From henk at amsterdamned.org Sat Sep 1 01:01:00 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 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 Sat Sep 1 01:01:02 2007 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:01:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for August 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 87 hermandw (at) skynet.be 71 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 68 svenpran (at) online.no 44 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 39 ehaa (at) starpower.net 37 twm (at) cix.co.uk 24 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 21 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 20 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 17 mustikka (at) charter.net 17 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 14 john (at) asimere.com 14 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 14 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 11 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 10 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 10 henk (at) ripe.net 10 geller (at) nifty.com 8 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 8 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 8 adam (at) irvine.com 7 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 6 cibor (at) poczta.fm 5 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 4 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 4 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 3 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 3 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL 2 sater (at) xs4all.nl 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 blml (at) wrightnet.demon.co.uk 2 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 2 Gampas (at) aol.com 1 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 roger-eymard (at) wanadoo.fr 1 joanandron (at) worldnet.att.net 1 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 Martin.Sinot (at) Micronas.com From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 1 18:32:54 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:32:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP? In-Reply-To: <200708311446.l7VEkQcH005420@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708311446.l7VEkQcH005420@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46D99436.5050000@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Hirsch Davis" > The first sentence of the intro to L16 defines a set. If you like. In particular, it authorizes use of all information in that set. > it seems clear that the phrase "other extraneous" in the > second sentence means something not belonging to the set It doesn't say _all_, and it does say _may_. In other words, as regards information not in your set, look elsewhere in TFLB. > 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. This is a perfect example of my point. As you say, the information is AI, so look elsewhere. For this example, L73B1, L12A1, and L12C2 would be the ones to look at. The resulting score might or might not be the same as attempting to use L16. Of course if an effect of the remark is to convey something about the loudmouth's own hand, _that_ piece is covered by L16. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 1 18:46:07 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:46:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... In-Reply-To: <200708201906.l7KJ6AN0016306@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708201906.l7KJ6AN0016306@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46D9974F.9000903@cfa.harvard.edu> > [Richard Hills] > 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. Richard was being facetious, but in case anyone missed the point, in the Maastricht case the error was _after_ the claim, when declarer illegally tried to "play it out." Claimers, both expert and otherwise, are protected from irrational errors, even though declarers do occasionally crash honors, pitch winners, revoke, or make other irrational plays. However, nothing protects claimers from irrational errors made _prior_ to the claim. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 1 18:56:01 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:56:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200708091438.l79EcTpO020036@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200708091438.l79EcTpO020036@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46D999A1.3020900@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > 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). One definition of "profession" (as opposed to "job" or "trade") is an occupation where the standards of conduct are set by the profession itself rather than the employer. Doctors, lawyers, and accountants, among others, fall into this category (as several prominent accounting companies have recently found, to their cost). It seems to me TD is a profession in this sense, but I don't suppose everyone will agree. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 3 11:56:00 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:56:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0708271048w1438a864y47be14a0d058e231@mail.gmail.com><004b01c7e97e$1491a970$49a287d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0708301417p125dab2eg5a067b071e69495a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007101c7ee10$c0763c10$d79d87d9@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: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 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? > +=+ Yes. It indicates an exception to the basic position. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 3 06:14:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:14:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46D2C65C.2070802@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>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. Alain Gottcheiner: >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 Copernicus's heliocentric >theory, in the sense that ... they lead to the same results. Richard Hills: One reason that it took so long for the Copernican theory to displace the Ptolemaic geocentric theory was that Ptolemy's epicycles gave more accurate predictions of planetary movements than Copernicus's heliocentric circular orbits. Only when Kepler refined Copernicus's initial theory, by postulating elliptical orbits, did the two world views provide identical predictions of the _movement_ of the planets. But Ptolemy's theory differed from Copernicus's theory on the _illumination_ of the planets. The fact that Venus (like the Moon) had phases - a fact that Galileo was able to discover thanks to the invention of the telescope - was inconsistent with Ptolemy's geocentric theory. Not to mention the discovery of the Galilean satellites. The fundamental point of Ptolemy's geocentric theory was that all celestial bodies orbited the Earth. But Galileo's telescopic observations demonstrably suggested that the Galilean satellites instead orbited Jupiter. Alain Gottcheiner: >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 Copernicus's theory is that it leads to >easier calculations. Richard Hills: Alain here is confusing Ptolemy's theory with Tycho's compromise theory. Tycho proposed that the Moon and the Sun orbited the Earth, and that the other planets orbited the Sun. The invention of the telescope, and the discovery of the phases of Venus, could not invalidate Tycho's relative change of reference point. But to get back to the thrust of my analogy, there is not merely a different reference point between the De Wael School and the so-called Majority School, so one cannot say that the De Wael School is analogous to Tycho's theory. Rather, there is a fundamental difference of philosophy and outcome, making the De Wael School analogous to the original Ptolemaic theory. The bedrock principle of the De Wael School is this: "Creating new UI is a greater evil. Creating new MI is a lesser evil. Therefore, in cases where you have to do one or the other, create new MI." While the bedrock principle of the Majority School is this: "Using UI is an evil. Creating new MI is an evil. These two principles can never clash, so what's the problem? By the way, it is permissible to create new UI as a necessary consequence of truthfully answering a Law 75C question." Parsing the Lawbook alone cannot prove which of the Majority School or the De Wael School is correct. But the analogy to Galileo's telescope is this WBF Code of Practice clause. 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. Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: >> ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player >>answers a question that the laws require him to answer. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Epper si muove 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 Sep 3 14:53:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:53:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DC03B3.8080700@skynet.be> [Analogies with Copernicus snipped] richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The bedrock principle of the De Wael School is this: > > "Creating new UI is a greater evil. Creating new MI is a > lesser evil. Therefore, in cases where you have to do one or > the other, create new MI." > Please add: In addition, in true DwS cases there is no "new" MI to be created. There is not even a choice between two evils! > While the bedrock principle of the Majority School is this: > > "Using UI is an evil. Creating new MI is an evil. These two > principles can never clash, so what's the problem? By the > way, it is permissible to create new UI as a necessary > consequence of truthfully answering a Law 75C question." > > Parsing the Lawbook alone cannot prove which of the Majority > School or the De Wael School is correct. Thank you. > But the analogy to > Galileo's telescope is this WBF Code of Practice clause. > > 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. > _Without Design_ It is my contention that a player who answers "truthfully", while he could easily "lie" (I even use your words, not mine) gives UI _with design_. In particular, the player knows he is breaking Law 75D2, and he decides (knowingly) to do so. Especially if he has thought this through, like any blml'er has. Other players may get away with this, but someone of Richard's stature knows he is breaking L75D2, and that he does so _with design_. I therefore do not acknowledge that this sentence of the CoP has any bearing on our discussion. > Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: > >>> ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player >>> answers a question that the laws require him to answer. