bid it. > Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx > As the TD, do you see a problem? > > [nigel] > We discussed these questions over breakfast and our conclusions were > > Q1. Partner's hesitation does make it safer to bid because it is less > likely that opponents will wake up and double you or bid game with say > 14HCP opposite 11HCP. Nevertheless it is a bit daft to bid because if > partner does have the expected 14+HCP and a spade fit, we may well get > too high ..... unless partner decides to put on the brakes because he > imagines that he's already advertised a good hand with his hesitation :) > > Q2. No. I presume partner hesitated again but it's hard to understand > why -- unless he is a player who (almost) always doubles on 15+HCP. I > suppose you *could* argue that partner's hesitation shows that he must > be strong but something deterred him from bidding and that something > could be short spades. > That argument seems flawed, however. The main danger of protecting is > that partner will get excited. If partner has less than four spades, > it is *safer* for you to bid because you are less likely to be raised. > You have enough trumps to play happily opposite 1-3 spades. If you bid > 2S and partner does have short spades then only a void opposite is > likely to earn you a poor score. I'm surprized that 1N was defeated. > > Anyway, unless partner was gagged in some way for the rest of the > auction, I'd pass, whether or not he hesitated. > > I can guess John's answer to Q1 but I've no idea what is the right > answer to Q2 so would be interested in BLML views. Without hesitations I see no problem in either of the two cases. My immediate feeling is that partner's hesitation must show values and as such suggest an action by me if I have anything at all. I don't see how a hesitation can suggest pass, but I certainly am inclined to rule that a 2S bid by me could very well be suggested by the BIT and rule correspondingly. As a side point: If there is going to be an appeal I want the appeal to come from the offending side which again means rule against the hesitation. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 24 04:38:30 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:38:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708152207.l7FM7rg7004516@cfa.harvard.edu> <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <35DCD936-6A89-4EBE-9AED-787A49DE3B22@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 16, 2007, at 10:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > How does one now send a reply only to the poster (without cutting and > pasting)? "Reply to all" and delete the blml address. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 04:56:26 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:56:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <35DCD936-6A89-4EBE-9AED-787A49DE3B22@rochester.rr.com> References: <200708152207.l7FM7rg7004516@cfa.harvard.edu> <46C5078D.30007@cfa.harvard.edu> <35DCD936-6A89-4EBE-9AED-787A49DE3B22@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708231956w20a7dac6j973b24e075d2a0af@mail.gmail.com> On 8/23/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 16, 2007, at 10:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > > How does one now send a reply only to the poster (without cutting and > > pasting)? > > "Reply to all" and delete the blml address. > That does not work with gmail, because the poster's address is missing. From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Fri Aug 24 07:04:48 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:04:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? Message-ID: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> MP pairs, love all East deals As South you hold: QTxxxx Jxxx x xx The auction: 1NT pass 2S* pass 3C** pass 3NT all pass * transfer to clubs (alerted) ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) Your lead please? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070824/4b796cc4/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 24 09:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CDB65E.9020600@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > You can shout it all you like. When the player pronounced it, he > meant "play the diamond 3" DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND. Meant is irrelevant. He has designated a trump. > There is no law which tells you that this intent is less important > than the words and their bridge meaning. The laws tells us what to do in the cases of incomplete/erroneous designations. First we establish what card has been designated *then* (if there is such a card) we decide whether declarer's intention to play a different card is incontrovertible. If a player says "Spade" when he means "Diamond" the suit *designated* IS spades. Do not even *try* to establish intent until you have establish the facts of any designation. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 24 09:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) In-Reply-To: <46CDC20A.2060604@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Grattan's example would be relevant if Stefanie Rohan (pre-)alerted > her partner's 2H overcall as "potentially abysmally weak and only > four cards" :) Even if Stefanie were to play such a style it would not be (pre-)alerted - a weak pre-empting style should be described on the CC but no other action is required. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 24 09:31:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [John Probst and Mathias Schueller published 2 interesting Bridge > law problems in the Brighton Bulletin] > > Q1 is setting you up so beware > You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx > (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? > You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner > hesitated over the 1N opener? So partner, who is known to have 13+ points on the auction, hesitated over 1N. Either he was close to a double with a balanced hand (suggesting a 2S bid could work well) or he was thinking of making a suit bid (suggesting a possible misfit). TBH I don't think one knows anything "useful" about his hand from the hesitation. NB, I don't think the range of the 1N matters. > Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and > the auction is as follows > (1N 12-14) AP > You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have > been the fate of 2S had you bid it. > Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx > As the TD, do you see a problem? I don't see a "problem" per se (except for how 1N went down!). I do have a suspicion that the hesitation was designed to deter partner from bidding which will lead me to investigate and assign an adjusted score and DP. Tim From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 08:46:41 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:46:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? In-Reply-To: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> References: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: On 24/08/07, Andre Steffens wrote: > > MP pairs, love all East deals > As South you hold: > QTxxxx > Jxxx > x > xx > > The auction: > 1NT pass 2S* pass > 3C** pass 3NT all pass > > * transfer to clubs (alerted) > ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) > > Your lead please? > It seems like LHO made a light slam invitation to me - not that it means very much for what I lead. I'd normally lead my systemic low spade, although my partner surely would lead a diamond - which is the only plausible alternative for me too. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070824/6dff1d35/attachment-0001.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 09:06:33 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:06:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Imbecile Message-ID: I'm not participating in these absurdly long and IMO absolutely meaningless threads taking place here these days. But I'm skimming through what those who do write. I can see no reason for offending other contributors. But even less so to accuse innocent people of offending others. So I think Grattan, Herman and Joan (in that order) owe Sven an apology. He never called anyone an imbecile, quite the opposite. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070824/1542b33d/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 24 10:28:07 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:28:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] This is how Reply should work In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708231956w20a7dac6j973b24e075d2a0af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c7e628$b2fa58e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > On 8/23/07, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > On Aug 16, 2007, at 10:27 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > How does one now send a reply only to the poster (without cutting and > > > pasting)? > > > > "Reply to all" and delete the blml address. > > > > That does not work with gmail, because the poster's address is missing. Nor does it work with MS Outlook 2002 (the version I am currently using) However, I have no problem with that compared to the advantage of automatically addressing blml with no more fuss. Regards Sven From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri Aug 24 11:46:23 2007 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:46:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? In-Reply-To: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> References: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <46CEA8EF.2090309@cs.elte.hu> Andre Steffens wrote: > MP pairs, love all East deals > As South you hold: > QTxxxx > Jxxx > x > xx > > The auction: > 1NT pass 2S* pass > 3C** pass 3NT all pass > > * transfer to clubs (alerted) > ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) > > Your lead please? Small spade (the systemic one). No special idea. Go with the room! Declarer may have very special hand. Opening 1N with no A,K,Q. We see the J of hearts, so he has maximum 3 HCPs... :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 24 11:40:27 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:40:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070824113238.0214ccb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:53 23/08/2007 +0100, you wrote: >Q1 is setting you up so beware >You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx >(1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? >You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner hesitated >over the 1N opener? Ashamed. Or should I plead "ex falso quodlibet" and randomly choose an answer ? >Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and the >auction is as follows >(1N 12-14) AP >You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have >been the fate of 2S had you bid it. >Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx >As the TD, do you see a problem? Not at first sight. If said hand hesitated and then passed over 1NT, which is barely possible absent subtle conventions, surely they hadn't any hunch that partner's restrictions in reopening could be beneficial to them. No need to suspect anything. The strong hand hoped to get a second chance over responder's escape to spades, this didn't materialize, but they got a small positive score nevertheless. Good decision. If partner had had a 5413 5-count, and his reopening 2C had been disallowed, missing a good 4H, it would not have been a good decision. So what ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 24 11:47:01 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:47:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? In-Reply-To: <46CEA8EF.2090309@cs.elte.hu> References: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070824114349.0214a690@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:46 24/08/2007 +0200, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: >Andre Steffens wrote: > > > MP pairs, love all East deals > > As South you hold: > > QTxxxx > > Jxxx > > x > > xx > > > > The auction: > > 1NT pass 2S* pass > > 3C** pass 3NT all pass > > > > * transfer to clubs (alerted) > > ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) > > > > Your lead please? Low spade. With responder advertizing a strong hand, we need something spectacular to endanger the contract, and the best I can see is partner holding a club honor, an ace (so that they haven't nine quick tricks) and something like Kxx in spades. This doesn't seem to be too remote to choose a more exotic lead. BTW, allow this even if partner took some time over 2S. I'd rule no LA. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 24 12:18:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:18:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: References: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070824121105.021490b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:31 24/08/2007 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Q1 is setting you up so beware > > You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx > > (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? > > You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner > > hesitated over the 1N opener? > > > > Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and > > the auction is as follows > > (1N 12-14) AP > > You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have > > been the fate of 2S had you bid it. > > Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx > > As the TD, do you see a problem? > >I don't see a "problem" per se (except for how 1N went down!). I do have >a suspicion that the hesitation was designed to deter partner from >bidding which will lead me to investigate and assign an adjusted score >and DP. AG : objection. You're influenced by the real deal. Even takling into account that partner should hold some spades if 3rd hand passes, the player at the table had no way to tell partner didn't have any of the following : Jxxxx - Axxx - x - xxx Qxxx - xx - x - Kxxxxx Jxxxx - Ax - KQxx - xx QJ109xx - xxx - Qx - xx and on each of those hands, deterring partner from reopening wouldn't be a good idea, would it ? Playing decent methods (Asptro, Mutli-Landy, obscure Landy or the like), most of the above hands would reopen after an in-tempo pass and get to a makeable game. Do you want partner to refrain from doing so ? Nope. Ergo, forget the suspicion. (yes, I would disallow 2S after the tempo even on the last example) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 24 12:18:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:18:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: References: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070824121105.021490b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:31 24/08/2007 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Q1 is setting you up so beware > > You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx > > (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? > > You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner > > hesitated over the 1N opener? > > > > Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and > > the auction is as follows > > (1N 12-14) AP > > You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have > > been the fate of 2S had you bid it. > > Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx > > As the TD, do you see a problem? > >I don't see a "problem" per se (except for how 1N went down!). I do have >a suspicion that the hesitation was designed to deter partner from >bidding which will lead me to investigate and assign an adjusted score >and DP. AG : objection. You're influenced by the real deal. Even takling into account that partner should hold some spades if 3rd hand passes, the player at the table had no way to tell partner didn't have any of the following : Jxxxx - Axxx - x - xxx Qxxx - xx - x - Kxxxxx Jxxxx - Ax - KQxx - xx QJ109xx - xxx - Qx - xx and on each of those hands, deterring partner from reopening wouldn't be a good idea, would it ? Playing decent methods (Asptro, Mutli-Landy, obscure Landy or the like), most of the above hands would reopen after an in-tempo pass and get to a makeable game. Do you want partner to refrain from doing so ? Nope. Ergo, forget the suspicion. (yes, I would disallow 2S after the tempo even on the last example) Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 24 12:52:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:52:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CEB853.4040809@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> You can shout it all you like. When the player pronounced it, he >> meant "play the diamond 3" DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND. > > Meant is irrelevant. He has designated a trump. Tim, don't you get it by now? I do not agree with that statement. He has said "ruff", and in his opinion that translates to "play a small diamond". I don't care what the word means to the rest of the table, to him it means "play a small diamond". Where in the laws do you find that your translation is to be followed, and not his? "designated" is specifically there to allow for other words than "diamond", and when a player uses another word to show that he wants to play diamond (be it "koekes" or "fiori") he still has designated a diamond. > >> There is no law which tells you that this intent is less important >> than the words and their bridge meaning. > > The laws tells us what to do in the cases of incomplete/erroneous > designations. First we establish what card has been designated *then* > (if there is such a card) we decide whether declarer's intention to play > a different card is incontrovertible. If a player says "Spade" when he > means "Diamond" the suit *designated* IS spades. > Yes, but he has not said "spades", he has said "ruff", and nowhere in the laws do we find what "ruff" means (as opposed to "spades"), nor do we find anywhere that if there is ambiguity between the word and the intent we should follow the word and not the intent. > Do not even *try* to establish intent until you have establish the facts > of any designation. > But we know the facts. We know that he said "ruff" and that he meant "diamonds"! > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 24 12:54:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:54:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CEB8E1.2090607@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> You can shout it all you like. When the player pronounced it, he >> meant "play the diamond 3" DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND DIAMOND. > > Meant is irrelevant. He has designated a trump. Tim, don't you get it by now? I do not agree with that statement. He has said "ruff", and in his opinion that translates to "play a small diamond". I don't care what the word means to the rest of the table, to him it means "play a small diamond". Where in the laws do you find that your translation is to be followed, and not his? "designated" is specifically there to allow for other words than "diamond", and when a player uses another word to show that he wants to play diamond (be it "koekes" or "fiori") he still has designated a diamond. > >> There is no law which tells you that this intent is less important >> than the words and their bridge meaning. > > The laws tells us what to do in the cases of incomplete/erroneous > designations. First we establish what card has been designated *then* > (if there is such a card) we decide whether declarer's intention to play > a different card is incontrovertible. If a player says "Spade" when he > means "Diamond" the suit *designated* IS spades. > Yes, but he has not said "spades", he has said "ruff", and nowhere in the laws do we find what "ruff" means (as opposed to "spades"), nor do we find anywhere that if there is ambiguity between the word and the intent we should follow the word and not the intent. > Do not even *try* to establish intent until you have establish the facts > of any designation. > But we know the facts. We know that he said "ruff" and that he meant "diamonds"! > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 24 12:57:25 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:57:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Imbecile In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CEB995.2010507@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > I'm not participating in these absurdly long and IMO absolutely > meaningless threads taking place here these days. > But I'm skimming through what those who do write. > > I can see no reason for offending other contributors. > But even less so to accuse innocent people of offending others. > I agree. > So I think Grattan, Herman and Joan (in that order) owe Sven an apology. > He never called anyone an imbecile, quite the opposite. > He did it in such a roundabout way that some of us may have failed to catch the double negative. I apologize if I appeared to be among those. I did not feel directly under attack. I also apologize for using the same word (it had been used 3 times already by that time) in some other post, in which I accused somebody else of trying to insult me in an even more roundabout way. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 24 15:01:26 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:01:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? In-Reply-To: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> References: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <0BFCF1EA-B9A6-44AE-A887-6DA872370AD8@starpower.net> On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Andre Steffens wrote: > MP pairs, love all East deals > As South you hold: > QTxxxx > Jxxx > x > xx > > The auction: > 1NT pass 2S* pass > 3C** pass 3NT all pass > > * transfer to clubs (alerted) > ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) > > Your lead please? Sx. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Aug 24 17:53:58 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:53:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Bid or not? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 19, 2007, at 8:18 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > A similar situation occurs with bidding boxes. A player pulls a > STOP card out > of the box, then realizes that he wants to bid 1H and not 2H. He > may still bid > 1H, and the fact that he was considering some type of jump is UI. He may not have been considering a jump. Perhaps he was considering 1H, and for some reason *thought* that would be a jump. (I could probably construct a better example, but you get the point, I trust.) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 24 21:26:04 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:26:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46CF30CC.1090809@ntlworld.com> [Nigel] Grattan's example would be relevant if Stefanie Rohan (pre-)alerted her partner's 2H overcall as "potentially abysmally weak and only four cards" :) [Tim West-Meads] Even if Stefanie were to play such a style it would not be (pre-)alerted - a weak pre-empting style should be described on the CC but no other action is required. [nige1] Tim's and John's opponents may have come to expect an abysmally weak four card suit from a two-level jump-overcall. Perhaps, Grattan, too, would find it unremarkable. I confess that I am so out of sympathy with legal trends, that I would expect such an agreement to be pre-alerted (announced before play started). In Reading Bridge Club and other backwoods, such an agreement is certainly unusual enough to require an alert :) The longer I've been contributing to BLML, the more I feel that Konrad Ciborowski is one of the few BLMLers in step with the aspirations of the ordinary player. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 24 21:42:05 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:42:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? In-Reply-To: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> References: <200708240504.l7O54mPu005906@smtp40.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <46CF348D.4000105@ntlworld.com> [Andre Steffans] MP pairs, love all East deals As South you hold: S:QTxxxx H:Jxxx D:x C:xx. The auction: 1NT pass 2S* pass 3C** pass 3NT all pass * transfer to clubs (alerted) ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) Your lead please? [nige1] IMO Sx = 10, Hx = 8, Cx = 7, Dx = 1. A possible contra-indication to a spade lead is partner's failure to double 2S. But since he can't have length in the suit, that is hardly significant. I suppose that a player might claim damage from LHO's failure to alert RHO's 3C. Since it is pairs and LHO appears to have made a slam try, there is a case for a club lead which should be "safe" if you know RHO has no club honours. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 25 02:31:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:31:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alert and alarmed (was continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46CF30CC.1090809@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >... opponents may have come to expect an abysmally weak >four card suit from a two-level jump-overcall ... I >confess that I am so out of sympathy with legal trends, >that I would expect such an agreement to be pre-alerted >(announced before play started). Richard Hills: I agree with Nigel, although I would prefer to use the terminology "illegal trends". Merely because one thinks that one's style is general bridge knowledge does not necessarily mean that one's thinking is correct. In the absence of a local Alert regulation, the first clause of Law 40B prohibits a pair failing to explain unexpected special partnership understandings to the opponents. Unfortunately the presence of a local Alert regulation over-rides the first clause of Law 40B, due to the caveat in the second clause of Law 40B: "... or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." Poorly designed Alert regulations, such as those of the ACBL and the EBU, have loopholes which sea-lawyers can exploit to gain unfair advantage. Whether or not those sea-lawyer actions are legal depends on whether or not the ACBL or EBU can ever be deemed to have created an illegal regulation. My two cents worth is that an Alert regulation which is fully or partially contrary to the first sentence of Law 75A - "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents" - is an illegal regulation. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 25 03:28:43 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:28:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Standards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009301c7e4a1$f16145e0$b69487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert (Bob) Geller asked: >If this is just a social bulletin board for people who >want to kill time then anyone should be able to write >whatever he wants, but if this is a serious forum for >discussing the laws of bridge we ought to stick (mostly) >to serious discussion on the laws of bridge and people >who want to just have fun should go someplace else. > >Which is it? Horace (65-8 BCE) suggested: Misce stultitiam consiliis brevem: Dulce est desipere in loco. [Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans: it's lovely to be silly at the right moment.] Eric Landau concurred: >>If our bridge clubs and tournaments can simultaneously >>serve both as a venue for those who want to engage in >>serious competition and, simultaneously, as a way for >>others to pass the time having some fun -- which they >>do quite nicely -- why not BLML too? Robert (Bob) Geller differed: >Up to a point (10-20% of totals posts?), sure. But >these kinds of topics seem lately to form a majority of >posts. This will (already has?) kill (killed?) BLML as >a place for serious discussion of the laws of bridge. Grattan Endicott noted: >>>...a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible >>>but wrong... Richard Hills: In my opinion, Bob's reports of the death of blml are greatly exaggerated. Recent endless threads have been caused by: (a) a contributor propounding plausible but wrong ideas, (b) other blmers refuting those wrong ideas, (c) the plausible contributor giving lengthy responses to every refuting post, using logically twisted, stretched, absurd and in some cases non-Aristotelian justifications for his wrong ideas, and, the key factor, d) those opposing the plausible contributor insisting on having the last word; a futile exercise since the plausible contributor also insists on having the last word. Simply ignoring the umpteenth post will cause such irrelevant threads to disappear, leaving room for a hundred flowers to blossom and a hundred schools of thought to contend. By the way, I applaud Ed Reppert's style of blml contribution. His posts are particular readable since he carefully snips extraneous words before responding, and, the key factor, succinctly restricts his posts to a single point. My posts tend to be a bit too discursive and rambling, as this post demonstrates. :-) 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 Sat Aug 25 15:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Lead Problem (continued) In-Reply-To: <46CF30CC.1090809@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > I confess that I am so out of sympathy with legal trends, that I > would expect such an agreement to be pre-alerted (announced before > play started). > > In Reading Bridge Club and other backwoods, such an agreement is > certainly unusual enough to require an alert :) Perhaps ReadingBC has different alerting rules to those to which I am accustomed. In venues where the EBU OB carries weight these bids should neither be pre-announced nor alerted. If Nigel wishes to pronounce the EBU regs "a bunch of total crap" I will not demur, but if he tries to impute dereliction of duty to a player who does not announce (or alert) such habits I will object strenuously. The OB is specific, it *forbids* alerting "weak" overcalls. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Aug 25 15:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070824121105.021490b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > Playing decent methods (Asptro, Mutli-Landy, obscure Landy or the I currently have no evidence that NS are playing *any* conventional methods over 1N. I remain suspicious on the grounds that since we have not been told of such a defence they are playing natural. > QJ109xx - xxx - Qx - xx > (yes, I would disallow 2S after the tempo even on the last example) Presumably you have been given information as to vul to which the rest of us are not privy. If I passed out that one when NV pard would have medics checking for my pulse (and I'd lay odds against them finding it). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Aug 25 15:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46CEB853.4040809@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Where in the laws do > you find that your translation is to be followed, and not his? HERMAN!! IN A DICTIONARY. I have now told you at least five times that "Ruff" is defined in a DICTIONARY, not the lawbook. It is defined as meaning a Trump. If you wish to argue that "Ruff" means "Diamonds" then please cite a credible reference for the alternate meaning. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Aug 25 15:00:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Alert and alarmed (was continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > My two cents worth is that an Alert regulation which is > fully or partially contrary to the first sentence of > Law 75A - "Special partnership agreements, whether > explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely > available to the opponents" - is an illegal regulation. A reasonable point. However the EBU regulation that a weak pre-empt style be clearly disclosed on the CC but is neither alertable nor pre-alertable can hardly be said to conflict with L75a. Tim From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Aug 25 15:45:20 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:45:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Standards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D03270.3070103@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert (Bob) Geller asked: > >> If this is just a social bulletin board for people who >> want to kill time then anyone should be able to write >> whatever he wants, but if this is a serious forum for >> discussing the laws of bridge we ought to stick (mostly) >> to serious discussion on the laws of bridge and people >> who want to just have fun should go someplace else. >> >> Which is it? > > Horace (65-8 BCE) suggested: > > Misce stultitiam consiliis brevem: > Dulce est desipere in loco. > > [Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans: it's > lovely to be silly at the right moment.] > > Eric Landau concurred: > >>> If our bridge clubs and tournaments can simultaneously >>> serve both as a venue for those who want to engage in >>> serious competition and, simultaneously, as a way for >>> others to pass the time having some fun -- which they >>> do quite nicely -- why not BLML too? > > Robert (Bob) Geller differed: > >> Up to a point (10-20% of totals posts?), sure. But >> these kinds of topics seem lately to form a majority of >> posts. This will (already has?) kill (killed?) BLML as >> a place for serious discussion of the laws of bridge. > > Grattan Endicott noted: > >>>> ...a contributor of views that are, at best, plausible >>>> but wrong... > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Bob's reports of the death of blml are > greatly exaggerated. Recent endless threads have been > caused by: > > (a) a contributor propounding plausible but wrong ideas, Politeness should force you to put an (IMO) in there. Or even more neutral - forget the wrong altogether. But then politeness is always hidden behind nice words with you, Richard, isn't it? > (b) other blmers refuting those wrong ideas, > (c) the plausible contributor giving lengthy responses to > every refuting post, using logically twisted, stretched, > absurd and in some cases non-Aristotelian justifications > for his wrong ideas, and, the key factor, > logically twisted? Are you talking about me or about Tim? > d) those opposing the plausible contributor insisting on > having the last word; a futile exercise since the > plausible contributor also insists on having the last > word. > I never want the last word - I am happy with the first word of the next discussion. > Simply ignoring the umpteenth post will cause such > irrelevant threads to disappear, leaving room for a > hundred flowers to blossom and a hundred schools of > thought to contend. > And for two directors to give exactly opposite rulings to the exact same case. And in a technical one at that! I thought the aim of blml was the reverse of that one. I am obviously wrong. The aim of blml is to argue against Herman. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 25 16:33:30 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:33:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c7e724$e85ac450$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: 25. august 2007 15:00 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > > Herman wrote: > > Where in the laws do > > you find that your translation is to be followed, and not his? > > HERMAN!! IN A DICTIONARY. I have now told you at least five times that > "Ruff" is defined in a DICTIONARY, not the lawbook. It is defined as > meaning a Trump. > > If you wish to argue that "Ruff" means "Diamonds" then please cite a > credible reference for the alternate meaning. > > Tim "Ruff" is also defined in my copy of the "Encyclopedia of Bridge" issued in 1935 by Ely Culbertson. (Yes that must be a predecessor for today's "Encyclopedia of Bridge" because this 1935 issue is as far as I have seen not included with their numbering of issues) And by the way: Where did "Diamonds" enter this thread? Because when I originally presented this situation I distinctly remember writing: Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." It is a pity when people get so winded up in their own arguments that they even forget the actual situation. Regards Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Aug 25 19:01:23 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:01:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: <46CE0FDA.3000009@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <005301c7e739$9171b990$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ---- From: Guthrie To: BLML Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:53:14 PM Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? Guthrie: [John Probst and Mathias Schueller published 2 interesting Bridge law problems in the Brighton Bulletin] Q1 is setting you up so beware You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner hesitated over the 1N opener? Hirsch: Note: I do not have enough details of the methods used, particulary in NT defense, to be sure that my analysis applies to any methods but my own. What do I know that is AI? Opponents think it's a part score hand, which gives partner around a 14 point minimum. We double with equivalent strength to opener, yet partner did not. Our NT defense emphasizes 1 and 2 suited hands, but can be awkward with 4-4-4-1. So, the likelihood is that he did not double was fear that I would pull to a short suit, although there are other possibilities. With length in spades and NT on my right, I've got a pretty good idea where his shortness is. All of that is prior to considering the pause. Did the UI tell me something I already didn't know? I don't think so. He could have a bit of extra strength, but decided not to risk the double because of the shortness flaw, or perhaps less strength and the opponents missed a game. More importantly, did the UI suggest one LA over another? I don't really want to play that anemic spade suit opposite a singleton, and don't think 2S was a LA if my analysis of the hand is correct. However, if the pause means that he's stronger than I think, it might be worth pulling to the spades anyway, so the UI might suggest 2S. If the pause means that he's weaker than I think, on the low end of a double, 2S could be a massacre against a missed game by the opponents, so that interpretation of the UI suggests pass. I can't interpret the UI as suggesting anything, and by the time I reach this point, everyone at the table is getting impatient and waiting for my call. Pass and let the TD sort it out. I've got too few points for that particular auction, and have a strong suspicion based on AI, not UI, that I know why. However, the question is how I feel about 2S after it scores 140. Pretty silly actually, as my analysis of the hand indicated that pass was the way to go. The hesitation was clearly based on extra, rather than marginal, strength, and my analysis of the distribution may well have been wrong. As a rule, I do not like playing Qxxxxx opposite a stiff when the opponents appear to have the majority of the cards. Guthrie: Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and the auction is as follows (1N 12-14) AP You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have been the fate of 2S had you bid it. Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx As the TD, do you see a problem? Hirsch: Not really. Balancing on a 2-count with a weak suit is not normally a LA. Looking as a TD, and now seeing the hand, my guess above appears to have been correct. The hitch was clearly the stiff spade, since a hand with that kind of strenth is normally an automatic double. But knowledge of the spade shortness would suggest a pass, if anything. I am not going to call the pathetic suit in balancing seat a LA. I''m not adjusting anything on this hand as the problem was given. From john at asimere.com Sat Aug 25 19:06:22 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:06:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: Message-ID: <001401c7e73a$443fcda0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? > Alain wrote: >> Playing decent methods (Asptro, Mutli-Landy, obscure Landy or the > > I currently have no evidence that NS are playing *any* conventional > methods over 1N. I remain suspicious on the grounds that since we have > not been told of such a defence they are playing natural. > >> QJ109xx - xxx - Qx - xx >> (yes, I would disallow 2S after the tempo even on the last example) > > Presumably you have been given information as to vul to which the rest of > us are not privy. If I passed out that one when NV pard would have > medics checking for my pulse (and I'd lay odds against them finding it). > > Tim The point at issue is simple. We know from the AI of the auction that partner has his hesitation. Therefore we are not in any way precluded from bidding. It really is that easy. We don't have to bid either. That is also simple. So Matthias and my examples are easy to answer. You can bid 2S or not, just as you like in either of the auctions. cheers john > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Aug 25 19:25:34 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:25:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: <001401c7e73a$443fcda0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000601c7e73c$f2133eb0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? > The point at issue is simple. We know from the AI of the auction that > partner has his hesitation. Therefore we are not in any way precluded from > bidding. It really is that easy. We don't have to bid either. That is > also simple. So Matthias and my examples are easy to answer. You can bid > 2S or not, just as you like in either of the auctions. cheers john >> I believe the question to be more complicated than that. L16 does not make provision for AI. It simply dictates what you may and may not do in the presence of UI. UI may well preclude you from making a call that you would make 100% of the time based on AI, provided 1) There is a LA; and 2) Your call is suggested over the LA by the UI. The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA. Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI, the restrictions of L16 still apply. Hirsch From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 25 20:42:18 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:42:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <000601c7e73c$f2133eb0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <000301c7e747$aa4f5a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Hirsch Davis > From: "John Probst" > > The point at issue is simple. We know from the AI of the auction that > > partner has his hesitation. Therefore we are not in any way precluded > > from bidding. It really is that easy. We don't have to bid either. > > That is also simple. So Matthias and my examples are easy to answer. > > You can bid2S or not, just as you like in either of the auctions. > > cheers john > > I believe the question to be more complicated than that. L16 does not make > provision for AI. It simply dictates what you may and may not do in the > presence of UI. UI may well preclude you from making a call that you would > make 100% of the time based on AI, provided 1) There is a LA; and 2) Your > call is suggested over the LA by the UI. The call (alternative) does not even have to be suggested by the UI. It is sufficient that it _could_ have been suggested by the UI. > The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA. > Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI, > the restrictions of L16 still apply. Quite so. (If there are alternatives) Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 26 00:28:59 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:28:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D0AD2B.9020102@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: >> Where in the laws do >> you find that your translation is to be followed, and not his? > > HERMAN!! IN A DICTIONARY. I have now told you at least five times that > "Ruff" is defined in a DICTIONARY, not the lawbook. It is defined as > meaning a Trump. > > If you wish to argue that "Ruff" means "Diamonds" then please cite a > credible reference for the alternate meaning. > how about declarer's thoughts? (which he expresses, BTW, no mind reading required!) how can you rule that a declarer who intended to play diamonds has played spades - especially if spades are better for him? > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 26 00:46:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:46:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e724$e85ac450$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e724$e85ac450$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D0B136.3060001@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> Sent: 25. august 2007 15:00 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? >> >> Herman wrote: >>> Where in the laws do >>> you find that your translation is to be followed, and not his? >> HERMAN!! IN A DICTIONARY. I have now told you at least five times that >> "Ruff" is defined in a DICTIONARY, not the lawbook. It is defined as >> meaning a Trump. >> >> If you wish to argue that "Ruff" means "Diamonds" then please cite a >> credible reference for the alternate meaning. >> >> Tim > > "Ruff" is also defined in my copy of the "Encyclopedia of Bridge" issued in > 1935 by Ely Culbertson. > (Yes that must be a predecessor for today's "Encyclopedia of Bridge" because > this 1935 issue is as far as I have seen not included with their numbering > of issues) > > And by the way: Where did "Diamonds" enter this thread? Because when I > originally presented this situation I distinctly remember writing: > > Declarer: "No, I asked for a small trump!" > Dummy: "Sure; Spade is trump." > Declarer: "Is it? Sorry. For a moment I was playing in Hearts." > > It is a pity when people get so winded up in their own arguments that they > even forget the actual situation. > I apologize for that mistake. I don't believe it matters. Me, I've been talking about a declarer thinking he's playing diamonds all the time - I guess most of us have forgotten by now that you mentioned a case involving hearts. I have found two more arguments in the meantime, in favour of my interpretation. ONE: UI. This one works only for the case of the real contract being in 3NT. Whatever the ruling on the word "ruff", some clarification needs to be given. If you believe that "diamonds" have not yet been designated, you must ask declarer to specify some other card. However, in the meantime he has received UI, from partner among others, which tells him something that suggests a non-diamond discard. Hence, L16 dictates a diamond discard, does it not? TWO: incontrovertible intent. This rule has been used usually in favour of declarer, allowing him a more favourable play than the one he literally called for. But should it not also work in the reverse. Take this example. Dummy has AKQJxxx of spades, and has just played the Ace. Declarer says "spade", dummy puts the king in the played position and nobody argues with that (intention incontrovertible). Declarer says "spade" once again, and the player in dummy's seat being more awake than declarer, plays a small one. Opponents protest and TD is called. It is clear that although declarer called for a "spade", which literally means a small one, his incontrovertible intention was to play the queen. Do you rule that the intention is more important than the literal sense? Then, you rule that way in bnoth directions. Then we could also rule in our example. I know, "ruff" is not covered in any of the laws 46B1-5, but if you are going to read literally, then L46B2 can be read like this: (including the part above) "if declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated, except when his different intention is incontrovertible". The laws do not say which card (not the "lowest card of the suit indicated") he is deemed to have called. I can easily interpret this as "instead, he is deemed to have called the card he incontrovertibly intended". Please, Tim, Sven, think about this - your interpretation is hanging by threads and not supported by anything else than "he said ruff, so that means spade", and "anyone thinking like Herman must be an imbecile" (yes, I do know you have never said or even thought this, but it is what your arguments boil down to). I have not before given law references for MY interpretation, merely wanting to point out that your arguments are less than convincing. If I cannot convert you two, please can others reassure me that I am, for once, not in a minority of one against two? > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Sun Aug 26 01:47:20 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:47:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000001c7e724$e85ac450$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D0B136.3060001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101c7e772$478fe890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> (snipped) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > I have not before given law references for MY interpretation, merely > wanting to point out that your arguments are less than convincing. If > I cannot convert you two, please can others reassure me that I am, for > once, not in a minority of one against two? It is at least three, not two. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Aug 26 10:29:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:29:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c7e747$aa4f5a90$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >>The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA. >>Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI, >>the restrictions of L16 still apply. Sven Pran: >Quite so. (If there are alternatives) Richard Hills: **If** authorised information is **identical to** unauthorised information, **then** I agree with Herman De Wael's position in the October 2006 thread "Positronic brain" that Law 16 does not apply. Herman's point, with which I agree, is if an "AI electron" meets its anti-particle, a "UI positron", then the two particles annihilate each other, so therefore there is zero residual Law 16 extraneous information outstanding. A simpler way of looking at it, without the metaphor, is to ask the question, "How can partner give you Law 16 extraneous information if you already have that information?" (But note that, in the particular case discussed at the stem of that "Positronic brain" thread, there was a blml consensus that the AI was _not_ identical to the UI, thus making Herman's position moot.) 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 Sun Aug 26 10:35:29 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:35:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46D0B136.3060001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7e7bc$0f56e790$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > ONE: UI. This one works only for the case of the real contract being > in 3NT. Whatever the ruling on the word "ruff", some clarification > needs to be given. If you believe that "diamonds" have not yet been > designated, you must ask declarer to specify some other card. However, > in the meantime he has received UI, from partner among others, which > tells him something that suggests a non-diamond discard. Hence, L16 > dictates a diamond discard, does it not? The fact that Declarer has designated a card not in Dummy (Law 46B4) can hardly be UI to Declarer. I cannot possibly see how Law 16 can apply in this case. The applicable laws must be Laws 43A1(c) and 45F (which effectively overrides Law 16 in such situations). That the ruling (depending on the actual circumstances) will be comparable is a different matter. > TWO: incontrovertible intent. This rule has been used usually in > favour of declarer, allowing him a more favourable play than the one > he literally called for. But should it not also work in the reverse. > Take this example. Dummy has AKQJxxx of spades, and has just played > the Ace. Declarer says "spade", dummy puts the king in the played > position and nobody argues with that (intention incontrovertible). > Declarer says "spade" once again, and the player in dummy's seat being > more awake than declarer, plays a small one. Opponents protest and TD > is called. It is clear that although declarer called for a "spade", > which literally means a small one, his incontrovertible intention was > to play the queen. Do you rule that the intention is more important > than the literal sense? Then, you rule that way in bnoth directions. Of course the Queen is now played. We have long tradition, at least in Norway, that when a suit is run from the top any designation from Declarer to the effect of continuing the suit shall also be from the top unless Declarer specifically designates otherwise. I fail to see the relevance of this example to a case where Declarer designates a card not in Dummy. .............. "he said ruff, so that means spade", Incorrect statement and to my knowledge nobody other than you have used this composition. As is well known in the world of bridge the correct statement is: "he said ruff, so that means trump" BTW. Searching my memory I cannot recall any situation where I have heard declarer "naming" the trump suit when ruffing in or leading trump from Dummy. It appears to me that Declarer always uses the word "ruff" or "trump" rather than the word "spade", "heart", diamond" or "club", whichever applies. I do, however, remember one case when Declarer "accidentally" discarded a small heart from dummy not realizing that hearts were trump. We all had a good laugh when Declarer after ten minutes of "thinking" suddenly asked why we waited for him to play. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 26 11:25:14 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:25:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <002101c7e772$478fe890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> References: <000001c7e724$e85ac450$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D0B136.3060001@skynet.be> <002101c7e772$478fe890$f8065e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <46D146FA.70807@skynet.be> raija wrote: > (snipped) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> I have not before given law references for MY interpretation, merely >> wanting to point out that your arguments are less than convincing. If >> I cannot convert you two, please can others reassure me that I am, for >> once, not in a minority of one against two? > > > It is at least three, not two. And did you read my argumentation above, Raija? And did you start with an open mind, or did you just say - oh, it's Herman again, can't be right. Your brief answer suggests the second. Forgive me if I don't take that seriously. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 26 12:13:56 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:13:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c7e7c9$d043de60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Hirsch Davis: > > >>The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA. > >>Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI, > >>the restrictions of L16 still apply. > > Sven Pran: > > >Quite so. (If there are alternatives) > > Richard Hills: > > **If** authorised information is **identical to** unauthorised > information, **then** I agree with Herman De Wael's position in the > October 2006 thread "Positronic brain" that Law 16 does not apply. I specifically added (If there are alternatives) When there are logical alternative actions, one of which "could" have been suggested by the extraneous information then Law 16 applies with its full force. Only when the AI is so "overwhelming" that there is no logical alternative action other than the one that could be suggested by the extraneous information may the player select this action. So the important question is not if the selected action is suggested by AI as well as by UI but if this AI "nullifies" all other alternative actions. Regards Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Aug 26 17:55:38 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:55:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003801c7e7f9$8c0b6b20$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Hirsch Davis: > >>>The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA. >>>Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI, >>>the restrictions of L16 still apply. > > Sven Pran: > >>Quite so. (If there are alternatives) > > Richard Hills: > > **If** authorised information is **identical to** unauthorised > information, **then** I agree with Herman De Wael's position in the > October 2006 thread "Positronic brain" that Law 16 does not apply. > > Herman's point, with which I agree, is if an "AI electron" meets its > anti-particle, a "UI positron", then the two particles annihilate > each other, so therefore there is zero residual Law 16 extraneous > information outstanding. > > A simpler way of looking at it, without the metaphor, is to ask the > question, "How can partner give you Law 16 extraneous information if > you already have that information?" > > (But note that, in the particular case discussed at the stem of that > "Positronic brain" thread, there was a blml consensus that the AI > was _not_ identical to the UI, thus making Herman's position moot.) > I missed that thread, having been on long hiatus from this list. However, I completely disagree with any statement that appears to indicate that Law 16 would not apply in the presence of UI, even if the UI was identical to AI. Although I''m having a hard time contructing an example, I'll give it a try. Using the problems that initiated this thread (see my first post in this thread), AI allowed me to deduce that partner likely had a singleton spade for his hesitation. That came from AI. Partner, seeing me lost in thought, now says "I have a singleton spade". Blatant UI, but let's forget procedural and disciplinary penalties for now and look at the follow-up. I already had figured out that partner had a singleton spade, as that was the only distribution that would cause him to pass, hesitation or not, with the number of HCP he had to have for the auction. Disputed auction now occurs and you make a ruling. Are you now saying that if I go in front of an Appeals Committee, and give them the logic by which I concluded that partner had a singleton spade and they agree with it, that the Committee must now, as a point of Law, not consider L16 in their ruling (and you cannot be overruled on that)? That is the implication of your statement that L16 does not apply. I don't think so. If the knowledge that partner had a singleton spade could have suggested a LA, and there exists a LA that was not suggested by the UI (or AI, since the information comes from either), I am still required to take the LA that was not suggested. I read "extraneous" in L16 as information coming to a player from a modality other than a legal call or play or mannerism of an opponent (see L16 intro). "Extraneous" does not necessarily mean that UI provides new information to a player. It indicates information that came to a player in any manner other than those mentioned. The extraneous information may or may not be redundant with AI. If it exists at all, L16 applies, IMO. Hirsch From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 26 18:25:41 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:25:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e7bc$0f56e790$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e7bc$0f56e790$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D1A985.4070202@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> ONE: UI. This one works only for the case of the real contract being >> in 3NT. Whatever the ruling on the word "ruff", some clarification >> needs to be given. If you believe that "diamonds" have not yet been >> designated, you must ask declarer to specify some other card. However, >> in the meantime he has received UI, from partner among others, which >> tells him something that suggests a non-diamond discard. Hence, L16 >> dictates a diamond discard, does it not? > > The fact that Declarer has designated a card not in Dummy (Law 46B4) can > hardly be UI to Declarer. > The fact that he's playing in some other contract than the one he thought he was, is UI! When he said 'ruff', he wanted to play a very visible diamond from the table - so the fact that there is no trump on that same table is news to him! > I cannot possibly see how Law 16 can apply in this case. The applicable laws > must be Laws 43A1(c) and 45F (which effectively overrides Law 16 in such > situations). > See it now? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 26 18:31:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:31:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e7bc$0f56e790$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e7bc$0f56e790$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D1AAC5.6070904@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> ONE: UI. This one works only for the case of the real contract being >> in 3NT. Whatever the ruling on the word "ruff", some clarification >> needs to be given. If you believe that "diamonds" have not yet been >> designated, you must ask declarer to specify some other card. However, >> in the meantime he has received UI, from partner among others, which >> tells him something that suggests a non-diamond discard. Hence, L16 >> dictates a diamond discard, does it not? > > The fact that Declarer has designated a card not in Dummy (Law 46B4) can > hardly be UI to Declarer. > > I cannot possibly see how Law 16 can apply in this case. The applicable laws > must be Laws 43A1(c) and 45F (which effectively overrides Law 16 in such > situations). > > That the ruling (depending on the actual circumstances) will be comparable > is a different matter. > >> TWO: incontrovertible intent. This rule has been used usually in >> favour of declarer, allowing him a more favourable play than the one >> he literally called for. But should it not also work in the reverse. >> Take this example. Dummy has AKQJxxx of spades, and has just played >> the Ace. Declarer says "spade", dummy puts the king in the played >> position and nobody argues with that (intention incontrovertible). >> Declarer says "spade" once again, and the player in dummy's seat being >> more awake than declarer, plays a small one. Opponents protest and TD >> is called. It is clear that although declarer called for a "spade", >> which literally means a small one, his incontrovertible intention was >> to play the queen. Do you rule that the intention is more important >> than the literal sense? Then, you rule that way in bnoth directions. > > Of course the Queen is now played. We have long tradition, at least in > Norway, that when a suit is run from the top any designation from Declarer > to the effect of continuing the suit shall also be from the top unless > Declarer specifically designates otherwise. > So you do rule by intent, not by what he says - regardless of whether it is declarer asking to have the literal meaning corrected to the intended one, or if it is defenders who ask that. > I fail to see the relevance of this example to a case where Declarer > designates a card not in Dummy. > because his intent is incontrovertible so the sentence in the heading of L46B supercedes the literal meaning of L46B4. See? > .............. > "he said ruff, so that means spade", > > Incorrect statement and to my knowledge nobody other than you have used this > composition. > > As is well known in the world of bridge the correct statement is: > > "he said ruff, so that means trump" > Well, that is so well known. I know it also. but only in cases like this do we have to ask "which trump?". And the answer to that one is NOT well known in the world of bridge. After all, no-one has asked that question before a month ago, and we're discussing the answer all this time. So you can NOT say that the whole world knows the answer to this question. > BTW. Searching my memory I cannot recall any situation where I have heard > declarer "naming" the trump suit when ruffing in or leading trump from > Dummy. It appears to me that Declarer always uses the word "ruff" or "trump" > rather than the word "spade", "heart", diamond" or "club", whichever > applies. I do, however, remember one case when Declarer "accidentally" > discarded a small heart from dummy not realizing that hearts were trump. We > all had a good laugh when Declarer after ten minutes of "thinking" suddenly > asked why we waited for him to play. And that is exactly the same reaction I want to see when declarer says 'ruff' - the same intended card is played!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 26 19:07:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:07:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003801c7e7f9$8c0b6b20$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <000b01c7e803$a1bc5a10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Hirsch Davis ............. > Using the problems that initiated this thread (see my first post in this > thread), AI allowed me to deduce that partner likely had a singleton spade > for his hesitation. That came from AI. Partner, seeing me lost in > thought, > now says "I have a singleton spade". Blatant UI, but let's forget > procedural and disciplinary penalties for now and look at the follow-up. > I > already had figured out that partner had a singleton spade, as that was > the > only distribution that would cause him to pass, hesitation or not, with > the > number of HCP he had to have for the auction. Disputed auction now occurs > and you make a ruling. Are you now saying that if I go in front of an > Appeals Committee, and give them the logic by which I concluded that > partner > had a singleton spade and they agree with it, that the Committee must now, > as a point of Law, not consider L16 in their ruling (and you cannot be > overruled on that)? That is the implication of your statement that L16 > does > not apply. > > I don't think so. If the knowledge that partner had a singleton spade > could > have suggested a LA, and there exists a LA that was not suggested by the > UI > (or AI, since the information comes from either), I am still required to > take the LA that was not suggested. Your example is well taken and the answer is exactly what apparently your own opinion is: If you (excluding the extraneous information from your partner's impropriate remark) still have more than one alternative for your call(s) then Law 16 requires you to select (if at all possible) an alternative that could not have been suggested by this remark. The fact that your partner's remark possibly did not add anything to your knowledge is immaterial when an after the fact analysis by the Director or the AC concludes that you had a choice among alternatives. Only when you have an undoubted call without hearing your partner's remark are you free to make that call even if it could be suggested (also) by this extraneous information. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 26 19:57:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:57:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46D1A985.4070202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c7e80a$9f59adc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > The fact that he's playing in some other contract than the one he > thought he was, is UI! Law 42A3: He [Dummy] plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as directed. Law 42B2: He [Dummy] may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. Law 41C: [...] After it is too late to have previous calls restated [...] declarer or either defender [...] is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is [...] Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. When declarer calls for a trump or equivalently requests dummy to "ruff" in a No Trump contract he is attempting an irregularity. Dummy is then fully entitled to try to prevent this irregularity by informing declarer what the contract is; such cases are covered by Laws 42B2 and 41C and constitute no unauthorized information being given to declarer. Exactly as if declarer had designated a suit in which dummy is void he has now designated a trump which does not exist. In either case Law 46B4 must be the relevant law dealing explicitly with such cases. If anything at all is incontrovertible about declarer's intent in the latter case it is that he wants to play a trump, not that he as such wants to play the suit that he erroneously think is trump. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 26 20:16:49 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:16:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46D1AAC5.6070904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > > Of course the Queen is now played. We have long tradition, at least in > > least in Norway, that when a suit is run from the top any designation > > from Declarer to the effect of continuing the suit shall also be from > > the top unless Declarer specifically designates otherwise. > > > > So you do rule by intent, not by what he says - regardless of whether > it is declarer asking to have the literal meaning corrected to the > intended one, or if it is defenders who ask that. We could have a much more meaningful discussion if you took the trouble to read what you are commenting. When declarer plays a suit beginning with the top card and continuing downwards any request to continue with the next card or words to that effect is taken to mean the currently highest card in the suit. This has nothing to do with declarer's intent, this has to do with what is considered (I believe also by WBFLC) to be the only sensible understanding of the situation. That this situation is covered by the exempt clause on declarer's incontrovertible intention is a pure technicality and it has nothing to do with any kind of mind reading to determine his real intent. > > .............. > > "he said ruff, so that means spade", > > > > Incorrect statement and to my knowledge nobody other than you have used > this > > composition. > > > > As is well known in the world of bridge the correct statement is: > > > > "he said ruff, so that means trump" > > > > Well, that is so well known. I know it also. but only in cases like > this do we have to ask "which trump?". And so what? There is no trump ergo we have Law 46B4 > > BTW. Searching my memory I cannot recall any situation where I have > heard > > declarer "naming" the trump suit when ruffing in or leading trump from > > Dummy. It appears to me that Declarer always uses the word "ruff" or > "trump" > > rather than the word "spade", "heart", diamond" or "club", whichever > > applies. I do, however, remember one case when Declarer "accidentally" > > discarded a small heart from dummy not realizing that hearts were trump. > We > > all had a good laugh when Declarer after ten minutes of "thinking" > suddenly > > asked why we waited for him to play. > > And that is exactly the same reaction I want to see when declarer says > 'ruff' - the same intended card is played!! WTP? Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 26 21:36:13 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:36:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000c01c7e80a$9f59adc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c7e80a$9f59adc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D1D62D.7030002@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> The fact that he's playing in some other contract than the one he >> thought he was, is UI! > > Law 42A3: He [Dummy] plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as > directed. > > Law 42B2: He [Dummy] may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. > > Law 41C: [...] After it is too late to have previous calls restated [...] > declarer or either defender [...] is entitled to be informed as to what the > contract is [...] > > Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void > and declarer may designate any legal card. > > When declarer calls for a trump or equivalently requests dummy to "ruff" in > a No Trump contract he is attempting an irregularity. > > Dummy is then fully entitled to try to prevent this irregularity by > informing declarer what the contract is; such cases are covered by Laws 42B2 > and 41C and constitute no unauthorized information being given to declarer. > > Exactly as if declarer had designated a suit in which dummy is void he has > now designated a trump which does not exist. In either case Law 46B4 must be > the relevant law dealing explicitly with such cases. > > If anything at all is incontrovertible about declarer's intent in the latter > case it is that he wants to play a trump, not that he as such wants to play > the suit that he erroneously think is trump. > And how is that distinguishable? If he thinks diamonds are trumps, then the sentences: "he wants to ruff" and "he wants to play a diamond" are both true and they mean the same. You keep saying that we have to interpret this in the former manner. I don't see where you get that piece of wisdom from. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 26 23:20:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:20:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46D1D62D.7030002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c7e826$f4e6dbc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >> The fact that he's playing in some other contract than the one he > >> thought he was, is UI! > > > > Law 42A3: He [Dummy] plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as > > directed. > > > > Law 42B2: He [Dummy] may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. > > > > Law 41C: [...] After it is too late to have previous calls restated > [...] > > declarer or either defender [...] is entitled to be informed as to what > the > > contract is [...] > > > > Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is > void > > and declarer may designate any legal card. > > > > When declarer calls for a trump or equivalently requests dummy to "ruff" > in > > a No Trump contract he is attempting an irregularity. > > > > Dummy is then fully entitled to try to prevent this irregularity by > > informing declarer what the contract is; such cases are covered by Laws > 42B2 > > and 41C and constitute no unauthorized information being given to > declarer. > > > > Exactly as if declarer had designated a suit in which dummy is void he > has > > now designated a trump which does not exist. In either case Law 46B4 > must be > > the relevant law dealing explicitly with such cases. > > > > If anything at all is incontrovertible about declarer's intent in the > latter > > case it is that he wants to play a trump, not that he as such wants to > play > > the suit that he erroneously think is trump. > > > > And how is that distinguishable? If he thinks diamonds are trumps, > then the sentences: "he wants to ruff" and "he wants to play a > diamond" are both true and they mean the same. You keep saying that we > have to interpret this in the former manner. I don't see where you get > that piece of wisdom from. You should know better than to present such arguments! You can, and shall know from his actual words (using your common sense together with the law book). When he says "ruff" or word(s) to that effect I know that he wants a trump, don't you? When he says "diamond" or "heart" or "spade" or "club" I know that he wants a card of that named denomination, don't you? If what he says is not what he wants he shall have to convince me that what he said was an inadvertent mistake and that his intent was actually different. In my world this is usually a standard task for the tournament director using law 25A. And BTW: Do you now admit that your statement: "The fact that he's playing in some other contract than the one he thought he was, is UI!" is just plain wrong so that we shall avoid seeing this argument again from you? Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 26 23:58:03 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:58:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ............... >>> Of course the Queen is now played. We have long tradition, at least in >>> least in Norway, that when a suit is run from the top any designation >>> from Declarer to the effect of continuing the suit shall also be from >>> the top unless Declarer specifically designates otherwise. >>> >> So you do rule by intent, not by what he says - regardless of whether >> it is declarer asking to have the literal meaning corrected to the >> intended one, or if it is defenders who ask that. > > We could have a much more meaningful discussion if you took the trouble to > read what you are commenting. > Don't accuse me of not reading, you who answered my previous post of two pages with one sentence that did not address anything. > When declarer plays a suit beginning with the top card and continuing > downwards any request to continue with the next card or words to that effect > is taken to mean the currently highest card in the suit. This has nothing to > do with declarer's intent, this has to do with what is considered (I believe > also by WBFLC) to be the only sensible understanding of the situation. > Do you really know what you are saying here? A player who plays Ace, King of spades and then says "spade" is subject to L46B2. If you -and I- rule that the Queen is nevertheless played, it is not because that "is the only sensible understanding of the situation" (especially if playing a small one would be far better), but it is because we rule that the sentence at the top of L46B applies : "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". So when you write "this has nothing to do with declarer's intent", that is (absolute bollocks) - sorry, politely reworded: manifestly and proven untrue. > That this situation is covered by the exempt clause on declarer's > incontrovertible intention is a pure technicality and it has nothing to do > with any kind of mind reading to determine his real intent. his intent must be incontrovertible but it doesn't have to be real. Are you so insisting on disagreeing with me that you've simply dropped every sense of logic? I apologize to all the other readers for being somewhat crude with Sven here, but his post really makes no sense whatsoever. And I would really like someone to agree with this - if only to show the list (and myself) that I am not totally mad. >>> .............. >>> "he said ruff, so that means spade", >>> >>> Incorrect statement and to my knowledge nobody other than you have used >> this >>> composition. >>> >>> As is well known in the world of bridge the correct statement is: >>> >>> "he said ruff, so that means trump" >>> >> Well, that is so well known. I know it also. but only in cases like >> this do we have to ask "which trump?". > > And so what? There is no trump ergo we have Law 46B4 > Which I have been applying far better than you so far - including the sentence at the head of the B. >>> BTW. Searching my memory I cannot recall any situation where I have >> heard >>> declarer "naming" the trump suit when ruffing in or leading trump from >>> Dummy. It appears to me that Declarer always uses the word "ruff" or >> "trump" >>> rather than the word "spade", "heart", diamond" or "club", whichever >>> applies. I do, however, remember one case when Declarer "accidentally" >>> discarded a small heart from dummy not realizing that hearts were trump. >> We >>> all had a good laugh when Declarer after ten minutes of "thinking" >> suddenly >>> asked why we waited for him to play. >> And that is exactly the same reaction I want to see when declarer says >> 'ruff' - the same intended card is played!! > > WTP? > Indeed? WTP - whether he touches it or "indicates" it, he wants the small diamond and that is what he'll get... > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Aug 27 00:36:04 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:36:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.be> References: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46D20054.4040102@ntlworld.com> Perusing their arguments, it seems that Grattan, Sven, Raija, and even Tim, may be right *in law*: that "ruff" does not designate a card from dummy in a no-trump contract, declarer's incontrovertible intent notwithstanding. However *in justice and fairness*, Herman is obviously right that the law should not treat a declarer who uses a sloppy and illegal form of words more favourably than a declarer who conforms to the law. My suggested solution (to penalize declarer for wantonly indulging in an illegal designation) was ridiculed. Can anybody propose better? Were this a one-off case it might not merit consideration but ambiguously designating dummy's cards is a recurring theme in BLML and sometimes even happens at the table. From geller at nifty.com Mon Aug 27 00:42:36 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:42:36 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <46D20054.4040102@ntlworld.com> References: <46D20054.4040102@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200708262242.AA10307@geller204.nifty.com> I don't think there should be a penalty for a player who does this once, or very occasionally, but if a player does this repeatedly with the apparent intent of disrupting the game (as opposed to, say, someone who is elderly and has maybe lost the abiliity to concentrate) a penalty would not be inappropriate. -Bob Guthrie writes: >Perusing their arguments, it seems that Grattan, Sven, Raija, and even >Tim, may be right *in law*: that "ruff" does not designate a card from >dummy in a no-trump contract, declarer's incontrovertible intent >notwithstanding. > >However *in justice and fairness*, Herman is obviously right that the >law should not treat a declarer who uses a sloppy and illegal form of >words more favourably than a declarer who conforms to the law. > >My suggested solution (to penalize declarer for wantonly indulging in >an illegal designation) was ridiculed. > >Can anybody propose better? > >Were this a one-off case it might not merit consideration but >ambiguously designating dummy's cards is a recurring theme in BLML >and sometimes even happens at the table. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 27 01:46:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:46:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46D20054.4040102@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: [snip] >Can anybody propose better? > >Were this a one-off case it might not merit consideration >but ambiguously designating dummy's cards is a recurring >theme in BLML and sometimes even happens at the table. Richard Hills responds: An incomplete but unambiguous designation of dummy's card is handled by Laws 46B1, 2 and 3. An unambiguously erroneous designation of dummy's card is handled by Law 46B4. An unambiguous non-designation of dummy's card - "play anything" - is handled by Law 46B5. But..... There is a lacuna in the 1997 version of Law 46B. Some declarers have the bad habit of _ambiguously_ designating a card from dummy, for example by gesturing or nodding. The 1997 Lawbook is silent on _ambiguous_ designations, which is one reason that the blml monomachy between Sven Pran and Herman De Wael has lasted so long. 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 Aug 27 02:21:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:21:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alert and alarmed (was continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents....." Tim West-Meads: >A reasonable point. However the EBU regulation >that a weak pre-empt style be clearly disclosed on >the CC but is neither alertable nor pre-alertable >can hardly be said to conflict with L75a. Richard Hills: My interpretation of "fully" and "freely" is that highly unusual methods should be disclosed to the opponents in as many different ways as are reasonably practical. For example, if the Ali-Hills partnership played in an ACBL event, and if our uncontested auction started 1H - 1NT, a simple Alert! of that 1NT would be inadequate for our American friends. They would naturally expect our Alert! to be because we played the Eastern Scientific forcing for one round 1NT. But we actually play the Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) artificial game force relay 1NT. 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 john at asimere.com Mon Aug 27 07:09:36 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:09:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c7e868$76bc6750$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? snip >> When declarer plays a suit beginning with the top card and continuing >> downwards any request to continue with the next card or words to that >> effect >> is taken to mean the currently highest card in the suit. This has nothing >> to >> do with declarer's intent, this has to do with what is considered (I >> believe >> also by WBFLC) to be the only sensible understanding of the situation. >> > > Do you really know what you are saying here? > A player who plays Ace, King of spades and then says "spade" is > subject to L46B2. If you -and I- rule that the Queen is nevertheless > played, it is not because that "is the only sensible understanding of > the situation" (especially if playing a small one would be far > better), but it is because we rule that the sentence at the top of > L46B applies : "except when declarer's different intention is > incontrovertible". > > So when you write "this has nothing to do with declarer's intent", > that is (absolute bollocks) - sorry, politely reworded: manifestly and > proven untrue. > >> That this situation is covered by the exempt clause on declarer's >> incontrovertible intention is a pure technicality and it has nothing to >> do >> with any kind of mind reading to determine his real intent. We definitely rule Queen in the EBU. it's a no brainer. It's not the same as "ruff" however; which has no such incontrovertible and manifest intent. cheers John From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Aug 24 21:56:12 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (hirsch9000 at verizon.net) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? Message-ID: <957729.93681.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Guthrie To: BLML Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:53:14 PM Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? [John Probst and Mathias Schueller published 2 interesting Bridge law problems in the Brighton Bulletin] Q1 is setting you up so beware You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx (1N 12-14) _P (P) ?? You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner hesitated over the 1N opener? Hirsch: What do I know that is AI? Opponents think it's a part score hand, which gives partner around a 14 point minimum. We double with equivalent strength to opener, yet partner did not. Our NT defense emphasizes 1 and 2 suited hands, but can be awkward with 4-4-4-1. So, the likelihood is that he did not double was fear that I would pull to a short suit, although there are other possibilities. With length in spades and NT on my right, I've got a pretty good idea where his shortness is. All of that is prior to considering the pause. Did the UI tell me something I already didn't know? I don't think so. He could have a bit of extra strength, but decided not to risk the double because of the shortness flaw, or perhaps less strength and the opponents missed a game. More importantly, did the UI suggest one LA over another? I don't really want to play that anemic spade suit opposite a singleton, and don't think 2S was a LA if my analysis of the hand is correct. However, if the pause means that he's stronger than I think, it might be worth pulling to the spades anyway, so the UI might suggest 2S. If the pause means that he's weaker than I think, on the low end of a double, 2S could be a massacre against a missed game by the opponents, so that interpretation of the UI suggests pass. I can't interpret the UI as suggesting anything, and by the time I reach this point, everyone at the table is getting impatient and waiting for my call. Pass and let the TD sort it out. I've got too few points for that particular auction, and have a strong suspicion based on AI, not UI, that I know why. Q2 Tou are directing the Bundeslign (German premiar-division) and the auction is as follows (1N 12-14) AP You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have been the fate of 2S had you bid it. Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx As the TD, do you see a problem? Hirsch: Not really. Balancing on a 2-count is not normally a LA. Looking as a TD, and now seeing the hand, my guess above appears to have been correct. The hesitation is clearly the extra strength, and the pass is the singleton spade. However, the pause is only a problem if a) 2S is an LA and b) the pause suggests 2S rather than pass (or pass rather than 2S). IMO neither of these apply. Without any clear indication of what the UI actually suggests, I'd let either pass or 2S stand. [nigel] We discussed these questions over breakfast and our conclusions were Q1. Partner's hesitation does make it safer to bid because it is less likely that opponents will wake up and double you or bid game with say 14HCP opposite 11HCP. Nevertheless it is a bit daft to bid because if partner does have the expected 14+HCP and a spade fit, we may well get too high ..... unless partner decides to put on the brakes because he imagines that he's already advertised a good hand with his hesitation :) Q2. No. I presume partner hesitated again but it's hard to understand why -- unless he is a player who (almost) always doubles on 15+HCP. I suppose you *could* argue that partner's hesitation shows that he must be strong but something deterred him from bidding and that something could be short spades. That argument seems flawed, however. The main danger of protecting is that partner will get excited. If partner has less than four spades, it is *safer* for you to bid because you are less likely to be raised. You have enough trumps to play happily opposite 1-3 spades. If you bid 2S and partner does have short spades then only a void opposite is likely to earn you a poor score. I'm surprized that 1N was defeated. Anyway, unless partner was gagged in some way for the rest of the auction, I'd pass, whether or not he hesitated. I can guess John's answer to Q1 but I've no idea what is the right answer to Q2 so would be interested in BLML views. _______________________________________________ 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/20070824/b1826d07/attachment-0001.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 27 08:54:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:54:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000e01c7e826$f4e6dbc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c7e826$f4e6dbc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D2751A.5020000@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >> And how is that distinguishable? If he thinks diamonds are trumps, >> then the sentences: "he wants to ruff" and "he wants to play a >> diamond" are both true and they mean the same. You keep saying that we >> have to interpret this in the former manner. I don't see where you get >> that piece of wisdom from. > > You should know better than to present such arguments! > Why? > You can, and shall know from his actual words (using your common sense > together with the law book). > Yes, I can - I can do what I say I can do, not what you say. > When he says "ruff" or word(s) to that effect I know that he wants a trump, > don't you? > Yes, but we also know that he wants a diamond. You do know what case we are talking about, don't you. You say : he wants to ruff, so I let him play a spade. I say : he wants to play a diamond, so I let him play a diamond. Your only argument is the sentence above. Why should your sentence be more correct than mine? > When he says "diamond" or "heart" or "spade" or "club" I know that he wants > a card of that named denomination, don't you? > Yes, we do. And when he says "ruff", we also know that he wants a card of the diamond denomination! > If what he says is not what he wants he shall have to convince me that what > he said was an inadvertent mistake and that his intent was actually > different. > But his intent is well known: he wants to ruff by playing a diamond. > In my world this is usually a standard task for the tournament director > using law 25A. > > And BTW: Do you now admit that your statement: "The fact that he's playing > in some other contract than the one he thought he was, is UI!" is just plain > wrong so that we shall avoid seeing this argument again from you? > Of course I do not admit that. Of course that is information that he gained after he said ruff, and it was information that he did not possess earlier, and that information came (in most instances) from partner (if only by his picking up a spade instead of the expected diamond). Of course this is UI! Sorry Sven, but if you don't understand these arguments, I'm not going to bother any more. > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 27 08:56:49 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:56:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <001401c7e868$76bc6750$0701a8c0@john> References: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.be> <001401c7e868$76bc6750$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <46D275B1.2050906@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? > > > snip > >>> When declarer plays a suit beginning with the top card and continuing >>> downwards any request to continue with the next card or words to that >>> effect >>> is taken to mean the currently highest card in the suit. This has nothing >>> to >>> do with declarer's intent, this has to do with what is considered (I >>> believe >>> also by WBFLC) to be the only sensible understanding of the situation. >>> >> Do you really know what you are saying here? >> A player who plays Ace, King of spades and then says "spade" is >> subject to L46B2. If you -and I- rule that the Queen is nevertheless >> played, it is not because that "is the only sensible understanding of >> the situation" (especially if playing a small one would be far >> better), but it is because we rule that the sentence at the top of >> L46B applies : "except when declarer's different intention is >> incontrovertible". >> >> So when you write "this has nothing to do with declarer's intent", >> that is (absolute bollocks) - sorry, politely reworded: manifestly and >> proven untrue. >> >>> That this situation is covered by the exempt clause on declarer's >>> incontrovertible intention is a pure technicality and it has nothing to >>> do >>> with any kind of mind reading to determine his real intent. > > We definitely rule Queen in the EBU. it's a no brainer. It's not the same as > "ruff" however; which has no such incontrovertible and manifest intent. Ehm, by a player who freely admits that he intended to ruff with diamonds? When he injures his side by admitting this? Seems like incontrovertible to me. Anyway. It seems to me as if we would like to rule "diamond played" in these cases. Some of you did not find ways of doing so using the laws. Don't go criticizing my way if it gets you what you might want. > cheers John > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 27 08:59:57 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:59:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D2766D.8060003@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > But..... > > There is a lacuna in the 1997 version of Law 46B. > > Some declarers have the bad habit of _ambiguously_ > designating a card from dummy, for example by gesturing or > nodding. > > The 1997 Lawbook is silent on _ambiguous_ designations, > which is one reason that the blml monomachy between Sven > Pran and Herman De Wael has lasted so long. > No Richard, that is absolutely not the case. The declarer in these cases has done nothing that 99% of all bridge players do 99% of the time: saying "ruff". There is no reason why this ought to be changed. The reason why there is animosity between Sven and myself is because Sven refuses to read arguments and understand them. He has presented no arguments himself, merely repeating the position he originally held and refusing to admit that that position might be wrong. Something many blml-ers suffer from, apparently. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 09:00:12 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:00:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <000301c7e747$aa4f5a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c7e73c$f2133eb0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <000301c7e747$aa4f5a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 25/08/07, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The call (alternative) does not even have to be suggested by the UI. > > It is sufficient that it _could_ have been suggested by the UI. Not quite true. The law say "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could *demonstrably* have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". That's not the same as could_have benn suggested - far from. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/4def7e46/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 09:06:32 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:06:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alert and alarmed (was continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/08/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Law 75A: > > My interpretation of "fully" and "freely" is that > highly unusual methods should be disclosed to the > opponents in as many different ways as are > reasonably practical. > > For example, if the Ali-Hills partnership played > in an ACBL event, and if our uncontested auction > started 1H - 1NT, a simple Alert! of that 1NT > would be inadequate for our American friends. > They would naturally expect our Alert! to be > because we played the Eastern Scientific forcing > for one round 1NT. But we actually play the > Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) > artificial game force relay 1NT. Please avoid the misuse of "highly unusual methods". That term is clearly defined by the WBF in it's System Policy. Your 1NT has nothing to do with "HUM" - 1NT as a gameforcing relay is a standard method (often employed in a strong club context) - although it's unusual in the ACBL. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/5b62e23f/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 09:20:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:20:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c7e87a$c68afc80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ................ > But..... > > There is a lacuna in the 1997 version of Law 46B. > > Some declarers have the bad habit of _ambiguously_ > designating a card from dummy, for example by gesturing or > nodding. > > The 1997 Lawbook is silent on _ambiguous_ designations, > which is one reason that the blml monomachy between Sven > Pran and Herman De Wael has lasted so long. I don't see any reason why there should be such a problem to simply have declarer clarify which card he wants? Do we want to play Bridge or do we want to penalize every irregularity even when ho harm is done? (I know what I prefer!) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 09:36:46 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:36:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46D2751A.5020000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c7e87d$05d66080$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > Sorry Sven, but if you don't understand these arguments, I'm not going > to bother any more. I feel I have been extremely patient with you. Do you want your players to play bridge or do you want to penalize every irregularity even when no harm or damage is done? I know what I prefer and I no longer care what you prefer. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 09:43:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:43:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c7e87d$fd521700$6400a8c0@WINXP> Fair enough. What I had in mind is that we do not have to show purpose or intention with the UI, it is sufficient to show possibility. ?Demonstrably? goes on the weight of the possibility. Regards Sven -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Sent: 27. august 2007 09:00 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? On 25/08/07, Sven Pran wrote: The call (alternative) does not even have to be suggested by the UI. It is sufficient that it _could_ have been suggested by the UI. Not quite true. The law say "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". That's not the same as could_have benn suggested - far from. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/ff974105/attachment-0001.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 10:33:50 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:33:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c7e884$fedf6990$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran On 25/08/07, Sven Pran wrote: The call (alternative) does not even have to be suggested by the UI. It is sufficient that it _could_ have been suggested by the UI. ? Not quite true. The law say "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". That's not the same as could_have benn suggested - far from. Sven: Fair enough. What I had in mind is that we do not have to show purpose or intention with the UI, it is sufficient to show possibility. ?Demonstrably? goes on the weight of the possibility. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 27 11:17:09 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:17:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000801c7e87d$05d66080$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c7e87d$05d66080$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D29695.7020106@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >> Sorry Sven, but if you don't understand these arguments, I'm not going >> to bother any more. > > I feel I have been extremely patient with you. > > Do you want your players to play bridge or do you want to penalize every > irregularity even when no harm or damage is done? > > I know what I prefer and I no longer care what you prefer. > No damage is done? Opponents will not agree with that assesment! So Sven ... Do you want your players to play bridge or do you want them to be let off for their mistakes? This player thought diamonds was trumps but you happily let him play a spade instead? Have you ever wondered what the players might prefer? The opponents will prefer my treatment - the declarer will preferably sing below ground rather than insist on the literal interpretation of his word 'ruff'. I know what I prefer and I no longer care what you prefer. Which is a pity, since we won't be ruling the same way - and that should be the prime concern here, should it not? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 27 11:44:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:44:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46D2766D.8060003@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: [unfair snipping of Herman's words by Richard] >and refusing to admit that that position might be wrong. > >Something many blml-ers suffer from, apparently. Richard Hills asks: But surely Herman De Wael is a blmler? :-) Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (1978): "The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Richard Hills umpteenth refutation: The fallacy of the De Wael School interpretation of Law 75D2 is illustrated by Herman ignoring the contrary explicit statements in Law 75C and Law 75D1 because no one has ever been able to prove that the Lawbook should be interpreted in an internally consistent way. :-) Herman De Wael asserted: >Politeness should force you to put an (IMO) in there. Richard Hills umpteenth plus one refutation: Let me try an analogy. Believing that the De Wael School is a valid interpretation of the Lawbook is akin to believing that the Ptolemaic School is a valid interpretation of the universe. Astronomical observations have proved that the Earth orbits the Sun, and Ptolemy was wrong. Stare decisis observations of the WBF Laws Committee (most clearly in the WBF Code of Practice) have proved that the Earth orbits the Sun, and Herman De Wael is wrong. I do not say, "in my opinion the Earth orbits the Sun". I say, "the Earth orbits the Sun". :-) But let me clarify yet again that I am _not_ intending to be impolite to Herman, and I am _not_ casting aspersions on Herman's analytical reasoning skills. The epitome of analytical reasoning was totally unaware that the Earth orbits the Sun. * * * Doctor Watson describing his friend Sherlock Holmes (as told to Arthur Conan Doyle in "A Study in Scarlet"): My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it. "You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it." "Forget it!" "You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones." Best wishes Richard James Hills, Lumbered Fool and Double Dummy :-) 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 Aug 27 11:51:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:51:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Several of the Laws in the Lawbook take this form -> Law X - Such-And-Such: "A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." Does the word "but" in this context mean: (a) Law Y is an over-riding exception to Law X? Or (b) Law Y applies in different but similar cases? Or (c) None of the above? Or (d) All of the above? 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 Gampas at aol.com Mon Aug 27 12:24:23 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:24:23 EDT Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? Message-ID: In a message dated 27/08/2007 07:45:07 GMT Standard Time, hirsch9000 at verizon.net writes: Q1 is setting you up so beware You hold S:Qxxxxx H:xx D:xxx C:xx 1N (12-14) - P - (P) ?? You bid 2S and that scores +140. How do you feel if partner hesitated over the 1N opener? Interestingly, if you could silence partner, it would be right to bid. A simulation with Bridge Analyser and Deep Finesse shows that, on average, the opponents will make 8.31 tricks in NT, and you will make 7.26 tricks in spades. Of course they may double you, but at pairs this is just one board; the frequency of success is the crucial factor. However, the UI is quite significant here; you know that the points are not 14-13-11 or even 14-14-10 with partner having a balanced hand, and the middle figure in each case. His most likely hand types are a balanced 15-count, which he regarded as not good enough for a double, or a 14-15 count, 1-4-4-4. He will make an unwelcome raise on the former, unless he has a doubleton spade. On the latter you may have a good result in 2S even three off, as partner's lead is likely to be costly against 1NT. Usually the opponents are playing take-out doubles here, and they may each have three (or more) spades, so you will go off in 50s. The big, and likely, danger is that an opponent with a doubleton spade will make a take-out double and this could be left in. I surveyed a number of strong players who thought pass was normal, and therefore a logical alternative, and the 2S bid should therefore be removed. Q2 You are directing the Bundeslign (German premier-division) and the auction is as follows (1N 12-14) AP You hold the same hand as above. 1N goes 1 down and that would have been the fate of 2S had you bid it. Partner holds S:x H:KQxx D:AJxx C:AQxx As the TD, do you see a problem? The arguments are identical to the ones presented above. You have UI which suggests, on balance, that 2S might be successful, and you are selecting an option (Pass) which has not been demonstrably suggested over another (2S) by the UI. As the hesitation has made it more likely that 2S will succeed (even if partner is 1-4-4-4), the selection of Pass is permitted and the result stands, IMHO. Paul Lamford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/e972b3e1/attachment.htm From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Aug 27 12:43:58 2007 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (ciska.zuur at planet.nl) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:43:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5F0F9BC233F06246850197E67C73C44AF882A3@CPEXBE-EML12.kpnsp.local> I have the impression that when Law Y is 16C(2), and it is 16C mostly, it is meant as: there are none or not too many consequences, bidding can go on, bid can be withdrawn etc.etc. HOWEVER (but) there is UI, so 16C is involved. Sop, the BUT is a WARNING that some other article (in this case art 16C UI) shall be applied also. Therefor: it is not (a), not overriding It is also not (b), So it is (c), namely: besides article X, also article Y applies. In fact, the but .... is redundant, because all articles applay always, unless specificly excluded for a certain situation. And, it is confusing, because sometimes 'but 16C ...' is mentioned and sometimes not, giving arbiters the idea that there is no UI in the latter. E.g. article 30A. The introduction of art 16 is clear: the withdrawn pas was irregular and gives UI, so art 16 is applicable, but not mentioned in 30A. Other views? Ciska Zuur, NL ________________________________ Van: richard.hills at immi.gov.au [mailto:richard.hills at immi.gov.au] Verzonden: ma 27-8-2007 11:51 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Several of the Laws in the Lawbook take this form -> Law X - Such-And-Such: "A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." Does the word "but" in this context mean: (a) Law Y is an over-riding exception to Law X? Or (b) Law Y applies in different but similar cases? Or (c) None of the above? Or (d) All of the above? 