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Epper si muove > I never said she did not. What is this logical phallacy called: Richard compares his point of view with Copernicus', and Herman's with Ptolemy's. Since Ptolemy has been proven wrong, Herman must be wrong as well. I think Richard has the older point of view, mine is the more novel one. Ergo, Mine is like Copernicus', ergo it must be true. Epper si muove! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Sep 4 00:24:47 2007 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:24:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 hands Message-ID: Hand 1 teams E/W vul, dealer south North S AQJxx H xxx D - C AQxxx South S xxx H Jxx D Axxx C KJx S W N E P 1D 1S dbl 2D** P 3C 3D 3S* P 4S all pass ** good raise to 2S's * Bit estimated at about 20 secs Result - 4S making E/W claimed the pause suggested bidding on. South when asked said he was considering doubling 3D's (-1 on the hand), decided his diamonds were too poor and that the opps most likely had 9 rather than 8 trumps. Even with the club support felt the 4333 shape not worth 4S's. North said he was always bidding game opposite a good raise and just bid out the shape looking for the magic fit for 6S (eg) S T9xx HAxx Dxxx C Kxx on a finesse thru opener or 7C/6S (eg) SKxx HAxx Dxxx CKxxx. North pointed out that had South a penalty double then given wasted values in diamonds pass would be more attractive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hand 2 Teams N E S W 2D* P 1H P** 2D P 2H P 2NT P 3NT All pass * benji style where 2D is stronger than 2C's showing a big hand 20+ ** accepted the 1H bid Is North allowed to bid 2D conventional at his 2nd turn ? South's 1H bid was a miss bid he meant to bid 2H's relay. Karel From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 4 01:05:29 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 19:05:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 hands In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8FC03BBF8F194C85A6BCAACA777086B0@erdos> "Karel" writes: > Hand 1 teams E/W vul, dealer south > > North > S AQJxx > H xxx > D - > C AQxxx > > > South > S xxx > H Jxx > D Axxx > C KJx > > S W N E > > P 1D 1S dbl > 2D** P 3C 3D > 3S* P 4S all pass > > ** good raise to 2S's > * Bit estimated at about 20 secs > > Result - 4S making > > E/W claimed the pause suggested bidding on. This particular pause doesn't demonstrably suggest anything, because the action taken has both weaker and stronger alternatives. South could have been considering passing, doubling, or bidding 4S. > North said he was always bidding game opposite a good raise and just > bid out the shape looking for the magic fit for 6S (eg) S T9xx HAxx > Dxxx C Kxx on a finesse thru opener or 7C/6S (eg) SKxx HAxx Dxxx > CKxxx. And I believe him. Passing 3S when you have a 5-loser hand is not a logical altenative. Thus, for both reasons, I rule that the table result stands. > Hand 2 Teams > > N E S W > 2D* P 1H P** > 2D P 2H P > 2NT P 3NT All pass > > * benji style where 2D is stronger than 2C's showing a big hand 20+ > > ** accepted the 1H bid > > Is North allowed to bid 2D conventional at his 2nd turn ? N/S aren't allowed to have any special conventional agreements after the insufficient bid, but as long as they don't have an agreement, they can certainly guess that 2D by N means that he wants S to make his proper response this time (as opposed to showing diamonds). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 4 01:49:57 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:49:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46DC03B3.8080700@immi.gov.au> 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. Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: >> ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player >>answers a question that the laws require him to answer. >> Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael: >_Without Design_ > >It is my contention that a player who answers >"truthfully", while he could easily "lie" (I even use >your words, not mine) gives UI _with design_. [snip] >I therefore do not acknowledge that this sentence of the >CoP has any bearing on our discussion. Richard Hills: Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? Who shall guard the guardians? Even Herman De Wael acknowledges that under WBF by-laws the WBF Laws Committee are the guardians who have the power to interpret the Lawbook. But this debate is now bogging down into infinite regress. Herman is now arguing that he is the guardian of the WBF guardians, so Herman is now arguing that he has the power to reinterpret a WBF interpretation contrary to the intent of the authors of that WBF interpretation. :-) 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 Tue Sep 4 02:30:24 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 01:30:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 hands References: Message-ID: <003601c7ee8a$c8d70220$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "BLM" Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 11:24 PM Subject: [blml] 2 hands > Hand 1 teams E/W vul, dealer south > > North > S AQJxx > H xxx > D - > C AQxxx > snip > S W N E > > P 1D 1S dbl > 2D** P 3C 3D > 3S* P 4S all pass > > ** good raise to 2S's > * Bit estimated at about 20 secs > > Result - 4S making > > E/W claimed the pause suggested bidding on. ... and North has a 5 loser hand facing a sound raise... sheesh, pull the other one. He was thinking about 6 spades. > > South when asked said he was considering doubling 3D's (-1 on the > hand), decided his diamonds were too poor and that the opps most > likely had 9 rather than 8 trumps. Even with the club support felt > the 4333 shape not worth 4S's. > > North said he was always bidding game opposite a good raise and just > bid out the shape looking for the magic fit for 6S (eg) S T9xx HAxx > Dxxx C Kxx on a finesse thru opener or 7C/6S (eg) SKxx HAxx Dxxx > CKxxx. North pointed out that had South a penalty double then given > wasted values in diamonds pass would be more attractive. Quite so. Appeal without merit after "result stands" > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hand 2 Teams > > N E S W > 2D* P 1H P** > 2D P 2H P > 2NT P 3NT All pass > > * benji style where 2D is stronger than 2C's showing a big hand 20+ > > ** accepted the 1H bid > > Is North allowed to bid 2D conventional at his 2nd turn ? > > South's 1H bid was a miss bid he meant to bid 2H's relay. > wtp? North is known to have a near GF, so we don't even care what 2D means - it's obviously forcing. His 2N rebid suggests a 23 count with probably a doubleton heart, since the second heart bid by responder looks natural to me. Where's the infraction? John > > Karel > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 4 03:48:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:48:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46D43512.6070604@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 46A (Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card): "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **should** clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." Scope: " ... When a player 'should' do something ('a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement...'), his failure to do it is **an infraction of Law** ... " Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional): "A player **must not** infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." Scope: "The strongest word, 'must' ('before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards'), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. Note that 'may' becomes very strong in the negative: 'may not' is a stronger injunction than 'shall not', just short of 'must not'." Richard Hills: Ergo, parsing current Law shows that the routine intentional action of declarer partially designating a card is a serious "must not" violation which usually deserves a Law 90 Procedural Penalty or a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty. It seems to me that this is very inconsistent with current rulings and practice. It seems to me the problem is in the wording of Law 46A, which should instead read: Law 46A (Unambiguously Designating Dummy's Card): "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **may** clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." Scope: " ... When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something ('any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction'), the failure to do it is not wrong ... " 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 4 05:35:49 2007 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:35:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard hills writes: > Law 46A (Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card): > > "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **should** > clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." > > Scope: > > " ... When a player 'should' do something ('a claim should be > accompanied at once by a statement...'), his failure to do it is > **an infraction of Law** ... " > > Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional): > > "A player **must not** infringe a law intentionally, even if there > is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." > > Scope: > > "The strongest word, 'must' ('before making a call, he must > inspect the face of his cards'), indicates that violation is > regarded as serious. Note that 'may' becomes very strong in the > negative: 'may not' is a stronger injunction than 'shall not', > just short of 'must not'." > > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, parsing current Law shows that the routine intentional > action of declarer partially designating a card is a serious "must > not" violation which usually deserves a Law 90 Procedural Penalty > or a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty. > > It seems to me that this is very inconsistent with current rulings > and practice. This is a matter of context. Intentionally violating a Law with a penalty imposed is a serious violation, whether done out of spite or in an attempt to gain a competitive edge. But the seriousness of violating a Law depends on the seriousness of the wording of the Law being violated, and the context. Another example of a "should" law that is often violated is the claim statement. When declarer claims, he "should" state a line of play, but if he just faces his hand with all winners and the claim is obvious to all four players, there is normally no problem. (He does jeopardize his rights if there is a disputed claim; if he faces his hand and makes no mention of an outstanding trump, he will lose a trick if it can ruff anything.) Another example of a similar "should" is L16A2. If you have substantial reason to believe that an opponent has made a call which was suggested by UI, you should summon the TD at that time. If you do not, you may jeopardize your right to an adjusted score. But nobody would argue that you are required to call the TD every time a novice competes after a slow pass. And "should" is the correct wording for L46A as well. If declarer says "Spade six", there is no question that the S6 is played. If a spade was led by an opponent and he says "Six", he will not cause a problem because it is illegal for dummy to play any other six. But again, he may jeopardize his rights if there is a dispute; if he just won the HA in dummy and says "Six", he may be ruled to have led the H6. Even some "must"s aren't treated as serious violations. If partner misexplains or forgets to Alert one of my calls but damage appears unlikely, I will normally say, "There was a failure to Alert; 3D shows X. Please call the TD if you think there was a problem." That is a violation of L75D2, which says that I must call the TD, but a PP for failure to call the TD in this situation is unlikely. (I have only once even seen a PP for failure to correct the MI, and that was in a case in which there was damage; declarer did not correct a failure to Alert one of her own bids, and a defender misdefended as a result.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 4 05:50:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:50:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alert and alarmed (was continued) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46D768C0.7020506@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >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. Richard Hills: The point is that various systems of alert rules put in place by various National Bridge Organisations during various decades had (and have) various degrees of compliance with the "fully and freely available to the opponents" criterion of Law 75A. A question unanswered is whether the "possible confusion" caused by the 1970s version of the ACBL alert rules was sufficiently unfair to the opponents as to make the 1970s ACBL alert regulation illegally contrary to Law 75A. Jeff Rubens noted that ethical ACBL players of that time before the introduction of "special alert" went so far as to wear badges on their shirts giving prominent advice to their opponents of their special methods. On the other hand, in a Bridge World editorial a few years ago, Jeff Rubens' anecdotal impression was that more prominent nowadays were Secretary Bird ACBL players who attempted to exploit the loopholes in the ACBL alert regulation. In my personal opinion, the ACBL and the EBU have taken the wrong approach to Secretary Birds who exploit loopholes in their alert regulations. What they have done is create ever more detailed and complex rules in an attempt to plug every little individual hole in their alert regulations. In theory, the more details in a bidding system the better. But there comes a point of diminishing returns, when greater detail loses more imps and matchpoints than it gains, due to one partner or the other forgetting the methods and having a bidding disaster. Likewise, the death by detail approach taken by the ACBL and the EBU to their alert regulations has, in my opinion, reached the point of diminishing returns. Indeed the EBU implicitly admits that, by adopting a year-long semi-amnesty in its Orange Book. EBU Orange Book, clause 5A2: "Because this is the first major change in alerting for over fifteen years it is expected that players will take some time to adjust to the new rules. Thus for the first year players, TDs and Appeals Committees are expected to give latitude to players who err in the application of the new rules." 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 Sep 4 06:25:36 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 14:25:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46D9974F.9000903@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>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. Steve Willner: >Richard was being facetious, but in case anyone >missed the point, in the Maastricht case the >error was _after_ the claim, when declarer >illegally tried to "play it out." Claimers, both >expert and otherwise, are protected from >irrational errors, even though declarers do >occasionally crash honors, pitch winners, revoke, >or make other irrational plays. However, nothing >protects claimers from irrational errors made >_prior_ to the claim. Richard Hills: True, I was being facetious, but only because the Maastricht precedent is laughable, a classic case of the law being an ass. For most people it is normal, not irrational, to mistime a double squeeze. To determine whether the Maastricht declarer was part of the "most people" majority, I would argue that the mistimed play which occurred after the claim provided exquisitely sufficient evidence of declarer's "most people" status. 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 Sep 4 07:15:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:15:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] >Even some "must"s aren't treated as serious violations. If partner >misexplains or forgets to Alert one of my calls but damage appears >unlikely, I will normally say, "There was a failure to Alert; 3D >shows X. Please call the TD if you think there was a problem." That >is a violation of L75D2, which says that I must call the TD, but a PP >for failure to call the TD in this situation is unlikely. Richard Hills: If David Grabiner was the putative declarer or putative dummy issuing this home-grown Law 75D2 ruling after the auction, but before the selection of the opening lead, and if I was the TD, then a PP from me for David's Law 9B1(a) infraction would not be likely, but be certain. :-) While David's opponents may not discover until the end of the deal whether or not the misinformation caused damage, the opponent last to pass has the right to reconsider that pass in the light of the correct information, pursuant to Law 21B1, and David has failed to inform that opponent of their Law 21B1 option. Tsk, tsk. Although in my misspent youth as a Secretary Bird I made the identical mistake, since the cross-reference to Law 21 is in Law 75D1, but not in Law 75D2. :-) 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 Tue Sep 4 02:06:14 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:14 EDT Subject: [blml] 2 hands Message-ID: The most recent version uses the phrase "demonstrably suggested over alternative actions" by the hesitation, or similar. Here it is clear that partner was thinking about bidding something other than Three Spades. That could have been Pass (presumably encouraging as 3C was forcing to 3S), 3H which may or may not have been some sort of last train, Double which presumably would have been penalties, and the bid he made, Three Spades. If the 2D bid, as stated, is simply a constructive raise to 2S, rather than an unlimited UCB style 3-card raise, then I think Pass is a logical alternative (partner could have say xxx Kxx KQx 10xxx when game is poor). But the slow 3S does not suggest one particular hand type over another, therefore I would allow the 4S bid as it is not "demonstrably" suggested over the LA which is Pass. I agree with _grabiner at alum_ (mailto:grabiner at alum) ... regarding the second hand. Any method of continuing the auction is permitted, but agreements over insufficient bids are not. So they can conclude whatever they think is most likely. I wonder if anyone knows what happens if a bid is inadvertent (for example a mechanical error) and insufficient but condoned by the next hand passing. Does law 25A or law 27A take precedence? Logic suggests the former, as a pair may prefer to have a normal auction rather than one with an extra round of bidding space where they are guessing what the meanings of bids are. What would 1NT - 1C - 1NT mean, for example!? Paul L -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070903/bd5a1c03/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 4 02:09:29 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:09:29 EDT Subject: [blml] 2 hands