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/347141d5/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 27 13:55:34 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:55:34 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A___But_me_no_buts____=5BSEC=3DU?= =?iso-8859-1?q?NOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <46D2BBB5.00000B.19107@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 27/08/2007 11:52:24 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Several of the Laws in the Lawbook take this form -> Law X - Such-And-Such: "A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." Does the word "but" in this context mean: (a) Law Y is an over-riding exception to Law X? AG : my guess is "Law Y over-rides Law X in some specific cases". This is obvious in L53A. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/4657b31c/attachment-0002.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/20070827/4657b31c/attachment-0002.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/20070827/4657b31c/attachment-0002.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 27 13:55:34 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:55:34 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A___But_me_no_buts____=5BSEC=3DU?= =?iso-8859-1?q?NOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <46D2BBB5.00000B.19107@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au Date : 27/08/2007 11:52:24 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Several of the Laws in the Lawbook take this form -> Law X - Such-And-Such: "A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." Does the word "but" in this context mean: (a) Law Y is an over-riding exception to Law X? AG : my guess is "Law Y over-rides Law X in some specific cases". This is obvious in L53A. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/4657b31c/attachment-0003.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/20070827/4657b31c/attachment-0003.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/20070827/4657b31c/attachment-0003.gif From henk at ripe.net Mon Aug 27 13:55:10 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:55:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mail formats Message-ID: <46D2BB9E.3090105@ripe.net> Hi all, I've noticed that an increasing number of posters are posting in HTML and/or include GIFs (pictures) as background or in their signatures. Please stop doing this and start posting in plain text again. The HTML and GIFs frequently cause the spam filters to think that the mail is spam. This means that I have to manually check and approve them. This means work for me (and I'm lazy) and causes delays in delivery of the mails. Thank you, Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 14:05:58 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:05:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5F0F9BC233F06246850197E67C73C44AF882A3@CPEXBE-EML12.kpnsp.local> Message-ID: <002801c7e8a2$a12486a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of ciska.zuur at planet.nl I have the impression that when Law Y is 16C(2), and it is 16C mostly, ?it is meant as: there are none or not too many consequences, bidding can go on, bid can be withdrawn etc.etc. ?HOWEVER (but) there is UI, so 16C is involved. ? Sop, the BUT is a WARNING that some other article (in this case art 16C UI) shall be applied also. Therefor: it is not (a), not overriding It is also not (b), So it is (c), namely: besides article X, also article Y applies. ? In fact, the but .... is redundant, because all articles applay always, unless specificly excluded for a certain situation. And, it is confusing, because sometimes 'but 16C ...' is mentioned?and sometimes not, giving arbiters the idea that there is no UI in the latter. E.g. article 30A. The introduction of art 16 is clear: the withdrawn pas was irregular and gives UI, so art 16 is applicable, but not mentioned in 30A. ? Other views? ? Ciska Zuur, NL I believe you are on a right track. References to other laws (like footnotes) in the book must be taken as reminders that you do not necessarily have the full truth from just the law you are reading. Whether it is a "but", just a "see" or simply a "law Y applies" is rather unimportant, you should in any case consult also the referred law(s) before making your ruling. ("But" will usually indicate the possibility of an exception depending on the circumstances, "See" or "Law Y applies" that there are additional rules relevant to the case.) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 14:10:12 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:10:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A___But_me_no_buts____=5BSEC=3DU?= =?iso-8859-1?q?NOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <46D2BBB5.00000B.19107@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <000001c7e8a3$38bf6890$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ......... AG : my guess is "Law Y over-rides Law X in some specific cases". This is obvious in L53A. ? Good example! Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 27 14:41:00 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:41:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D2C65C.2070802@skynet.be> Hello Richard, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > > [unfair snipping of Herman's words by Richard] > >> and refusing to admit that that position might be wrong. >> >> Something many blml-ers suffer from, apparently. > > Richard Hills asks: > > But surely Herman De Wael is a blmler? > > :-) > I had deliberately written the sentence as stated, knowing I would be including myself. That does not prove anything, though. I do believe that I read the objections though, that I don't tire of argueing against them, and that I don't let arguments lie down thinking it's impossible to argue with some of you. That was what I was alluding to. > Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (1978): > > "The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by > the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has > ever been able to prove that there aren't any." > haha. > Richard Hills umpteenth refutation: > > The fallacy of the De Wael School interpretation of Law 75D2 > is illustrated by Herman ignoring the contrary explicit > statements in Law 75C and Law 75D1 because no one has ever > been able to prove that the Lawbook should be interpreted in > an internally consistent way. > > :-) > Which also means that alternative interpretations must be possible, since also consistent with the lawbook. My point precisely. Most of my pet theories are presented as alternative interpretations. I don't go shouting that YOU are wrong, you guys keep shouting that I am! Not exactly symmetric, do you see? > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> Politeness should force you to put an (IMO) in there. > > Richard Hills umpteenth plus one refutation: > > Let me try an analogy. Analogies are very difficult. > Believing that the De Wael School is > a valid interpretation of the Lawbook is akin to believing > that the Ptolemaic School is a valid interpretation of the > universe. Especially if you want to draw analogies with very very well established theories. Let's stop this analogy right there [snip] > > But let me clarify yet again that I am _not_ intending to be > impolite to Herman, and I am _not_ casting aspersions on > Herman's analytical reasoning skills. The epitome of > analytical reasoning was totally unaware that the Earth > orbits the Sun. > Well, since I do not accept your analogy, I again want you to add an (IMO) to the sentence you wrote about me. Especially if you want to be polite. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Mon Aug 27 16:01:29 2007 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:01:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205033ACB73@rama.Micronas.com> Hmm, looks to me that it is E, because this "but" is used differently in different Laws. For example: see L53A, where the "but" indicates an exception: you may accept a premature lead, but not if 47E1 applies. This would indicate (a). On the other hand: in 26A1, the "but" is a reminder: you don't get a penalty there, but you are not off the hook, for L16C still applies (because 16C always applies whenever there is a withdrawn action, unless the Laws explicitly state that it does not apply). L16C is not an exception here, so it is not (a), but it is also not (b), because L16C in itself does not have anything to do with lead penalties; it just applies at the same moment. So I would go for (e): depends on the Law. Regards, -- Martin Sinot > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:52 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Several of the Laws in the Lawbook take this form -> > > Law X - Such-And-Such: > > "A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." > > Does the word "but" in this context mean: > > (a) Law Y is an over-riding exception to Law X? > > Or > > (b) Law Y applies in different but similar cases? > > Or > > (c) None of the above? > > Or > > (d) All of the above? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities > other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 16:39:15 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:39:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <46D29695.7020106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7e8b8$0af121f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Do you want your players to play bridge or do you want to penalize every > > irregularity even when no harm or damage is done? > > > > I know what I prefer and I no longer care what you prefer. > > > > No damage is done? Opponents will not agree with that assesment! "Damage" to a non-offending side due to an irregularity is the amount with which a result actually obtained by this side is less than their reasonable expectation HAD THERE BEEN NO IRREGULARITY. (Sure you know this as well as I do?) 1: Declarer requests a trump from dummy or orders dummy to "ruff" 2: Either the contract is in notrump so there is no trump in the play, or somehow it becomes revealed that declarer for a moment was mistaken about which suit is named as trump in the contract. 3: What is the damage to the defending side when declarer is allowed to play the card he wants to play from dummy now that his mistake is rectified? That will be any card at his choice in a notrump contract and the named trump in a trump contract. (The "irregularity" here is Declarer's mistake about the contract.) Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Aug 27 17:14:06 2007 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:14:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000701c7e87a$c68afc80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00ee01c7e8bd$1ebe9d20$07493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > ................ > > But..... > > > > There is a lacuna in the 1997 version of Law 46B. > > > > Some declarers have the bad habit of _ambiguously_ > > designating a card from dummy, for example by gesturing or > > nodding. > > > > The 1997 Lawbook is silent on _ambiguous_ designations, > > which is one reason that the blml monomachy between Sven > > Pran and Herman De Wael has lasted so long. > > I don't see any reason why there should be such a problem to simply have > declarer clarify which card he wants? > > Do we want to play Bridge or do we want to penalize every irregularity even > when ho harm is done? (I know what I prefer!) > In case the director has to penalize for every slovenliness in calling, playing, scoring and the use of biddingboxes the players will save nothing and so there will be no winner. Ben From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Aug 27 17:22:15 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:22:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000001c7e8b8$0af121f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002801c7e8be$0ca63d40$0600a8c0@david> >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> > Do you want your players to play bridge or do you want to penalize >> > every >> > irregularity even when no harm or damage is done? >> > >> > I know what I prefer and I no longer care what you prefer. >> > >> >> No damage is done? Opponents will not agree with that assesment! > > "Damage" to a non-offending side due to an irregularity is the amount with > which a result actually obtained by this side is less than their > reasonable > expectation HAD THERE BEEN NO IRREGULARITY. > > (Sure you know this as well as I do?) > > 1: Declarer requests a trump from dummy or orders dummy to "ruff" > > 2: Either the contract is in notrump so there is no trump in the play, or > somehow it becomes revealed that declarer for a moment was mistaken about > which suit is named as trump in the contract. > > 3: What is the damage to the defending side when declarer is allowed to > play > the card he wants to play from dummy now that his mistake is rectified? > That > will be any card at his choice in a notrump contract and the named trump > in > a trump contract. > > (The "irregularity" here is Declarer's mistake about the contract.) > > Sven I believe the irregularity is the failure to comply with L45A. (I do not believe a nomination of a trump or ruff complies) Had declarer so complied he would have nominated the 3 of D (Herman's NT case) or the 3 of H (Sven's 4S case). The defence are (likely to be) damaged by allowing declarer to change his intention. Since an instruction to ruff/trump does not contain a rank (and I believe a suit), the card to be played is determined by L45B. However the restrictions in L45B1 to L45B5 do not apply when Declarer's different intention is incontrovertible. ie L45B1 to L45B5 do NOT apply in these cases leaving Declarer obliged to play the (specific) card he intended at the point he made his nomination. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.9/975 - Release Date: 26/08/2007 21:34 From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 19:48:15 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:48:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708271048w1438a864y47be14a0d058e231@mail.gmail.com> "Law X: A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." I was hoping that laws in that form would be absent from the new law book. To me, this is a vague style. The parenthetical, according to Grattan, makes it less basic or basically ignorable or something like that (I could not quite understand the Grattanesse in that case). The following style seems fine and clear to me: "A player must do such-and-such, except in case whatsit (which Law Y covers)." If there is an exception to the requirement to do such-and-such, I would like to see the exception explicit and unparenthetical. If laws X and Y hold in different circumstances completely, then the cross reference is not needed. For example, if X is for UI and Y is for MI, I would rather not see mention of Y inside law X. I think I object most to the phrase "but see," because it causes the law to be open to multiple interpretations. If one law overrides another, please make it clear which overrides. A "but see" construction is likely to be unclear on what overrides what. Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 27 20:05:32 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:05:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000001c7e8b8$0af121f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7e8b8$0af121f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D3126C.6070904@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >>> Do you want your players to play bridge or do you want to penalize every >>> irregularity even when no harm or damage is done? >>> >>> I know what I prefer and I no longer care what you prefer. >>> >> No damage is done? Opponents will not agree with that assesment! > > "Damage" to a non-offending side due to an irregularity is the amount with > which a result actually obtained by this side is less than their reasonable > expectation HAD THERE BEEN NO IRREGULARITY. > David already responded to the technical side of this matter, but I would like to comment on the philosophical side of it. You asked me why I wanted to penalize when no harm or damage is done. I responded and then you retort by coming up with the laws definition of "damage". But you used "harm" in the first sentence, so I'll take that one up again: Why do I want to rule when no harm is done? I don't believe no harm has been done. Declarer thought he was playing five diamonds and he wanted to play the 3 of diamonds. By misstating that request, he is suddenly placed in the postion (by TD Sven, not by TD Herman) of being able to change that card to some other, presumably better for him. If it's better for him, then it is worse for defenders. That is "harm". Turn it any way you want. So in response to your statement of 4 posts ago: >>> Do you want your players to play bridge or do you want to penalize every >>> irregularity even when no harm or damage is done? I repeat my answer: >> No damage is done? Opponents will not agree with that assesment! Please try again, Sven. This argument has failed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 28 04:13:28 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:13:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC) In-Reply-To: <200708241759.l7OHxS31002878@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708241759.l7OHxS31002878@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46D384C8.6060508@cfa.harvard.edu> I found this in the BB CoC at http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Events/wbf/2007shanghai/conditions.asp : > If a pair is found to have used a convention not listed on its Convention Card, > it will be given a disciplinary penalty of up to two VPs deducted from the team?s > score. In addition, the Tournament Director gives an adjusted score if he deems > that the opponents are damaged by the use of such an unknown convention. What does "are damaged" mean? Damaged by MI or damaged by the convention itself? Let's say my partnership has a great slam convention (Blackwood?), which we use to get to an unbeatable grand. Opponents are always passing in the auction, and there's no defense, thus no damage from MI. Unfortunately, we have forgotten to list this convention on our CC. What ruling do these CoC call for? From geller at nifty.com Tue Aug 28 04:27:42 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:27:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC) In-Reply-To: <46D384C8.6060508@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <46D384C8.6060508@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200708280227.AA10329@geller204.nifty.com> I don't think there would be any adjustment in the situation you describe (the slam convention). It's hard to imagine any way it could have been deemed to damage the oppts. OTH, suppose, as a (extreme) example, the bidding goes (P)-P-(1S ALERT) and you ask LHO (screenmate) for an explanation, only to learn the 1S opening in 3rd hand shows a weak hand with a 6 card club suit, but nothing was listed on the oppts convention card. Further suppose that you and your partner don't get to your cold 6S, where you reasonably would have done so had the oppts not thrown a curve at you. The above is the kind of stuation where an adjustment would be rendered. -Bob Steve Willner writes: >I found this in the BB CoC at >http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Events/wbf/2007shanghai/conditions.asp : >> If a pair is found to have used a convention not listed on its Convention Card, >> it will be given a disciplinary penalty of up to two VPs deducted from the team?s >> score. In addition, the Tournament Director gives an adjusted score if he deems >> that the opponents are damaged by the use of such an unknown convention. > >What does "are damaged" mean? Damaged by MI or damaged by the >convention itself? Let's say my partnership has a great slam convention >(Blackwood?), which we use to get to an unbeatable grand. Opponents are >always passing in the auction, and there's no defense, thus no damage >from MI. Unfortunately, we have forgotten to list this convention on >our CC. What ruling do these CoC call for? > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 27 16:30:00 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:30:00 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__But_me_no_buts____=5BSE?= =?iso-8859-1?q?C=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <002801c7e8a2$a12486a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D2DFE7.000022.19107@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 27/08/2007 14:06:14 A : 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sujet : Re: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Whether it is a "but", just a "see" or simply a "law Y applies" is rather unimportant, you should in any case consult also the referred law(s) before making your ruling. ("But" will usually indicate the possibility of an exception depending on the circumstances, "See" or "Law Y applies" that there are additional rules relevant to the case.) AG : there is a little bit more it it. "but" means that the final effet of applying law Y will be to wipe out the effet of law X. L53 : you may accept a LOOT. BUT L46 : you may not, when you caused it. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/04011cd0/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/20070827/04011cd0/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/20070827/04011cd0/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 27 18:01:50 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:01:50 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Double_Dummy_play____?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <46D2C65C.2070802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46D2F56E.000028.19107@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Analogies are very difficult. > Believing that the De Wael School is > a valid interpretation of the Lawbook is akin to believing > that the Ptolemaic School is a valid interpretation of the > universe. Especially if you want to draw analogies with very very well established theories. Let's stop this analogy right there AG : Analogy is a very dangerous exercise indeed. One should note that the Ptolemaic theory of epicycles leads to correct results, and that's the acid test for scientific theories. What's more, it's equivalent to Copernic's heliocentric theory, in the sense that if either is correct, then the other is (i.e. they lead to the same results). Using Ptolemy's theory is merely using an Earth-based referential rather than a Sun-based referential, and the Theory of relativity tells us that neither is 'more correct' than the other one. The only thing with Copernic's theory is that it leads to easier calculations. BTW, the Sun also moves relative to the center of the Galaxy. Please note that this is not creationist revisionism, but a mere consequence of elementary scientific principles. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070827/d1029ed8/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/20070827/d1029ed8/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/20070827/d1029ed8/attachment-0001.gif From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 28 09:14:38 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:14:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__But_me_no_buts____=5BSE?= =?iso-8859-1?q?C=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <46D2DFE7.000022.19107@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <000501c7e943$18975500$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ("But" will usually indicate the possibility of an exception depending on the circumstances, "See" or "Law Y applies" that there are additional rules relevant to the case.) ? ? AG : there is a little bit more in it. "but" means that the final effect of applying law Y will be to wipe out the effect of law X. ? L53 : you may accept a LOOT. BUT L46 : you may not, when you caused it. ? I suppose that is exactly what is in my use of the word "exception"? Regards Sven PS. Have you recognized Henk's request that you cease using HTML on blml? Personally I don't care about your submissions, but I have to remember forcing plain text for my (possible) comments. S From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Tue Aug 28 11:48:01 2007 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:48:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? Message-ID: > MP pairs, love all East deals > As South you hold: > QTxxxx > Jxxx > x > xx > The auction: > 1NT pass 2S* pass > 3C** pass 3NT all pass > * transfer to clubs (alerted) > ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) > Your lead please? Thanks for your answers. As it seems that no other lead than a spade is going to be an LA for this forum's peers, it is perhaps not that interesting to pursue this case further. But here it is: While South was pondering his lead North asked after the meaning of the alerted 2S call. Does this question suggest to lead spades? (North hand follows below) . . . . . . . . . . Kxx KQTx JT9x Ax As declarer held Ax of spades the lead of a spade kills the contract. What would you do if South did feel constrained not to lead a spade now and North held: Kx KQTxx JT9x Ax ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070828/9267443f/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 28 12:58:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <46D20054.4040102@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > My suggested solution (to penalize declarer for wantonly indulging > in an illegal designation) was ridiculed. Nigel if we require TDs to impose penalties for every failure to comply with L46a they will be doing little else. I do not believe that is how most players want the game to be run. Tim. From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 28 13:38:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:38:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your lead please? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c7e967$fb8ccb00$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Andre Steffens ?>?MP pairs, love all East deals ?>?As South you hold: ?>?QTxxxx ?>?Jxxx ?>?x ?>?xx ? ?>?The auction: ?>?1NT pass 2S* pass ?>?3C** pass 3NT all pass ? ?>?* transfer to clubs (alerted) ?>?** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) ? ?>?Your lead please?? ? Thanks for your answers. As it seems that?no other?lead than a spade is going to be an LA for this forum's peers, it is perhaps?not that interesting to pursue this case further. But here it is: ? While South was pondering his lead North asked after the meaning of the alerted 2S call. NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY ! Does this?question suggest to lead spades? North has absolutely no excuse for asking at this time before South has selected his opening lead face down. Such asking usually removes any doubt whether the question "could" have suggested, we generally take it as a demand. Therefore, unless all leads other than a spade from South must be considered "irrational", I will subsequently adjust the result on that board if the spade lead "damaged" North-South compared to their expected result without a spade lead. ........ What would you do if South did feel constrained not to lead a spade now and North held: Kx KQTxx JT9x Ax ? I don't see the point, why do anything? Regards Sven? From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 28 15:00:51 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:00:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46D41C83.4080701@meteo.fr> Tim West-Meads a ?crit : > Nigel wrote: >> My suggested solution (to penalize declarer for wantonly indulging >> in an illegal designation) was ridiculed. > > Nigel if we require TDs to impose penalties for every failure to comply > with L46a they will be doing little else. I do not believe that is how > most players want the game to be run. if we don't want to insist that players follow some laws, there is something wrong in the game. either players or the laws need to be changed. jpr > > Tim. > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 28 12:45:02 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:45:02 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Your_lead_please=3F?= References: Message-ID: <46D3FCAD.000001.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Andre Steffens Date : 28/08/2007 12:05:58 A : blml at amsterdamned.org Sujet : [blml] Your lead please? > MP pairs, love all East deals > As South you hold: > QTxxxx > Jxxx > x > xx > The auction: > 1NT pass 2S* pass > 3C** pass 3NT all pass > * transfer to clubs (alerted) > ** denies Ace, King or Queen (not alerted) > Your lead please? > Thanks for your answers. As it seems that no other lead than a spade is going to be an LA for this forum's peers, it is perhaps not that interesting to pursue this case further. AG : it surely is ... > While South was pondering his lead North asked after the meaning of the alerted 2S call. Does this question suggest to lead spades? AG : this is very interesting : the very fact that South was pondering is a proof that there were LAs. Now here is a question, and an important one : "If there is a LA, and if the option chosen was suggested by the mannerism, but the chosen action only works serendipitously, i.e. partner's hand wasn't the one sggested by the mannerism, do we adjust ?" TFLB says yes IMHO, logic says no. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070828/50731167/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/20070828/50731167/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/20070828/50731167/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 28 14:28:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:28:40 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Your_lead_please=3F?= References: <001201c7e967$fb8ccb00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46D414F7.00000D.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Sven Pran Date : 28/08/2007 13:38:54 A : 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sujet : Re: [blml] Your lead please? On Behalf Of Andre Steffens > MP pairs, love all East deals > As South you hold: > QTxxxx > Jxxx > x > xx > Does this question suggest to lead spades? North has absolutely no excuse for asking at this time before South has selected his opening lead face down. Such asking usually removes any doubt whether the question "could" have suggested, we generally take it as a demand. AG : Except that we see, from the hand, that the question could NOT be suggesting spades, East's third-best suit. Hence the question in my previous mail : do we still consider spades were suggested ? .What would you do if South did feel constrained not to lead a spade now and North held: Kx KQTxx JT9x Ax ? I don't see the point, why do anything? AG : because of the old problem (see Stefanie's question) : it is possible that East asked about spades to ensure that his parner, trying to be honest, did not lead spades. Best regards alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070828/a0d78a08/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/20070828/a0d78a08/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 19041 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070828/a0d78a08/attachment-0001.gif From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 28 15:46:00 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:46:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <46D41C83.4080701@meteo.fr> References: <46D41C83.4080701@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708280646s6ed8aadbs839f1a8877667d03@mail.gmail.com> On 8/28/07, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > if we don't want to insist that players follow some laws, there is > something wrong in the game. either players or the laws need to be changed. > or the interpretation. Interpret the laws Herman's way, and this problem vanishes. Jerry Fusselman From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 28 16:08:42 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:08:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0708271048w1438a864y47be14a0d058e231@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004b01c7e97e$1491a970$49a287d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ The opinion of the current drafting subcommittee is that 'but' introduces an exception to what has gone immediately before. 'But see' directs attention to the place in the laws where the exception is detailed. In specified circumstances what follows 'but' overrides what has gone just before. This is considered to be the dictionary meaning of 'but' and explicit, thus - for the majority of the subcommittee - in no need of further calarification. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > "Law X: A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." > > I was hoping that laws in that form would be absent from > the new law book. To me, this is a vague style. If there is an exception to the requirement to do such-and-such, I > would like to see the exception explicit and unparenthetical. > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 28 16:45:38 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:45:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0708280646s6ed8aadbs839f1a8877667d03@mail.gmail.com> References: <46D41C83.40807 01@meteo.fr> <2b1e598b0708280646s6ed8aadbs839f1a8877667d03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46D43512.6070604@meteo.fr> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On 8/28/07, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> if we don't want to insist that players follow some laws, there is >> something wrong in the game. either players or the laws need to be changed. >> > > or the interpretation. Interpret the laws Herman's way, and this > problem vanishes. not exactly. herman's way is about interpretation of L46B, not L46A which is the one a consensus has made obsolete. after all, if L46A was never broken, problems of interpretation of L46B would vanish; and if it was never intentionnaly broken, problems would be much rarer. jpr > > Jerry Fusselman > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 28 18:05:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:05:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <46D43512.6070604@meteo.fr> References: <46D41C83.40807 01@meteo.fr> <2b1e598b0708280646s6ed8aadbs839f1a8877667d03@mail.gmail.com> <46D43512.6070604@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <46D447E4.5070201@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> On 8/28/07, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>> if we don't want to insist that players follow some laws, there is >>> something wrong in the game. either players or the laws need to be changed. >>> >> or the interpretation. Interpret the laws Herman's way, and this >> problem vanishes. > > not exactly. herman's way is about interpretation of L46B, not L46A > which is the one a consensus has made obsolete. after all, if L46A was > never broken, problems of interpretation of L46B would vanish; and if it > was never intentionnaly broken, problems would be much rarer. > I agree with Jean-Pierre (long time no see, Rocky) in that my interpretation is not needed to solve the problem Jean-Pierre seems to have. Sven's interpretation does equally well in that regard. But I disagree with Jean-Pierre in finding a problem with L46A. L46A uses the word should, which means that transgressions will largely get unpunished. L46A exists in order to be able to rule against the common case: "spade", "which one?", "oh yes, the 10". No sorry, you should have stated that immediately, since you did not, you transgressed L46A and the remedy is described in L46B, you have played a small spade. If there is a small problem in L46B, which only exists because the laws are not complete enough to settle the argument between Sven and myself, then that is no reason to go changing L46A (into "must") for example and annoy every single bridge player, every single hand, almost every single trick. > jpr >> Jerry Fusselman >> > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 28 18:24:08 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:24:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:27:42 +0900." <200708280227.AA10329@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200708281610.JAA32767@mailhub.irvine.com> Bob Geller wrote: [regarding an example of using an unannounced convention to get to an unbeatable grand slam] > I don't think there would be any adjustment in the situation you describe > (the slam convention). It's hard to imagine any way it could have been > deemed to damage the oppts. I agree here. > OTH, suppose, as a (extreme) example, the bidding goes (P)-P-(1S ALERT) > and you ask LHO (screenmate) for an explanation, only to learn the 1S opening > in 3rd hand shows a weak hand with a 6 card club suit, but nothing was listed > on the oppts convention card. Further suppose that you and your partner don't > get to your cold 6S, where you reasonably would have done so had the oppts > not thrown a curve at you. > > The above is the kind of stuation where an adjustment would be rendered. I'm not so sure... partly because I'm not sure which kind of curve you mean when you refer to "throwing a curve". (I'm assuming that both you and your partner were informed of the real meaning of 1S before your next turn to call.) IMHO, the "real" violation here is the failure to properly inform you of this convention according to the SO regulations. This could damage you in a couple ways: (1) since you didn't know about this convention beforehand, you didn't have the opportunity to discuss your defense to it; (2) knowing about the possibility of this convention *could*, in certain circumstances, caused second hand to take a different action besides passing. If one of these situations arose, then you were probably damaged, although in case #1, if you had a generic defense against artificial weak bids that you would have used anyway, there may not have been any damage. But my *feeling* about this is that the adjustment should be based on how the auction would have gone if you had known about the 1S convention beforehand---*not* about how it would have gone if third hand hadn't been allowed to bid 1S. That seems just to me. If the 1S bid would have screwed up your auction irreparably even if you had been properly informed, then assigning your side the score for 6S making is not restoring equity. However, the precise wording of Law 40B seems to make the 1S bid itself the irregularity, so technically perhaps it's correct to assign damage based on how the auction would have gone after three passes ("had the irregularity not occurred": Law 12C2). I'm really just talking out of my hat here. I can understand either interpretation; I hope someone who is much more knowledgeable than I will tell us which one is correct. -- Adam From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Aug 28 22:46:54 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:46:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?utf-8?q?R=C3=A9f=2E_=3A__Your_lead_please=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46D3FCAD.000001.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46D3FCAD.000001.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <20070828164654.1c5ca988@linuxbox> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:45:02 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'?t?)) "Alain Gottcheiner" wrote: > AG : this is very interesting : the very fact that South was > pondering is a proof that there were LAs. > This seems wrong in principle. IMO, your statement implies either that South is never allowed to come to the conclusion that there are no LAs to his intended action, or that the fact that there are no LAs must be obvious without pause for thought. Neither seems reasonable to me. Surely if a player realises that he has received some form of UI, he is allowed to consider whether or not it constrains his actions? If not, players might as well go back to the old "bid what you were going to bid anyway" option, and let the TD sort it out if/when opponents call. That way they at least break even when their preferred action is judged to be the only LA. To expect players to be able to make in-tempo decisions on LAs seems at least unrealistic. Brian. - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG1Im/X39R2QaHMdMRAmV7AJwJSgM/e/SggVbfoMzxBGIbDCM5XACfYO// ExpPm84zZmaHt/yttjtyVAY= =1rsK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From geller at nifty.com Tue Aug 28 23:01:07 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:01:07 +0900 Subject: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC) In-Reply-To: <200708281610.JAA32767@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200708281610.JAA32767@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200708282101.AA10339@geller204.nifty.com> The point is that because of the failure of the offending side to pre-inform the non-offending side, they were denied the opportunity to prepare and confirm their defense to the convention, and therefore adjustment is warranted, as they were unfairly placed in a disadvantageous position through no fault of their own. -Bob Adam Beneschan writes: > >Bob Geller wrote: > >[regarding an example of using an unannounced convention to get to an >unbeatable grand slam] >> I don't think there would be any adjustment in the situation you describe >> (the slam convention). It's hard to imagine any way it could have been >> deemed to damage the oppts. > >I agree here. > >> OTH, suppose, as a (extreme) example, the bidding goes (P)-P-(1S ALERT) >> and you ask LHO (screenmate) for an explanation, only to learn the 1S opening >> in 3rd hand shows a weak hand with a 6 card club suit, but nothing was listed >> on the oppts convention card. Further suppose that you and your partner don't >> get to your cold 6S, where you reasonably would have done so had the oppts >> not thrown a curve at you. >> >> The above is the kind of stuation where an adjustment would be rendered. > >I'm not so sure... partly because I'm not sure which kind of curve you >mean when you refer to "throwing a curve". (I'm assuming that both >you and your partner were informed of the real meaning of 1S before >your next turn to call.) > >IMHO, the "real" violation here is the failure to properly inform you >of this convention according to the SO regulations. This could damage >you in a couple ways: (1) since you didn't know about this convention >beforehand, you didn't have the opportunity to discuss your defense to >it; (2) knowing about the possibility of this convention *could*, in >certain circumstances, caused second hand to take a different action >besides passing. If one of these situations arose, then you were >probably damaged, although in case #1, if you had a generic defense >against artificial weak bids that you would have used anyway, there >may not have been any damage. But my *feeling* about this is that the >adjustment should be based on how the auction would have gone if you >had known about the 1S convention beforehand---*not* about how it >would have gone if third hand hadn't been allowed to bid 1S. That >seems just to me. If the 1S bid would have screwed up your auction >irreparably even if you had been properly informed, then assigning >your side the score for 6S making is not restoring equity. > >However, the precise wording of Law 40B seems to make the 1S bid >itself the irregularity, so technically perhaps it's correct to assign >damage based on how the auction would have gone after three passes >("had the irregularity not occurred": Law 12C2). > >I'm really just talking out of my hat here. I can understand either >interpretation; I hope someone who is much more knowledgeable than I >will tell us which one is correct. > > -- Adam > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Aug 28 23:58:28 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:58:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Your_lead_please=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46D414F7.00000D.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <000a01c7e9be$90d27c40$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............... North has absolutely no excuse for asking at this time before South has selected his opening lead face down. Such asking usually removes any doubt whether the question "could" have suggested, we generally take it as a demand. ? AG : Except that? we see, from the hand, that the question could?NOT be suggesting spades, East's third-best suit. Hence?the question in my previous mail : do we still consider spades were suggested ? Yes ? .What would you do if South did feel constrained not to lead a spade now and North held: Kx KQTxx JT9x Ax ? ? I don't see the point, why do anything? ? AG : because of the old problem (see Stefanie's question) : it is possible that East asked about spades to ensure that his parner, trying to be honest,?did?not lead spades.? Yes I got to think about that afterwards, and if I suspected this to be the case I would apply law 72B1 (not law 16!) and impose a very heavy procedural penalty on North (it was North, not East who asked?) in addition to possibly adjusting the score. Deliberately asking a question for the apparent or probable reason to influence partner's opening lead whichever way is intolerable to say it mildly. Regards Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Aug 29 00:38:54 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:38:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC) References: <200708281610.JAA32767@mailhub.irvine.com> <200708282101.AA10339@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <003701c7e9c4$3716ee60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC) > The point is that because of the failure of the offending side to > pre-inform > the non-offending side, they were denied the opportunity to prepare > and confirm their defense to the convention, and therefore adjustment > is warranted, as they were unfairly placed in a disadvantageous position > through no fault of their own. > This would be the point of the 2VP penalty (with much heavier penalties thereafter), but would not address issues of damage. > > Adam Beneschan writes: >> >>Bob Geller wrote: >> >>[regarding an example of using an unannounced convention to get to an >>unbeatable grand slam] >>> I don't think there would be any adjustment in the situation you >>> describe >>> (the slam convention). It's hard to imagine any way it could have been >>> deemed to damage the oppts. >> I think that more investigation would be warranted. Suppose the opponents had no method to reach the unbeatable grand slam except their unannounced convention. Do you still think the NOS was not damaged by its use? >>> OTH, suppose, as a (extreme) example, the bidding goes (P)-P-(1S ALERT) >>> and you ask LHO (screenmate) for an explanation, only to learn the 1S >>> opening >>> in 3rd hand shows a weak hand with a 6 card club suit, but nothing was >>> listed >>> on the oppts convention card. Further suppose that you and your partner >>> don't >>> get to your cold 6S, where you reasonably would have done so had the >>> oppts >>> not thrown a curve at you. >>> >>> The above is the kind of stuation where an adjustment would be rendered. Agreed. >>IMHO, the "real" violation here is the failure to properly inform you >>of this convention according to the SO regulations. ... >> >>However, the precise wording of Law 40B seems to make the 1S bid >>itself the irregularity, so technically perhaps it's correct to assign >>damage based on how the auction would have gone after three passes >>("had the irregularity not occurred": Law 12C2). >> No, I don't think we can adjust to three passes, nor do I think that the CoC were particularly well-written in this regard. One could argue that there is no way to get a real bridge score once the illegal convention had been used, so an artificial adjusted score should be applied (16.B.3 Extraneous information from other sources). When this occurred to me I wasn't happy with it, but I'm not so sure. Wouldn't information from an illegal convention be UI? It's a bit more abstract than the extraneous sources of UI cited in 16.B, but what else can you call it? UI from partner doesn't seem to apply when both partners are playing the system (there may be no LA's to choose from, but the system is still a violation). And I also think it's a stretch to call information from a system specifically prohibited by the CoC "AI", so what's left? Actually, this seems to cover the ground better than the actual CoC. Use a prohibited or undisclosed convention, and get the board thrown out, an artificial adjusted score, a 2VP penalty and all kinds of mayhem should it happen again. Why worry about attempting to define damage to the opponents? The TD can decide that the UI made the board unplayable. That feels about right. I'm reasonably sure that there are holes in my logic, and await rebuttal. Hirsch From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 08:24:22 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:24:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Illegal Convention (Bermuda Bowl CoC) In-Reply-To: <003701c7e9c4$3716ee60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <200708281610.JAA32767@mailhub.irvine.com> <200708282101.AA10339@geller204.nifty.com> <003701c7e9c4$3716ee60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: On 29/08/2007, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > >>Bob Geller wrote: > >> > >>[regarding an example of using an unannounced convention to get to an > >>unbeatable grand slam] > >>> I don't think there would be any adjustment in the situation you > >>> describe > >>> (the slam convention). It's hard to imagine any way it could have > been > >>> deemed to damage the oppts. > >> > > > I think that more investigation would be warranted. Suppose the opponents > had no method to reach the unbeatable grand slam except their unannounced > convention. Do you still think the NOS was not damaged by its use? If the slam convention was legal per se, the irregularity just being lack of predisclosure, I can't see how the NOS was damaged by its use. If the slam convention was illegal, predisclosed or not, I agree that the NOS was damaged. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070829/52bc570f/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 29 09:31:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:31:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Your_lead_please=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000a01c7e9be$90d27c40$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <46D414F7.00000D.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070829092048.02139e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:58 28/08/2007 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Yes I got to think about that afterwards, and if I suspected this to be the >case I would apply law 72B1 (not law 16!) and impose a very heavy procedural >penalty on North (it was North, not East who asked?) in addition to possibly >adjusting the score. Deliberately asking a question for the apparent or >probable reason to influence partner's opening lead whichever way is >intolerable to say it mildly. We will all agree with this, I hope, and you state it mildly indeed. The problem is, in this particular case, we see from East's hand that his intention could not be to provoke a spade lead. While most would agree with your statement that the TD should rule "suggested" even when it is obvious it wasn't, because it coud have been, my point is that we should remember that this encourages lawyering and discourages asking questions even at one's proper turn, which I feel embarrassing. This is a recent case : 1NT p 2C ...p 2H p 4H The reason for the slow pass was (as is obvious from the hand) that the player wanted to bid spades, but refrained on seeing the vulnerabilty (the hand was something like KJ9xxx - x - xxx - Qxx). The lead was a club from J10xxx (about as obvious as a spade in the blml case), and this turned out to be best. The TD adjusted the score on the grounds that the tempo could have suggested a club lead. No doubt, if the lead had been a spade and been right, he would have adjusted on the same grounds. Which means that, after partner's tempo, you're not allowed to do the right lead anymore. IMOBO this is wrong. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 29 11:03:39 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:03:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Your_lead_please=3F?= In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070829092048.02139e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000501c7ea1b$7dab1890$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > While most would agree with your statement that the TD should rule > "suggested" even when it is obvious it wasn't, because it coud have been, > my point is that we should remember that this encourages lawyering and > discourages asking questions even at one's proper turn, which I feel > embarrassing. Which it indeed would be. There is a tremendous difference between asking out of turn, particularly when it is partner's turn to call or play, and to ask at ones own turn. Like here: Asking after partner has selected his opening bid (face down) could not in any way have influenced partner's opening lead and would therefore have been entirely proper. (I discard for now the possibility that asking would have been for giving UI to partner for the purpose of his later plays) > This is a recent case : > > 1NT p 2C ...p > 2H p 4H > > The reason for the slow pass was (as is obvious from the hand) that the > player wanted to bid spades, but refrained on seeing the vulnerabilty (the > hand was something like > KJ9xxx - x - xxx - Qxx). > The lead was a club from J10xxx (about as obvious as a spade in the blml > case), and this turned out to be best. > The TD adjusted the score on the grounds that the tempo could have > suggested a club lead. > No doubt, if the lead had been a spade and been right, he would have > adjusted on the same grounds. > Which means that, after partner's tempo, you're not allowed to do the > right > lead anymore. > IMOBO this is wrong. This does indeed sound wrong, but I cannot judge without knowing more about the situation at the table, the atmosphere, the impressions and so on. What we need to remember are two main things: Bridge is a game where thinking through alternatives is often required so a player is always allowed to "think". But when there has been a break in tempo partner must "bend backwards" to avoid any suspicion of having based his actions on information from the break in tempo rather than from his legitimate information. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 29 19:34:37 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:34:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A2C7F1C-3485-4717-B390-53D72890CF05@starpower.net> On Aug 26, 2007, at 4:29 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hirsch Davis: > >>> The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA. >>> Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI, >>> the restrictions of L16 still apply. > > Sven Pran: > >> Quite so. (If there are alternatives) > > Richard Hills: > > **If** authorised information is **identical to** unauthorised > information, **then** I agree with Herman De Wael's position in the > October 2006 thread "Positronic brain" that Law 16 does not apply. > > Herman's point, with which I agree, is if an "AI electron" meets its > anti-particle, a "UI positron", then the two particles annihilate > each other, so therefore there is zero residual Law 16 extraneous > information outstanding. > > A simpler way of looking at it, without the metaphor, is to ask the > question, "How can partner give you Law 16 extraneous information if > you already have that information?" That's almost the right question, but the real right question would use the language of L16A, thus: "How can partner make available to you L16 extraneous information if you already have that information?" The answer to that is that he cannot. In English, the phrase "to make available" uses "make" with the meaning of "to cause to become" [AHD]. You cannot, by definition, "make[] available to [your] partner extraneous information..." if that information was already available to your partner prior to your action. AHD (The American Heritage Dictionary) uses the phrase "to make public" as an example of this grammatical construction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Wed Aug 29 19:45:34 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:45:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:34:37 EDT." <0A2C7F1C-3485-4717-B390-53D72890CF05@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200708291731.KAA15496@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > On Aug 26, 2007, at 4:29 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Hirsch Davis: > > > >>> The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA. > >>> Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI, > >>> the restrictions of L16 still apply. > > > > Sven Pran: > > > >> Quite so. (If there are alternatives) > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > **If** authorised information is **identical to** unauthorised > > information, **then** I agree with Herman De Wael's position in the > > October 2006 thread "Positronic brain" that Law 16 does not apply. > > > > Herman's point, with which I agree, is if an "AI electron" meets its > > anti-particle, a "UI positron", then the two particles annihilate > > each other, so therefore there is zero residual Law 16 extraneous > > information outstanding. > > > > A simpler way of looking at it, without the metaphor, is to ask the > > question, "How can partner give you Law 16 extraneous information if > > you already have that information?" > > That's almost the right question, but the real right question would > use the language of L16A, thus: "How can partner make available to > you L16 extraneous information if you already have that > information?" The answer to that is that he cannot. In English, the > phrase "to make available" uses "make" with the meaning of "to cause > to become" [AHD]. You cannot, by definition, "make[] available to > [your] partner extraneous information..." if that information was > already available to your partner prior to your action. AHD (The > American Heritage Dictionary) uses the phrase "to make public" as an > example of this grammatical construction. I haven't been following this thread at all. But just looking at this post: it seems that your argument would break down in cases where your partner makes UI available to you---and the same information becomes available through AI *after* you receive the UI. I think there are certainly cases like that, although I'm too busy to try to construct one off the top of my head.... ...on second thought, isn't the case in question just such an example? LHO opens 1NT. Partner hitches and passes. At that point, you don't have any AI that partner has a good hand, and you have UI that he might. RHO then passes, and *now* you have the AI from RHO's failure to make at least a game invitation. Or am I thinking about a different thread? My apologies if this is way off base, since I haven't been following this at all and haven't attempted to go back and read previous e-mails. But it would seem that if you have information from UI that is also available from AI, then your rights and restrictions are the same regardless of whether you got the UI or the AI first. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 29 20:09:11 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <001401c7e868$76bc6750$0701a8c0@john> References: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.be> <001401c7e868$76bc6750$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <425963CF-0748-49D2-B7CA-3DEE81D3120B@starpower.net> On Aug 27, 2007, at 1:09 AM, John Probst wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > snip > >>> When declarer plays a suit beginning with the top card and >>> continuing >>> downwards any request to continue with the next card or words to >>> that >>> effect >>> is taken to mean the currently highest card in the suit. This has >>> nothing >>> to >>> do with declarer's intent, this has to do with what is considered (I >>> believe >>> also by WBFLC) to be the only sensible understanding of the >>> situation. >> >> Do you really know what you are saying here? >> A player who plays Ace, King of spades and then says "spade" is >> subject to L46B2. If you -and I- rule that the Queen is nevertheless >> played, it is not because that "is the only sensible understanding of >> the situation" (especially if playing a small one would be far >> better), but it is because we rule that the sentence at the top of >> L46B applies : "except when declarer's different intention is >> incontrovertible". >> >> So when you write "this has nothing to do with declarer's intent", >> that is (absolute bollocks) - sorry, politely reworded: manifestly >> and >> proven untrue. >> >>> That this situation is covered by the exempt clause on declarer's >>> incontrovertible intention is a pure technicality and it has >>> nothing to >>> do >>> with any kind of mind reading to determine his real intent. > > We definitely rule Queen in the EBU. it's a no brainer. It's not > the same as > "ruff" however; which has no such incontrovertible and manifest > intent. It may be a no-brainer in the EBU, which, I gather, has explicitly regulated regarding this situation. Where I play, after "ace of spades" and "king of spades", "another one", "keep 'em coming", or the like, would be no-brainers, but "spade" would require at least some discussion to establish declarer's intent. Perhaps our players have internalized L46B2 a bit better than the EBUers, but are generally expected to know that "spade" will be taken as synonymous to "smallest spade" -- indeed, among our players "spade" is the virtually universally used spoken designation used when "smallest spade" is the intended lead from dummy. It is much more of a genuine no-brainer around here to rule that "ruff" demonstrates incontrovertable and manifest intent to trump the current trick. To the extent that a declarer with an absent dummy who announced "I am ruffing that" and then reached over and took a non-trump card from the dummy would be allowed to change the card for a trump, on the grounds that his "different intention is incontrovertable". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 29 20:38:55 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:38:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: References: <000601c7e73c$f2133eb0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <000301c7e747$aa4f5a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Aug 27, 2007, at 3:00 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 25/08/07, Sven Pran wrote: > The call (alternative) does not even have to be suggested by the UI. > > It is sufficient that it _could_ have been suggested by the UI. > > Not quite true. The law say "the partner may not choose from among > logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information". That's not > the same as could_have benn suggested - far from. I'd go even further, and argue that if *does* have to have been suggested in order to meet the criterion of "could demonstrably have been suggested". In order for a proposition to be "demonstrable" ("Capable of being shown or proved" [AHD]) it must, by definition, be true. L16A needs the word "could" because its referent in context is "his partner", who may or may not be cognizant of what has been suggested. The person to whom it *must* (as opposed to "could") have been suggested is the hypothetical observer of the hypothetical demonstration that makes the suggestion "demonstrable". Indeed, the point of the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably" in 1997 was to clarify that the "suggestee" be the hypothetical observer (in practice, some not-so-hypothetical surrogate, like a TD or AC) rather than the "partner". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 29 21:00:35 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:00:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Your_lead_please=3F?= In-Reply-To: <46D414F7.00000D.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <001201c7e967$fb8ccb00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D414F7.00000D.48849@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <213C31D8-F6FD-43C9-938B-883CFD1101CD@starpower.net> On Aug 28, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : because of the old problem (see Stefanie's question) : it is > possible that East asked about spades to ensure that his parner, > trying to be honest, did not lead spades. It is certainly "possible", but L16A requires that it be "demonstrable" (see my previous post in the "Protect with 2 HCP?" thread). For that you would need to demonstrate that West could be relied upon to "bend over backwards" to avoid a spade lead after East's question, and that East knew it. The use of the word "demonstrably" precludes inferring what could have been suggested to West from what East might have intended or hoped to suggest (notwithstanding that that might readily be inferred from what East actually held); that connection (between "suggestion intended" and "suggestion made") must be independently established (i.e. hypothetically proven to the hypothetical observer of the hypothetical demonstration). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 29 23:24:06 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:24:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <200708291731.KAA15496@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200708291731.KAA15496@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> That's almost the right question, but the real right question would >> use the language of L16A, thus: "How can partner make available to >> you L16 extraneous information if you already have that >> information?" The answer to that is that he cannot. In English, the >> phrase "to make available" uses "make" with the meaning of "to cause >> to become" [AHD]. You cannot, by definition, "make[] available to >> [your] partner extraneous information..." if that information was >> already available to your partner prior to your action. AHD (The >> American Heritage Dictionary) uses the phrase "to make public" as an >> example of this grammatical construction. > > I haven't been following this thread at all. But just looking at this > post: it seems that your argument would break down in cases where your > partner makes UI available to you---and the same information becomes > available through AI *after* you receive the UI. I think there are > certainly cases like that, although I'm too busy to try to construct > one off the top of my head.... My argument certainly does "break down" -- more precisely, was never intended to apply. I assert only that "you cannot, by definition, 'make available [EI]' if that information *was already available* to your partner". Moreover, it may be present without being available "to his partner" [L16A] if "his partner" would have been unaware of it absent it being made noticeable by the "transmitter's" action. You cannot avoid a finding that you "used" UI from partner by demonstrating only that there was equivalent AI "floating about" before the EI came along; you must make the case that you were already aware of it. The contrary position is that given the availability of the UI your actions remain constrained even if it is stipulated that you could not have learned anything new from it. And if the UI is sufficiently blatant to "make available" the knowledge that partner wants you to do something specific (as opposed to just suggesting some holding that would make it attractive for you to do so), that is always knowledge not available from AI. > ...on second thought, isn't the case in question just such an example? > LHO opens 1NT. Partner hitches and passes. At that point, you don't > have any AI that partner has a good hand, and you have UI that he > might. RHO then passes, and *now* you have the AI from RHO's failure > to make at least a game invitation. Or am I thinking about a > different thread? My apologies if this is way off base, since I > haven't been following this at all and haven't attempted to go back > and read previous e-mails. I can't say. Like Adam, I am trying to focus on what the language of L16A says and means, not how it applies to the thread case, of which I no longer recall details. > But it would seem that if you have information from UI that is also > available from AI, then your rights and restrictions are the same > regardless of whether you got the UI or the AI first. It's a great deal easier to notice something (like some bit of AI) if you have been "primed" in advance (as by UI from partner) to be on the lookout for it. Easier enough, IMO, to justify a logical presumption that you might not otherwise have done so (unless it would have been irrational not to!?). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Aug 29 23:46:38 2007 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:46:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? References: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.be><001401c7e868$76bc6750$0701a8c0@john> <425963CF-0748-49D2-B7CA-3DEE81D3120B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01c7ea86$145dfe50$0600a8c0@david> > It is much more of a genuine no-brainer around here to rule that > "ruff" demonstrates incontrovertable and manifest intent to trump the > current trick. To the extent that a declarer with an absent dummy > who announced "I am ruffing that" and then reached over and took a > non-trump card from the dummy would be allowed to change the card for > a trump, on the grounds that his "different intention is > incontrovertable". > It will come as no surprise to learn that I disagree. If declarer thought he was playing in Hearts (rather than Spades) and picked up a H then the H is played (despite his intention to ruff). Similarly I would not allow the nomination of the Q to be changed when Declarer notices the K has been played (despite his intention to finesse) nor allow a change if Declarer says discard a small Spade when Spades were trumps (despite his obvious intention to play a non trump). To me the question of intent can (usually) be decided by asking which card would have been nominated had declarer used the correct procedure and nominated the suit and rank. That would be Declarer's intention. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/977 - Release Date: 28/08/2007 16:29 From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Aug 30 01:13:06 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:13:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: <200708291731.KAA15496@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001d01c7ea92$29ff23e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? > On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Eric wrote: >> >>> That's almost the right question, but the real right question would >>> use the language of L16A, thus: "How can partner make available to >>> you L16 extraneous information if you already have that >>> information?" The answer to that is that he cannot. In English, the >>> phrase "to make available" uses "make" with the meaning of "to cause >>> to become" [AHD]. You cannot, by definition, "make[] available to >>> [your] partner extraneous information..." if that information was >>> already available to your partner prior to your action. AHD (The >>> American Heritage Dictionary) uses the phrase "to make public" as an >>> example of this grammatical construction. >> In the introduction to L16, extraneous information refers to knowledge that comes to a player through means other than legal calls or plays or mannerisms of an opponent. The content of the inforrmation is immaterial. It is the mode by which the information is given that determines whether or not information is extraneous. If we maintain this definition of "extraneous" through our reading of 16A, it becomes simple. The information contained in the UI does not determine whether or not it is "extraneous", nor does our a priori knowledge of whatever partner may have communicated matter either. We have received an illegal communication, and cannot take an action that was demonstrably suggested by that communication if there exists a LA that was not demonstrably suggested by the communication, even if we received the exact same information through legal means. >> I haven't been following this thread at all. But just looking at this >> post: it seems that your argument would break down in cases where your >> partner makes UI available to you---and the same information becomes >> available through AI *after* you receive the UI. I think there are >> certainly cases like that, although I'm too busy to try to construct >> one off the top of my head.... > > My argument certainly does "break down" -- more precisely, was never > intended to apply. I assert only that "you cannot, by definition, > 'make available [EI]' if that information *was already available* to > your partner". Moreover, it may be present without being available > "to his partner" [L16A] if "his partner" would have been unaware of > it absent it being made noticeable by the "transmitter's" action. > You cannot avoid a finding that you "used" UI from partner by > demonstrating only that there was equivalent AI "floating about" > before the EI came along; you must make the case that you were > already aware of it. The contrary position is that given the > availability of the UI your actions remain constrained even if it is > stipulated that you could not have learned anything new from it. > > And if the UI is sufficiently blatant to "make available" the > knowledge that partner wants you to do something specific (as opposed > to just suggesting some holding that would make it attractive for you > to do so), that is always knowledge not available from AI. > >> ...on second thought, isn't the case in question just such an example? >> LHO opens 1NT. Partner hitches and passes. At that point, you don't >> have any AI that partner has a good hand, and you have UI that he >> might. RHO then passes, and *now* you have the AI from RHO's failure >> to make at least a game invitation. Or am I thinking about a >> different thread? My apologies if this is way off base, since I >> haven't been following this at all and haven't attempted to go back >> and read previous e-mails. > > I can't say. Like Adam, I am trying to focus on what the language of > L16A says and means, not how it applies to the thread case, of which > I no longer recall details. > >> But it would seem that if you have information from UI that is also >> available from AI, then your rights and restrictions are the same >> regardless of whether you got the UI or the AI first. > > It's a great deal easier to notice something (like some bit of AI) if > you have been "primed" in advance (as by UI from partner) to be on > the lookout for it. Easier enough, IMO, to justify a logical > presumption that you might not otherwise have done so (unless it > would have been irrational not to!?). > I'll repeat my previous question: The auction proceeds as discussed, but with no hesitations. I work out from AI that partner must have a good hand with a singleton spade for his pass. Partner now says, out loud, "I have a singleton spade". Forgetting the disciplinary and procedural penalties for the moment, does L16A still apply if I have worked it out that he must have the singleton spade from AI (and have an argument so strong that even the most skeptical of AC's will accept that I knew about the stiff prior to the statement)? Partner has made UI available to me by his statement, and I remain constrained by L16A even though I already knew what was going on (and haven't got the faintest clue why he would tell me in that manner, or what he wants me to do after his statement). I think it's that simple. Or do you think that I'm now free to act as though partner had never spoken, since there was no new content in his message? Hirsch From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Aug 30 10:14:25 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:14:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <000d01c7ea86$145dfe50$0600a8c0@david> References: <000d01c7e80d$45906ba0$6400a8c0@WINXP><46D1F76B.3040606@skynet.b e><001401c7e868$76bc6750$0701a8c0@john><425963CF-0748-49D2-B7CA-3DEE81D3120 B@starpower.net> <000d01c7ea86$145dfe50$0600a8c0@david> Message-ID: <46D67C61.8010600@meteo.fr> David Barton a ?crit : >> It is much more of a genuine no-brainer around here to rule that >> "ruff" demonstrates incontrovertable and manifest intent to trump the >> current trick. To the extent that a declarer with an absent dummy >> who announced "I am ruffing that" and then reached over and took a >> non-trump card from the dummy would be allowed to change the card for >> a trump, on the grounds that his "different intention is >> incontrovertable". >> > > It will come as no surprise to learn that I disagree. > > If declarer thought he was playing in Hearts (rather than Spades) > and picked up a H then the H is played (despite his intention to ruff). > > Similarly I would not allow the nomination of the Q to be changed > when Declarer notices the K has been played (despite his intention to > finesse) nor allow a change if Declarer says discard a small Spade > when Spades were trumps (despite his obvious intention to play a non > trump). > > To me the question of intent can (usually) be decided by asking which > card would have been nominated had declarer used the correct procedure > and nominated the suit and rank. That would be Declarer's intention. > i agree this is the right way to deal with the problems resulting from unsatisfactory designations such as high, low, anything, follow, trump, ruff, finesse, discard, unblock... i see it as both lawful and desirable. how could we hope more? as herman i disliked to allow declarer to recover when he said ruff and was mistaken about trump but i didn't think to be able to do otherwise, until this interpretation. jpr > ***************************************** > david.j.barton at lineone.net > ***************************************** > > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Aug 30 10:50:35 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:50:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0708271048w1438a864y47be14a0d058e231@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c7eae3$24b4c150$d7ae87d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ The opinion of the current drafting subcommittee is that 'but' introduces an exception to what has gone immediately before. 'But see' directs attention to the place in the laws where the exception is detailed. In specified circumstances what follows 'but' overrides what has gone just before. This is considered to be the dictionary meaning of 'but' and explicit. Thus the majority of the subcommittee see no need for further clarification. It should be added that the usage in applying previous codes of laws establishes precedents for this view. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > "Law X: A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)." > > I was hoping that laws in that form would be absent from > the new law book. To me, this is a vague style. If there is an exception to the requirement to do such-and-such, I > would like to see the exception explicit and unparenthetical. > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 30 15:15:46 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:15:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <001d01c7ea92$29ff23e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <200708291731.KAA15496@mailhub.irvine.com> <001d01c7ea92$29ff23e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>> Eric wrote: >>> >>>> That's almost the right question, but the real right question would >>>> use the language of L16A, thus: "How can partner make available to >>>> you L16 extraneous information if you already have that >>>> information?" The answer to that is that he cannot. In >>>> English, the >>>> phrase "to make available" uses "make" with the meaning of "to >>>> cause >>>> to become" [AHD]. You cannot, by definition, "make[] available to >>>> [your] partner extraneous information..." if that information was >>>> already available to your partner prior to your action. AHD (The >>>> American Heritage Dictionary) uses the phrase "to make public" >>>> as an >>>> example of this grammatical construction. > > In the introduction to L16, extraneous information refers to > knowledge that > comes to a player through means other than legal calls or plays or > mannerisms of an opponent. The content of the inforrmation is > immaterial. It > is the mode by which the information is given that determines > whether or not > information is extraneous. If we maintain this definition of > "extraneous" > through our reading of 16A, it becomes simple. The information > contained in > the UI does not determine whether or not it is "extraneous", nor > does our a > priori knowledge of whatever partner may have communicated matter > either. We > have received an illegal communication, and cannot take an action > that was > demonstrably suggested by that communication if there exists a LA > that was > not demonstrably suggested by the communication, even if we > received the > exact same information through legal means. > >> It's a great deal easier to notice something (like some bit of AI) if >> you have been "primed" in advance (as by UI from partner) to be on >> the lookout for it. Easier enough, IMO, to justify a logical >> presumption that you might not otherwise have done so (unless it >> would have been irrational not to!?). > > I'll repeat my previous question: > > The auction proceeds as discussed, but with no hesitations. I work > out from > AI that partner must have a good hand with a singleton spade for > his pass. > Partner now says, out loud, "I have a singleton spade". Forgetting the > disciplinary and procedural penalties for the moment, does L16A > still apply > if I have worked it out that he must have the singleton spade from > AI (and > have an argument so strong that even the most skeptical of AC's > will accept > that I knew about the stiff prior to the statement)? > > Partner has made UI available to me by his statement, and I remain > constrained by L16A even though I already knew what was going on (and > haven't got the faintest clue why he would tell me in that manner, > or what > he wants me to do after his statement). I think it's that simple. > Or do you > think that I'm now free to act as though partner had never spoken, > since > there was no new content in his message? Given the parenthetical statement in Hirsch's penultimate paragraph, I would rule that you are free to act. In Hirsch's terms, it is not "knowledge that [came] to [you] through means other than legal calls or plays...". In L16 terms, it was not information that "a player [made] available to his partner", as we have stipulated that "his partner" was already aware of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 30 17:45:13 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:45:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c7eb1c$c17cc620$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .......... > > Partner has made UI available to me by his statement, and I remain > > constrained by L16A even though I already knew what was going on (and > > haven't got the faintest clue why he would tell me in that manner, > > or what > > he wants me to do after his statement). I think it's that simple. > > Or do you > > think that I'm now free to act as though partner had never spoken, > > since > > there was no new content in his message? > > Given the parenthetical statement in Hirsch's penultimate paragraph, > I would rule that you are free to act. In Hirsch's terms, it is not > "knowledge that [came] to [you] through means other than legal calls > or plays...". In L16 terms, it was not information that "a player > [made] available to his partner", as we have stipulated that "his > partner" was already aware of it. This is not the correct approach. You must begin with the fact that a player has received extraneous information from his partner. This information may or may not be something already legally known to him, that is in itself unimportant. The important question is whether or not that player from information legally known to him still has more than one option for his choice of action. If not then the extraneous information received cannot possibly suggest one alternative over another alternative simply because there are no other alternatives. If yes and the extraneous information demonstrably suggest one alternative over another among those alternatives that is available to him then he is still restrained by Law 16 in his choice of action. The reason for this is that in that case the legal information he already has is obviously not sufficient to exclude other alternatives. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 30 17:53:56 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:53:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: <200708291731.KAA15496@mailhub.irvine.com><001d01c7ea92$29ff23e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <001a01c7eb1d$f8ce0a20$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? > On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > snip > > Given the parenthetical statement in Hirsch's penultimate paragraph, > I would rule that you are free to act. In Hirsch's terms, it is not > "knowledge that [came] to [you] through means other than legal calls > or plays...". In L16 terms, it was not information that "a player > [made] available to his partner", as we have stipulated that "his > partner" was already aware of it. IMO the hesitation conveys no information extraneous (ie over and above) to that which I legally have. Hence I am unconstrained. Whether I protect or not is now not dependent on extraneous information, but on authorised information, and whether I bid or not is irrelevant. In my partnerships partner wouldn't dare raise my 2S call, since our agreements are that partner will protect your weak NT hand, so don't bid it. For that reason I would usually bid 2S, knowing I won't get crucified. Many partnerships don't have such agreements and for them pass is a more likely action, but when Sancho and I devised the quiz we were both entirely clear in our own minds that all actions were permitted. John > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 30 17:56:57 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:56:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: <000601c7eb1c$c17cc620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001f01c7eb1e$65207280$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > .......... >> > Partner has made UI available to me by his statement, and I remain >> > constrained by L16A even though I already knew what was going on (and >> > haven't got the faintest clue why he would tell me in that manner, >> > or what >> > he wants me to do after his statement). I think it's that simple. >> > Or do you >> > think that I'm now free to act as though partner had never spoken, >> > since >> > there was no new content in his message? >> >> Given the parenthetical statement in Hirsch's penultimate paragraph, >> I would rule that you are free to act. In Hirsch's terms, it is not >> "knowledge that [came] to [you] through means other than legal calls >> or plays...". In L16 terms, it was not information that "a player >> [made] available to his partner", as we have stipulated that "his >> partner" was already aware of it. > > This is not the correct approach. > > You must begin with the fact that a player has received extraneous > information from his partner. This information may or may not be something > already legally known to him, that is in itself unimportant. > > The important question is whether or not that player from information > legally known to him still has more than one option for his choice of > action. > > If not then the extraneous information received cannot possibly suggest > one > alternative over another alternative simply because there are no other > alternatives. > > If yes and the extraneous information demonstrably suggest one alternative > over another among those alternatives that is available to him then he is > still restrained by Law 16 in his choice of action. > > The reason for this is that in that case the legal information he already > has is obviously not sufficient to exclude other alternatives. I think i agree with you Sven, my case is that there is no extraneaous information in the UI. I wouldn't allow a 6 count protection for example. You now NEED partner to be maximum. in the 2-count case, you don't. John > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Aug 30 19:37:55 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:37:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP Message-ID: <46D70073.4080407@aol.com> Hola blml! If the player says he worked this out with AI and didn't need the UI; is this enough? Do you simply believe him? If you do you direct in different games than I. In my experience players usually (at least it is not always) say they were uninfluenced by the UI since they had worked it out through AI. This includes players who don't even count trumps. Ciao, JE From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Aug 30 20:51:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <000601c7eb1c$c17cc620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: I'm not sure I understand all this. In order for UI to *demonstrably* suggest anything there must be a difference between the UI and the AI. Generally speaking once we have taken AI into consideration we arrive at a position like "the options are X and Y and while X is riskier the upsides are greater". If the UI doesn't *alter* the risk/reward ratio of X vs Y it cannot be said to demonstrably suggest either one. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 30 22:37:56 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:37:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <000601c7eb1c$c17cc620$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c7eb1c$c17cc620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <53177BDE-3A25-4DF9-8D85-4EA5026F3C5C@starpower.net> On Aug 30, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> >> Given the parenthetical statement in Hirsch's penultimate paragraph, >> I would rule that you are free to act. In Hirsch's terms, it is not >> "knowledge that [came] to [you] through means other than legal calls >> or plays...". In L16 terms, it was not information that "a player >> [made] available to his partner", as we have stipulated that "his >> partner" was already aware of it. > > This is not the correct approach. > > You must begin with the fact that a player has received extraneous > information from his partner. This information may or may not be > something > already legally known to him, that is in itself unimportant. > > The important question is whether or not that player from information > legally known to him still has more than one option for his choice of > action. > > If not then the extraneous information received cannot possibly > suggest one > alternative over another alternative simply because there are no other > alternatives. > > If yes and the extraneous information demonstrably suggest one > alternative > over another among those alternatives that is available to him then > he is > still restrained by Law 16 in his choice of action. > > The reason for this is that in that case the legal information he > already > has is obviously not sufficient to exclude other alternatives. I don't see where Sven's argument contradicts what I wrote. In Hirsch's original scenario, he stipulated that "even the most skeptical of AC's will accept" that partner's action added no information to that which the player already possessed. Obviously, if the previously known AI left alternative choices of action, and the EI from partner demonstrably suggested one/some of those over others, we have left Hirsch's scenario, and L16A applies with full force, as it does any time the EI adds any new information or suggestion of any kind whatsoever. But as L16A applies only "after a player makes available to his partner extraneous information", I should think that "the important question" is whether or not he has done so, thus we "must begin" not by asking whether EI has been "received", as Sven suggests, but rather whether it has been "made available". Admittedly, my interpretation depends heavily on the lawmakers' use of the specific phrase "makes available" rather than a more general verb such as "communicates", "discloses", "imparts" or the like. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 23:17:42 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:17:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004b01c7e97e$1491a970$49a287d9@Hellen> References: <2b1e598b0708271048w1438a864y47be14a0d058e231@mail.gmail.com> <004b01c7e97e$1491a970$49a287d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0708301417p125dab2eg5a067b071e69495a@mail.gmail.com> On 8/28/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > +=+ The opinion of the current drafting subcommittee is that > 'but' introduces an exception to what has gone immediately > before. 'But see' directs attention to the place in the laws > where the exception is detailed. In specified circumstances > what follows 'but' overrides what has gone just before. This > is considered to be the dictionary meaning of 'but' and explicit, > thus - for the majority of the subcommittee - in no need of > further calarification. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Does that apply even when "but see" is inside parentheses, thereby rendered "less basic" as you said earlier? A little more precision may help. I was thinking of law Y of the form "A implies B" and law X is "C implies D (but see law Y)" Based on what you just said, does that mean that law X is really "C and not A implies D"? You earlier wrote this: >>>>+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can >>>>be read omitting the parenthetical inlay. This is not new, it is >>>>Kaplanesque. >>>> ~ G ~ +=+ If you omit the parenthetical inlay, it changes the meaning, obviously. Apparently, you mean that "the basic law X is C implies D" but the real law covered by X is "C and not A implies D." Do I have it right? If so, it sounds kind of funny to me, because the thing you call the "basic law" is *not* the law, because it will mislead in the cases where A is true. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 30 23:32:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:32:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP In-Reply-To: <46D70073.4080407@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c7eb4d$47fa3ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Hola blml! If the player says he worked this out with AI and didn't > need the UI; is this enough? Do you simply believe him? If you do you > direct in different games than I. In my experience players usually (at > least it is not always) say they were uninfluenced by the UI since they > had worked it out through AI. This includes players who don't even > count trumps. Ciao, JE No, the player's own statement will be considered mainly "self serving" and needs corroboration from other facts. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 30 23:42:48 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:42:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c7eb4e$b58d9600$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > In order for UI to *demonstrably* suggest anything there must be a > difference between the UI and the AI. Generally speaking once we have > taken AI into consideration we arrive at a position like "the options are > X and Y and while X is riskier the upsides are greater". > > If the UI doesn't *alter* the risk/reward ratio of X vs Y it cannot be > said to demonstrably suggest either one. 1: Difference between the UI and the AI is in itself no justification for disregarding the UI. 2: Say that the "probabilities" without UI for selecting X is 60% and Y is 40% while after incorporating UI they are changed to 100% for X and 0% for Y. TD and AC will still need to judge whether this changed situation is enough to disallow a selection of X because of the UI. We will have to consider whether the 60% weight for X shall be sufficient or if the increased weight for X caused by the UI shall be considered significant so that X no longer shall be an acceptable alternative. 3: And finally you have formulated a correct statement: If the UI doesn't alter the risk/reward ratio it cannot be said to demonstrably suggest either one. I can agree with that Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Fri Aug 31 00:13:28 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:13:28 +0900 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP In-Reply-To: <000701c7eb4d$47fa3ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c7eb4d$47fa3ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200708302213.AA10362@geller204.nifty.com> It should further be noted that the particular player's thought process is irrelevent. See Law 16, http://bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Duplicate/General_Laws_Governing_Irregularities.htm#law16 which states: "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. " The key phrase being: "could have been". Thus the issue is not whether the actual player used the UI or not, but rather whether a generic player could have been influenced by the UI. -Bob Sven Pran ????????: >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> Hola blml! If the player says he worked this out with AI and didn't >> need the UI; is this enough? Do you simply believe him? If you do you >> direct in different games than I. In my experience players usually (at >> least it is not always) say they were uninfluenced by the UI since they >> had worked it out through AI. This includes players who don't even >> count trumps. Ciao, JE > >No, the player's own statement will be considered mainly "self serving" and >needs corroboration from other facts. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 31 00:59:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:59:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46D70073.4080407@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Hola blml! If the player says he worked this out with AI and didn't >need the UI; is this enough? Do you simply believe him? If you do >you direct in different games than I. In my experience players >usually (at least it is not always) say they were uninfluenced by >the UI since they had worked it out through AI. This includes >players who don't even count trumps. Ciao, JE Richard Hills: Yes, in my experience many players (and some directors) misinterpret the requirements of Law 73C, thinking that after UI from partner it is sufficient for a player to make the call (or play) that they always intended to make. Those players (and directors) fail to realise that Law 73F applies to Law 73C, and Law 73F contains a cross-reference to Law 16, which therefore implies that the Law 73C "carefully avoid taking any advantage" has a one-to-one correspondence with the Law 16A "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested". So if: (a) AI suggests that there are a number of logical alternatives, and (b) AI suggests that one particular logical alternative will best fit a player's style, and (c) UI demonstrably suggests that that stylish logical alternative will be more successful than the other logical alternatives, then that player must select a non-stylish logical alternative. 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 Fri Aug 31 01:05:29 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:05:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <53177BDE-3A25-4DF9-8D85-4EA5026F3C5C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c7eb5a$427d2430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> Given the parenthetical statement in Hirsch's penultimate paragraph, > >> I would rule that you are free to act. In Hirsch's terms, it is not > >> "knowledge that [came] to [you] through means other than legal calls > >> or plays...". In L16 terms, it was not information that "a player > >> [made] available to his partner", as we have stipulated that "his > >> partner" was already aware of it. > > > > This is not the correct approach. > > > > You must begin with the fact that a player has received extraneous > > information from his partner. This information may or may not be > > something > > already legally known to him, that is in itself unimportant. > > > > The important question is whether or not that player from information > > legally known to him still has more than one option for his choice of > > action. > > > > If not then the extraneous information received cannot possibly > > suggest one > > alternative over another alternative simply because there are no other > > alternatives. > > > > If yes and the extraneous information demonstrably suggest one > > alternative > > over another among those alternatives that is available to him then > > he is > > still restrained by Law 16 in his choice of action. > > > > The reason for this is that in that case the legal information he > > already > > has is obviously not sufficient to exclude other alternatives. > > I don't see where Sven's argument contradicts what I wrote. In > Hirsch's original scenario, he stipulated that "even the most > skeptical of AC's will accept" that partner's action added no > information to that which the player already possessed. Obviously, > if the previously known AI left alternative choices of action, and > the EI from partner demonstrably suggested one/some of those over > others, we have left Hirsch's scenario, and L16A applies with full > force, as it does any time the EI adds any new information or > suggestion of any kind whatsoever. But as L16A applies only "after a > player makes available to his partner extraneous information", I > should think that "the important question" is whether or not he has > done so, thus we "must begin" not by asking whether EI has been > "received", as Sven suggests, but rather whether it has been "made > available". Admittedly, my interpretation depends heavily on the > lawmakers' use of the specific phrase "makes available" rather than a > more general verb such as "communicates", "discloses", "imparts" or > the like. I have a feeling that Eric and I may be using different words to express the same opinion. I reacted against a statement possibly to the effect that if the extraneous information was only something partner already knew then it could be disregarded as not suggesting anything. However I tried to express that even when the UI did not add any new information it could still corroborate the existing knowledge so that the alternative suggested by AI was "strengthened" by UI. In that situation the existence of UI cannot be disregarded. Law 16 is written in such a way that even when the action demonstrably suggested by UI would be the main choice absent that UI a player receiving such UI may still not choose that action over other alternative actions if there are any. Regards Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 31 03:02:56 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:02:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Alert and alarmed (was continued) In-Reply-To: <200708272213.l7RMDUX2018872@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708272213.l7RMDUX2018872@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46D768C0.7020506@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > For example, if the Ali-Hills partnership played > in an ACBL event, and if our uncontested auction > started 1H - 1NT, a simple Alert! of that 1NT > would be inadequate for our American friends. On the contrary, saying "alert" while showing the alert card or tapping the alert strip would be exactly right. > They would naturally expect our Alert! to be > because we played the Eastern Scientific forcing > for one round 1NT. The usual forcing NT is announced "forcing." If it's potentially stronge but not quite forcing, the correct announcement is (the oxymoronic) "semi-forcing." Under the prior rules (now at least a decade out of date), Richard's proper procedure would have been to say "special alert." Prior to that, "alert" would have sufficed, despite the possible confusion. The point is that SOs are empowered to make alert rules, and players should follow them. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 31 03:10:13 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:10:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy? In-Reply-To: <200708291734.l7THYBog015883@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708291734.l7THYBog015883@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46D76A75.8010700@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > The fact that he's playing in some other contract than the one he > thought he was, is UI! I'm no part of the "if Herman, then wrong" club. While I don't always agree with Herman, he nearly always has good reasons for his views (unlike some of his detractors). However, I can find no case at all for the quote above. I fail to see how the contract (or the legal auction or similar things) can ever be UI. Of course L16 is far from the only Law in TFLB. If a player learns an important fact through an illegal route, an adjustment is possible under L12A1. This will often have the same effect as using L16, but sometimes not. In such cases, it's important to use the right Law. It's even more important _not_ to adjust if a player learns an important fact, previously unknown to him, through a legal route. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 31 03:16:39 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:16:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <200708301523.l7UFNxDW018462@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708301523.l7UFNxDW018462@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46D76BF7.10001@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Hirsch Davis" > In the introduction to L16, extraneous information refers to knowledge that > comes to a player through means other than legal calls or plays or > mannerisms of an opponent. On closer look, I think you will find that "extraneous information" is undefined. The text _excludes_ legal calls and plays and mannerisms of opponents from EI, but it doesn't specifically _include_ anything. As I wrote in the previous message, L16 is not the only Law in TFLB. As I've written before, I think L16 would be improved if it stated that only information about unseen cards can ever be UI. However, you would be unwise to bet that the WBFLC will share my opinion. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Aug 31 07:50:29 2007 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:50:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? References: <200708301523.l7UFNxDW018462@cfa.harvard.edu> <46D76BF7.10001@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c7eb92$d6e47f00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> In the introduction to L16, extraneous information refers to knowledge >> that >> comes to a player through means other than legal calls or plays or >> mannerisms of an opponent. > > On closer look, I think you will find that "extraneous information" is > undefined. The text _excludes_ legal calls and plays and mannerisms of > opponents from EI, but it doesn't specifically _include_ anything. > > As I wrote in the previous message, L16 is not the only Law in TFLB. > > As I've written before, I think L16 would be improved if it stated that > only information about unseen cards can ever be UI. However, you would > be unwise to bet that the WBFLC will share my opinion. > The first sentence of the intro to L16 defines a set. Actually, the word "extraneous" appears to be redundant with the word "other" in the second sentence; however, it seems clear that the phrase "other extraneous" in the second sentence means something not belonging to the set defined in the first sentence. Also note that 16A refers only to extraneous information, not unauthorized information. That would make 16A senseless unless the meaning given to "extraneous" in the introduction were applied. A non-comprehensive set of examples of extraneous information is given in 16A for clarity. My guess is that the vagueness is deliberate. There are a finite and well-defined set of methods to deliver AI, but the means of delivering UI are multiple and not as easily categorized, and an attempt to define UI more explicitly than "anything not AI" is doomed to fail in strange and unexpected ways. With regard to improving L16 do you mean that as a defender, I should be allowed make a remark such as "look at that unsupported king of diamonds in Dummy, partner"? The phrase conveys information about cards that are fully visible, so by your definition it would become AI. I don't think so... Hirsch Davis