Message-ID: The most recent version uses the phrase "demonstrably suggested over alternative actions" by the hesitation, or similar. Here it is clear that partner was thinking about bidding something other than Three Spades. That could have been Pass (presumably encouraging as 3C was forcing to 3S), 3H which may or may not have been some sort of last train, Double which presumably would have been penalties, and the bid he made, Three Spades. If the 2D bid, as stated, is simply a constructive raise to 2S, rather than an unlimited UCB style 3-card raise, then I think Pass is a logical alternative (partner could have say xxx Kxx KQx 10xxx when game is poor). But the slow 3S does not suggest one particular hand type over another, therefore I would allow the 4S bid as it is not "demonstrably" suggested over the LA which is Pass. I agree with _grabiner at alum_ (mailto:grabiner at alum) ... regarding the second hand. Any method of continuing the auction is permitted, but agreements over insufficient bids are not. So they can conclude whatever they think is most likely. I wonder if anyone knows what happens if a bid is inadvertent (for example a mechanical error) and insufficient but condoned by the next hand passing. Does law 25A or law 27A take precedence? Logic suggests the former, as a pair may prefer to have a normal auction rather than one with an extra round of bidding space where they are guessing what the meanings of bids are. What would 1NT - 1C - 1NT mean, for example!? Paul L -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070903/97189e9a/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 4 09:15:54 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:15:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DD062A.8020905@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> 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. > > Steve Willner: > >> Richard was being facetious, but in case anyone >> missed the point, in the Maastricht case the >> error was _after_ the claim, when declarer >> illegally tried to "play it out." Claimers, both >> expert and otherwise, are protected from >> irrational errors, even though declarers do >> occasionally crash honors, pitch winners, revoke, >> or make other irrational plays. However, nothing >> protects claimers from irrational errors made >> _prior_ to the claim. > > Richard Hills: > > True, I was being facetious, but only because the > Maastricht precedent is laughable, a classic case > of the law being an ass. > No, not the Law. > For most people it is normal, not irrational, to > mistime a double squeeze. To determine whether > the Maastricht declarer was part of the "most > people" majority, I would argue that the mistimed > play which occurred after the claim provided > exquisitely sufficient evidence of declarer's > "most people" status. > YOU consider it normal to mistime a double squeeze. The Maastricht AC considered it irrational for the player involved to mistime a double squeeze. That makes either YOU, or the MAC, asses. Not the Law. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 4 09:19:18 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:19:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DD06F6.9020800@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 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. > > Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: > >>> ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player >>> answers a question that the laws require him to answer. >>> Grattan ~ +=+ > > Herman De Wael: > >> _Without Design_ >> >> It is my contention that a player who answers >> "truthfully", while he could easily "lie" (I even use >> your words, not mine) gives UI _with design_. > > [snip] > >> I therefore do not acknowledge that this sentence of the >> CoP has any bearing on our discussion. > > Richard Hills: > > Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? > Who shall guard the guardians? > > Even Herman De Wael acknowledges that under WBF by-laws > the WBF Laws Committee are the guardians who have the > power to interpret the Lawbook. > > But this debate is now bogging down into infinite regress. > > Herman is now arguing that he is the guardian of the WBF > guardians, so Herman is now arguing that he has the power > to reinterpret a WBF interpretation contrary to the intent > of the authors of that WBF interpretation. > > :-) > Of course, we all know that it is the Australian Immigration Authority that has the sole knowledge of WHAT the intent of the authors of a WBF interpretation is. Again, Richard is using one of his favourite logical phallacies: make the opponent look foolish to hide that you're not really saying anything. If my interpretation of the words "without design" is wrong, why are the words there in the first place then? Please listen to my arguments, Richard, and react to them if you see fit, but don't try and make me look ridiculous. it might backfire. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 4 09:24:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:24:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DD0816.3010809@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 46A (Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card): > > "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **should** > clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." > > Scope: > > " ... When a player 'should' do something ('a claim should be > accompanied at once by a statement...'), his failure to do it is > **an infraction of Law** ... " > please continue the citation: ".. which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom". > Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional): > > "A player **must not** infringe a law intentionally, even if there > is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." > > Scope: > > "The strongest word, 'must' ('before making a call, he must > inspect the face of his cards'), indicates that violation is > regarded as serious. Note that 'may' becomes very strong in the > negative: 'may not' is a stronger injunction than 'shall not', > just short of 'must not'." > > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, parsing current Law shows that the routine intentional > action of declarer partially designating a card is a serious "must > not" violation which usually deserves a Law 90 Procedural Penalty > or a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty. > which is contrary to the literal statement in the score regarding the use of "shall". > It seems to me that this is very inconsistent with current rulings > and practice. It seems to me the problem is in the wording of Law > 46A, which should instead read: > > Law 46A (Unambiguously Designating Dummy's Card): > > "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **may** > clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." > > Scope: > > " ... When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something ('any > player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction'), > the failure to do it is not wrong ... " > which is clearly not what the writers wanted - since they wrote a full law describing what to do if the player did not clearly name. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 4 09:50:16 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:50:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c7eec8$3c149440$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Law 46A (Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card): > > "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **should** > clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." > > Scope: > > " ... When a player 'should' do something ('a claim should be > accompanied at once by a statement...'), his failure to do it is > **an infraction of Law** ... " Incomplete quotes can lead to the strangest results: >From Scope: When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. So failure to comply strictly with Law 46A will seldom (if ever) incur a procedural penalty. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 4 09:57:41 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:57:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2 hands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c7eec9$454363b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com I wonder if anyone knows what happens if a bid is inadvertent (for example a mechanical error) and insufficient but condoned by the next hand passing. Does law 25A or law 27A take precedence? Logic suggests the former, as a pair may prefer to have a normal auction rather than one with an extra round of bidding space where they are guessing what the meanings of bids are. What would 1NT - 1C - 1NT mean, for example!? ? Sven comments: An inadvertent bid (accepted by the Director as inadvertent when ruling at the table) can never be "accepted" by LHO. Law 25A takes precedence and the inadvertent bid "has never occurred". Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Sep 4 11:08:25 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:08:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c7eec8$3c149440$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c7eec8$3c149440$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46DD2089.7000303@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Law 46A (Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card): >> >> "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **should** >> clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." >> >> Scope: >> >> " ... When a player 'should' do something ('a claim should be >> accompanied at once by a statement...'), his failure to do it is >> **an infraction of Law** ... " > > Incomplete quotes can lead to the strangest results: > >>From Scope: > When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once > by a statement."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will > jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. > > So failure to comply strictly with Law 46A will seldom (if ever) incur a > procedural penalty. only when it is deliberate, you mean? jpr > > Regards Sven > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 4 13:08:53 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:08:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46DD2089.7000303@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <001d01c7eee3$faebc210$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort ........... > >>From Scope: > > When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at > once > > by a statement."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which > will > > jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. > > > > So failure to comply strictly with Law 46A will seldom (if ever) incur a > > procedural penalty. > > only when it is deliberate, you mean? Yes, if it is deliberate in a "malicious" way. I would for instance never dream of considering the use of "trump" instead of the actual name of the trump suit or the word "ruff" as a call for a small trump to be a violation of Law 46A although technically it sure is a violation and even a deliberate violation of this law. If I tried any kind of reaction in such cases I would certainly and immediately be out of engagements as Tournament Director, at least here in Norway. (I don't know about Belgium.) Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 4 13:18:11 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:18:11 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__2_hands?= References: Message-ID: <46DD3EF1.000004.18829@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Karel Date : 04/09/2007 00:25:03 A : BLM Sujet : [blml] 2 hands Hand 1 teams E/W vul, dealer south North S AQJxx H xxx D - C AQxxx South S xxx H Jxx D Axxx C KJx S W N E P 1D 1S dbl 2D** P 3C 3D 3S* P 4S all pass ** good raise to 2S's * Bit estimated at about 20 secs Result - 4S making E/W claimed the pause suggested bidding on. > South when asked said he was considering doubling 3D's (-1 on the hand), decided his diamonds were too poor and that the opps most likely had 9 rather than 8 trumps. Even with the club support felt the 4333 shape not worth 4S's. North said he was always bidding game opposite a good raise and just bid out the shape looking for the magic fit AG : agree 100% with North : as a friend of mine says : "55 hands that fetch a raise are quick-running beasts indeed". Perhaps South's 3S was a slight underbid, perhaps he thought about 3S, double AND 4S, perhaps he asked himself whether a pass would be encouraging (it would, according to commitment theories, and would be the right call IMHO), but anyway North has an obvious 4S bid (even 4C would have been possible). Game is reasonable facing "wrong" minimum hands like xxxx - Kx - Kxxx - Jxx. The important part here is that bidding up to 4S is a consequence of South's 2D bid alone. Hand 2 Teams N E S W 2D* P 1H P** 2D P 2H P 2NT P 3NT All pass * benji style where 2D is stronger than 2C's showing a big hand 20+ ** accepted the 1H bid Is North allowed to bid 2D conventional at his 2nd turn ? South's 1H bid was a miss bid he meant to bid 2H's relay. AG : strange South didn't ask for a change of bid under L25A. I don't see any rule that disallows North to act in a conventional manner. Disallowance of conventions over incorrections applies to the NOS ; and even so it's only "new conventions", e.g. you may une negative doubles of insufficient bids if you use them at all. NS are lucky to understand eachother in such a situation. I would have understood 2D as natural (well, perhaps it was ; what's the hand ?) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070904/b5d00068/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/20070904/b5d00068/attachment-0002.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/20070904/b5d00068/attachment-0002.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 4 13:18:11 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:18:11 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__2_hands?= References: Message-ID: <46DD3EF1.000004.18829@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Karel Date : 04/09/2007 00:25:03 A : BLM Sujet : [blml] 2 hands Hand 1 teams E/W vul, dealer south North S AQJxx H xxx D - C AQxxx South S xxx H Jxx D Axxx C KJx S W N E P 1D 1S dbl 2D** P 3C 3D 3S* P 4S all pass ** good raise to 2S's * Bit estimated at about 20 secs Result - 4S making E/W claimed the pause suggested bidding on. > South when asked said he was considering doubling 3D's (-1 on the hand), decided his diamonds were too poor and that the opps most likely had 9 rather than 8 trumps. Even with the club support felt the 4333 shape not worth 4S's. North said he was always bidding game opposite a good raise and just bid out the shape looking for the magic fit AG : agree 100% with North : as a friend of mine says : "55 hands that fetch a raise are quick-running beasts indeed". Perhaps South's 3S was a slight underbid, perhaps he thought about 3S, double AND 4S, perhaps he asked himself whether a pass would be encouraging (it would, according to commitment theories, and would be the right call IMHO), but anyway North has an obvious 4S bid (even 4C would have been possible). Game is reasonable facing "wrong" minimum hands like xxxx - Kx - Kxxx - Jxx. The important part here is that bidding up to 4S is a consequence of South's 2D bid alone. Hand 2 Teams N E S W 2D* P 1H P** 2D P 2H P 2NT P 3NT All pass * benji style where 2D is stronger than 2C's showing a big hand 20+ ** accepted the 1H bid Is North allowed to bid 2D conventional at his 2nd turn ? South's 1H bid was a miss bid he meant to bid 2H's relay. AG : strange South didn't ask for a change of bid under L25A. I don't see any rule that disallows North to act in a conventional manner. Disallowance of conventions over incorrections applies to the NOS ; and even so it's only "new conventions", e.g. you may une negative doubles of insufficient bids if you use them at all. NS are lucky to understand eachother in such a situation. I would have understood 2D as natural (well, perhaps it was ; what's the hand ?) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070904/b5d00068/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/20070904/b5d00068/attachment-0003.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/20070904/b5d00068/attachment-0003.gif From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 14:20:04 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 08:20:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... Message-ID: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> The following was posted on the BBO forums: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=21014&st=0 "Some years ago, the national appeal committee created the legal practice that if someone makes a natural 3C jump overcall and his p alerts and explains it as "Ghestem" (or vise versa) it is always treated as misinformation rather than misbid, in other words, even if there is evidence that it is in fact a misbid, it is an infraction. This practice has, in the meantime, been extended to other frequently abused conventions such as Landy and DONT, and the position of the AC seems to be that misbids related to conventions are always infractions, at least in the first round. In IMP (Dutch bridge magazine for advanced players), Onno Eskes has several times argued strongly against this practice. In the Aug/Sept issue of the magazine, Roald Ramer defends the position of the AC, while Hans van Staveren (until recently member of the Dutch law committee), Ton Kooijman (chairman of the WBF law committee) as well as the Belgian bridge law expert Herman de Wael attack the AC's position vigorously. Hans van Staveren wants to mobilize Dutch TDs to action against the AC and mentioned (in a talk with Grattan Endicot at the open Europeans in Antalya) the possibility of TD strike (!). In the september issue of the BF magazine "Bridge", Berry Westra defends the AC's position. He argues that the right to misbid is from a time when psyches were common while conventions were not. He thinks that there is a need to protect the game against the growing convention madness ("steeds verder oprukkende conventiegekte"). The board of directors of the BF has announced that until further notice, the AC must follow the laws, but Netherlands will try to get the laws modified at the WBF meeting in 2017 (when the laws are to be updated) so that misbids become infractions." I was curious whether anyone might be willing to comment on this posting (either here or on BBO). From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 4 14:36:40 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:36:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001d01c7eee3$faebc210$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001d01c7eee3$faebc210$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46DD5158.4090301@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > ........... >>> >From Scope: >>> When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at >> once >>> by a statement."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which >> will >>> jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. >>> >>> So failure to comply strictly with Law 46A will seldom (if ever) incur a >>> procedural penalty. >> only when it is deliberate, you mean? > > Yes, if it is deliberate in a "malicious" way. > > I would for instance never dream of considering the use of "trump" instead > of the actual name of the trump suit or the word "ruff" as a call for a > small trump to be a violation of Law 46A although technically it sure is a > violation and even a deliberate violation of this law. > > If I tried any kind of reaction in such cases I would certainly and > immediately be out of engagements as Tournament Director, at least here in > Norway. (I don't know about Belgium.) > WHY is that deemed necessary, Sven? I was not involved in this thread at all. This just goes to show that some readers have it in for me. And, just for the record, no-one in Belgium would dream of giving PP's for saying 'ruff' in stead of "five of spades, please". > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 4 14:45:16 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:45:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46DD535C.4040701@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > The following was posted on the BBO forums: > > http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=21014&st=0 > > "Some years ago, the national appeal committee created the legal > practice that if someone makes a natural 3C jump overcall and his p > alerts and explains it as "Ghestem" (or vise versa) it is always > treated as misinformation rather than misbid, in other words, even if > there is evidence that it is in fact a misbid, it is an infraction. > This practice has, in the meantime, been extended to other frequently > abused conventions such as Landy and DONT, and the position of the AC > seems to be that misbids related to conventions are always > infractions, at least in the first round. In IMP (Dutch bridge > magazine for advanced players), Onno Eskes has several times argued > strongly against this practice. In the Aug/Sept issue of the magazine, > Roald Ramer defends the position of the AC, while Hans van Staveren > (until recently member of the Dutch law committee), Ton Kooijman > (chairman of the WBF law committee) as well as the Belgian bridge law > expert Herman de Wael attack the AC's position vigorously. Hans van > Staveren wants to mobilize Dutch TDs to action against the AC and > mentioned (in a talk with Grattan Endicot at the open Europeans in > Antalya) the possibility of TD strike (!). > > In the september issue of the BF magazine "Bridge", Berry Westra > defends the AC's position. He argues that the right to misbid is from > a time when psyches were common while conventions were not. He thinks > that there is a need to protect the game against the growing > convention madness ("steeds verder oprukkende conventiegekte"). > I can agree with one part of this - if a pair fail to have a correct "control" over their system, the opponents should be told about it ("systemically, that shows XX, but we've just started playing this and partner migh mistakenly think it's still ZZ"). I cannot agree with the way this was handled in the case that sparked the controversy. In that case, a player from a high-level team, in a fixed partnership, made a misbid. This was behind screens, and even before the tray returned, he told his screen-mate both the correct information and the fact that he had misbid. He was East or West, so his screen-mate North or South never received any misinformation. And still the TD and AC ruled against this player, based on the dutch precedent that a misbid is always misinformation. I can well understand that not all the dutch are very happy with that interpretation. > The board of directors of the BF has announced that until further > notice, the AC must follow the laws, but Netherlands will try to get > the laws modified at the WBF meeting in 2017 (when the laws are to be > updated) so that misbids become infractions." > > I was curious whether anyone might be willing to comment on this > posting (either here or on BBO). > I think it will prove very difficult to distinguish between misbids and judgment issues. If my NT is classed as 15-17, am I not allowed to open on 14? Am I not allowed to miscount? What if I decide to describe my NT range as 14-18? Am I not allowed to open 1S on 14 any more? Must I describe my methods so completely (and stick to it) that any computer can play the game? Sorry, but I do not believe this is feasible! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Sep 4 15:00:04 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:00:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... In-Reply-To: <46DD535C.4040701@skynet.be> References: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> <46DD535C.4040701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <015101c7eef3$864263f0$9f00000a@bridge.corp> Herman wrote: I cannot agree with the way this was handled in the case that sparked the controversy. In that case, a player from a high-level team, in a fixed partnership, made a misbid. This was behind screens, and even before the tray returned, he told his screen-mate both the correct information and the fact that he had misbid. He was East or West, so his screen-mate North or South never received any misinformation. And still the TD and AC ruled against this player, based on the dutch precedent that a misbid is always misinformation. ===== I reply: The TD did not rule against the player. The TD investigated, found out that all information supplied was according to system, and let the table result stand. The other side, knowing the tendencies of the Dutch AC, went into appeal and found a very sympathetic ear. As Herman knows, and as stated in the article, I am currently a Don Quichot like figure in the Netherlands. I resigned from my official position just to be able to shout at everybody until they stop this nonsense. In particular it is my position that the Dutch Bridge Federation should have fired the AC. Any AC that knowingly rules against the laws of bridge should go. Hans van Staveren From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 4 15:22:37 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:22:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... In-Reply-To: <46DD535C.4040701@skynet.be> References: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070904151759.02143c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:45 4/09/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I think it will prove very difficult to distinguish between misbids >and judgment issues. If my NT is classed as 15-17, am I not allowed to >open on 14? Am I not allowed to miscount? I'd like to add to those important questions : - am I liable to penalties if I stick a Diamond between the Hearts ? (I might as well stop playing) - am I liable to penalties if I don't see an Ace ? - and above all, am I liable to penalties if I decide to make a tactical bid ? When I hold 5314 pattern, and answer 2S to a Multi 2D (the systemic bid being 3H, of course), in the hope of inducing them into playing in spades ? To cut it short, we risk the same parano?d thinking as exists nowadays about psyches. No doubt they won't believe me in the case above, pretend I made a misbid and tought I was showing spades, and penalize me. I don't like this at all. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 4 15:16:36 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:16:36 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Misbids=2C_infractions=2C_and?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_Wolffs=2C_oh_my=2E=2E=2E?= References: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46DD5AB2.000012.18829@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard willey Date : 04/09/2007 14:20:17 A : BLML Sujet : [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... > The board of directors of the BF has announced that until further notice, the AC must follow the laws, but Netherlands will try to get the laws modified at the WBF meeting in 2017 (when the laws are to be updated) so that misbids become infractions." > I was curious whether anyone might be willing to comment on this posting (either here or on BBO). AG : this is dangerous. Avoiding misbidding is part of the Darwinist process that makes some players win and other lose. What should be avoided at all costs is disruptive misbidding, and that's only a small part of misbids. In some cases, the result is "no effect" ; in some others, correction before the lead solves the problem ; in others, an adjusted score is easy to establish. I would welcome an item of CoP or local legislation which would say something like : "whenever a misbid creates a situation where the normal score and amount of damage can't be assessed, therefore perturbating the smoothness of the competition, a heavy PP will be inflicted and the pair will be disallowed to play that convention for a long time". Other misbids being treated in an unchanged way. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070904/34095a65/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/20070904/34095a65/attachment-0002.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/20070904/34095a65/attachment-0002.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 4 15:16:36 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:16:36 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Misbids=2C_infractions=2C_and?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_Wolffs=2C_oh_my=2E=2E=2E?= References: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46DD5AB2.000012.18829@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : richard willey Date : 04/09/2007 14:20:17 A : BLML Sujet : [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... > The board of directors of the BF has announced that until further notice, the AC must follow the laws, but Netherlands will try to get the laws modified at the WBF meeting in 2017 (when the laws are to be updated) so that misbids become infractions." > I was curious whether anyone might be willing to comment on this posting (either here or on BBO). AG : this is dangerous. Avoiding misbidding is part of the Darwinist process that makes some players win and other lose. What should be avoided at all costs is disruptive misbidding, and that's only a small part of misbids. In some cases, the result is "no effect" ; in some others, correction before the lead solves the problem ; in others, an adjusted score is easy to establish. I would welcome an item of CoP or local legislation which would say something like : "whenever a misbid creates a situation where the normal score and amount of damage can't be assessed, therefore perturbating the smoothness of the competition, a heavy PP will be inflicted and the pair will be disallowed to play that convention for a long time". Other misbids being treated in an unchanged way. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070904/34095a65/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/20070904/34095a65/attachment-0003.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/20070904/34095a65/attachment-0003.gif From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 4 15:18:13 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:18:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender In-Reply-To: <20070902133534.9FCB92AD@rhubarb.custard.org> References: <20070902133534.9FCB92AD@rhubarb.custard.org> Message-ID: My previous attempt to send this message appears to have been rejected; this may be a repeat. On Aug 30, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > 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 Of course not. We ask him how he "worked this out" and evaluate the credibility of his answer. We accept his argument only if we believe that any of his "peers" would have worked things out similarly. The "players who don't even count trumps" inevitably defend their actions by insisting that they are doing exactly what they would have done without the UI. That is what they have been taught to do, even by some ACBL officials and Bulletin contributors who should know better. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 4 15:18:59 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:18:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender In-Reply-To: <20070902135146.2171445B@rhubarb.custard.org> References: <20070902135146.2171445B@rhubarb.custard.org> Message-ID: My previous attempt to send this message appears to have been rejected; this may be a repeat. On Aug 30, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> 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. If there is a difference, the UI *must not* be "disregarded". > 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. There's no need for such a judgment. That the odds changed at all means that new information was "made available", hence L16A applies, even if the difference was minute. > 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 As I suggested in a previous post, I do not believe that Sven and I disagree. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 4 16:50:02 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:50:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Misbids=2C_infractions=2C_and?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_Wolffs=2C_oh_my=2E=2E=2E?= In-Reply-To: <46DD5AB2.000012.18829@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <2da24b8e0709040520o7cef4c6ch4c2ee0b0e66782d6@mail.gmail.com> <46DD5AB2.000012.18829@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <84B698C6-423E-4D41-8A6B-2B85C3B5E3E6@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 4, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I would welcome an item of CoP or local legislation which would say > something like : "whenever a misbid creates a situation where the > normal score and amount of damage can't be assessed, therefore > perturbating the smoothness of the competition, a heavy PP will be > inflicted and the pair will be disallowed to play that convention > for a long time". I don't know about anybody else, but for myself one of the ways I learn to remember something is by repeating it. So if I'm not allowed to use a convention "for a long time", I'm basically going to be back at square one as far as remembering it is concerned when (if) I'm finally allowed to play it again. Which effectively means I'm not ever going to be allowed to play it. All due respect to Bobby Wolff and others, but "convention disruption" is bullshit. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 4 16:56:16 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:56:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 hands In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063D89C9-6A80-430A-897F-56CEBC0D0B55@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > I wonder if anyone knows what happens if a bid is inadvertent (for > example a mechanical error) and insufficient but condoned by the > next hand passing. Does law 25A or law 27A take precedence? 25A takes precedence. And please post in plain text. From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 4 17:57:46 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:57:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who's afraid of the ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46DD062A.8020905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002d01c7ef0c$563bbcb0$0701a8c0@john> >> >> True, I was being facetious, but only because the >> Maastricht precedent is laughable, a classic case >> of the law being an ass. >> > > No, not the Law. > >> For most people it is normal, not irrational, to >> mistime a double squeeze. To determine whether >> the Maastricht declarer was part of the "most >> people" majority, I would argue that the mistimed >> play which occurred after the claim provided >> exquisitely sufficient evidence of declarer's >> "most people" status. >> > > YOU consider it normal to mistime a double squeeze. > The Maastricht AC considered it irrational for the player involved to > mistime a double squeeze. > > That makes either YOU, or the MAC, asses. Not the Law. Doh! I know Gunnar well! It's routine for him to claim on a double squeeze as it is for most of the London hi-stake players. It wouldn't cross our minds to do more than check the hand and concede. He had not mistimed it and the claim was sound when he made it His comment to me was "I play about 100 hands a day. Once I've claimed, the hand's over, and I have no further recollection of it." I believe him. Rubber players don't dwell on the last hand, there's money to win on the next, and we're playing about 15 hands an hour. Against wabbits he'd have played it out correctly, but he made the mistake of thinking his international opponents weren't bunnies. john > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 5 00:27:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:27:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46DD06F6.9020800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Herman is now arguing that he is the guardian of the WBF >>guardians, so Herman is now arguing that he has the power >>to reinterpret a WBF interpretation contrary to the intent >>of the authors of that WBF interpretation. >> >>:-) > Herman De Wael: >Of course, we all know that it is the Australian >Immigration Authority that has the sole knowledge of WHAT >the intent of the authors of a WBF interpretation is. Richard Hills: Of course, we all know that it is an Antwerp Director who reads only what he wants to read, since earlier in the previous post a co-author of that WBF interpretation was specifically quoted (the quote is repeated here for those acolytes of the De Wael School who happen to be literate). Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: " ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that the laws require him to answer. Grattan ~ +=+" Herman De Wael >If my interpretation of the words "without design" is >wrong ... Richard Hills: A recent book refuting the faddish quantum physics idea of string theory is entitled "Not Even Wrong", on the grounds that string theory is not scientific since by the nature of the theory it is impossible to prove or disprove. (The theory of "intelligent design" is unscientific, so not even wrong, for the same reason.) All of Herman's past, present and future interpretations of the Lawbook are not even wrong for this reason -> WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6: 6. Internet Bridge Laws Mailing list. The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at each year's meetings. The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and until it changed them. 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 Wed Sep 5 03:31:34 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:31:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DE06F6.8090002@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> Herman is now arguing that he is the guardian of the WBF >>> guardians, so Herman is now arguing that he has the power >>> to reinterpret a WBF interpretation contrary to the intent >>> of the authors of that WBF interpretation. >>> >>> :-) > > Herman De Wael: > >> Of course, we all know that it is the Australian >> Immigration Authority that has the sole knowledge of WHAT >> the intent of the authors of a WBF interpretation is. > > Richard Hills: > > Of course, we all know that it is an Antwerp Director who > reads only what he wants to read, since earlier in the > previous post a co-author of that WBF interpretation was > specifically quoted (the quote is repeated here for those > acolytes of the De Wael School who happen to be literate). > > Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: > > " ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player > answers a question that the laws require him to answer. > Grattan ~ +=+" > Well, if a blml-reader is asked this question, he should realize that L75D2 requires him to lie about it. Therefore, if he speaks (what is called by Richard et.al.) "the truth", he is conveying UI _with design_, and no Australian official if?s going to convince me otherwise. He may still be right, but he's not going to quote the CoP and say he has given UI without design and hence not broken any law. I simply won't buy that argument. OK? > Herman De Wael > >> If my interpretation of the words "without design" is >> wrong ... > > Richard Hills: > > A recent book refuting the faddish quantum physics idea of > string theory is entitled "Not Even Wrong", on the grounds > that string theory is not scientific since by the nature of > the theory it is impossible to prove or disprove. > > (The theory of "intelligent design" is unscientific, so not > even wrong, for the same reason.) > > All of Herman's past, present and future interpretations of > the Lawbook are not even wrong for this reason -> > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6: > > 6. Internet Bridge Laws Mailing list. > The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the > Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest > Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, > began to take guidance from this source, some of whose > contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary > supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee > was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward > requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that > subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at > each year's meetings. > The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded > intentions of the Committee represented the position of the > Committee unless and until it changed them. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC > 02 6225 6776 > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 5 03:37:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:37:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001d01c7eee3$faebc210$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Yes, if it is deliberate in a "malicious" way. Richard Hills: My copy of Law 72B2 merely says, "... must not infringe a law intentionally...", so my Lawbook seems to have a typo, as it does not say, "...must not _maliciously_ infringe a law intentionally...". :-) When I was a beginner I was unaware of Law 72B2, so on one occasion I chose to intentionally make an insufficient bid out of idle curiosity as to what would happen next. Due to my ignorance I had unintentionally infringed that Law which prohibited intentional infringements. :-) 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 Wed Sep 5 03:42:52 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:42:52 EDT Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... Message-ID: > "Some years ago, the national appeal committee created the legal > practice that if someone makes a natural 3C jump overcall and his p > alerts and explains it as "Ghestem" (or vise versa) it is always > treated as misinformation rather than misbid, in other words, even if > there is evidence that it is in fact a misbid, it is an infraction. > This practice has, in the meantime, been extended to other frequently > abused conventions such as Landy and DONT, and the position of the AC > seems to be that misbids related to conventions are always > infractions, at least in the first round. In IMP (Dutch bridge > magazine for advanced players), Onno Eskes has several times argued > strongly against this practice. In the Aug/Sept issue of the magazine, > Roald Ramer defends the position of the AC, while Hans van Staveren > (until recently member of the Dutch law committee), Ton Kooijman > (chairman of the WBF law committee) as well as the Belgian bridge law > expert Herman de Wael attack the AC's position vigorously. Hans van > Staveren wants to mobilize Dutch TDs to action against the AC and > mentioned (in a talk with Grattan Endicot at the open Europeans in > Antalya) the possibility of TD strike (!). There seems a difference here between a misbid of a convention such as Ghestem in a contested auction and a misbid of, say, a response to RKCB. A player may elect, for example, to make a splinter in a low doubleton. Is this assumed to be misinformation rather than a misbid? Clearly this would be nonsense. I believe that the laws should be followed by any AC, regardless of its opinion on their correctness. If your partner regularly forgets Ghestem, you are not allowed to tell the opponents of this in England, according to the Orange Book 3 B 10. Opponents may be damaged therefore if you do forget, but the laws only provide for redress where the opponents are misinformed. Any doubt is, of course, resolved in favour of the opponents of the person "misbidding". In theory a player is allowed to psyche Ghestem with a weak jump overcall in clubs. Is this a misbid? I think we are treading on dangerous ground if we classify as misinformation all bids where the player does not have the hand described. Despite the problems associated with forgetting, the current rule is, to my mind, the correct one. I recall opening an elaborate three-way multi 2D once. It was alerted and the elderly person on my left asked my partner the meaning. He indicated that it was either three-suited with any shortage, 17-24; three suited with at least four hearts 11-15, or a five-card weak two in spades, usually with a four-card minor. The elderly person replied, "I am none the wiser." "No, but you are better informed", my partner retorted. From geller at nifty.com Wed Sep 5 03:47:26 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:47:26 +0900 Subject: [blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709050147.AA10449@geller204.nifty.com> I think the "must not infringe a law intentionally" was intended to refer to what in soccer are called "professional fouls" (i.e. making a bid out of turn in the full knowledge that the offender will pay a penalty but not doing so will lead to a worse loss (pard will support your psyched suit at the 5 level)). But L72B2 also does indeed prohibit a player from intentionally making an incorrect designation of a card to played by dummy. IMO (as Richard suggests) both are barred by L72B2. However, when a director or committee assesses PPs, the "professional foul" will be punished harshly, whereas the incorrect designation of a card from dummy will probably warrant a midl warning (if that) unless the offender is a long-time repeater and the game is disrupted as a result. -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au ????????: >Sven Pran: > >>Yes, if it is deliberate in a "malicious" way. > >Richard Hills: > >My copy of Law 72B2 merely says, > >"... must not infringe a law intentionally...", > >so my Lawbook seems to have a typo, as it does >not say, > >"...must not _maliciously_ infringe a law >intentionally...". > >:-) > >When I was a beginner I was unaware of Law 72B2, >so on one occasion I chose to intentionally make >an insufficient bid out of idle curiosity as to >what would happen next. > >Due to my ignorance I had unintentionally >infringed that Law which prohibited intentional >infringements. > >:-) > > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 5 05:26:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:26:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46DD535C.4040701@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On a Bridge Base Forum, Rik wrote: >The most horrible ruling by the Dutch national AC was in a high >level match with screens. One player makes a two suited bid. As >the tray is passed under the screen, he realizes that he has >misbid. He writes on the paper that his bid shows suits A and >B, but that it is not the hand that he has since he misbid. >(IIRC he had another two suiter.) At the same time, at the >other side of the screen the bid is alerted and explained as >showing suits A and B. > >As a consequence of this mishap the opponents are talked out of >their best contract. TD comes, etc and the TD rules this a >misbid. The opponents know how the AC thinks about these cases >and appeal. > >The Dutch AC ruled that there was misinformation. Their >reasoning is that if a pair forgets a convention then they >cannot claim that they have an agreement. If they don't have an >agreement then the explanation was wrong. If the explanation was >wrong, it was an infraction. > >The weak link in the reasoning of the Dutch AC is the statement: >"If a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they >have an agreement.". They automatically assume that this >statement is correct, without backing it up with any evidence. >To me, it is obvious that this reasoning is nonsense. It >basically says that if my date stood me up that there has never >been an agreement to meet in the first place. > >I myself think that the lawbook has this exactly right. A TD is >supposed to look for evidence to find out whether there was an >agreement, what the agreement was and whether the explanation >was correct. If there is no evidence (system book, convention >card, support from independent witnesses (e.g. earlier >opponents), depending on the level of the event) the TD will >assume misinformation rather than a misbid. In other words, the >burden of proof lies with the alleged offending side. They claim >to have a certain agreement. Make me believe it. > >In the above case, as in many other cases that the AC has ruled >on, the AC has ignored any evidence of an agreement. By doing so, >they have ignored the lawbook. > >As far as I can see, some members of the AC have their own agenda. >Prominent members of the AC have also spoken out against the use >of BSCs (these are allowed at the highest level in The >Netherlands). > >In my opinion, this AC is doing the bridge community in The >Netherlands a great disservice. It should be relieved of its duty >and a new AC should be installed. 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 Sep 5 05:35:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:35:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46DE06F6.8090002@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: " ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player answers a question that the laws require him to answer. Grattan ~ +=+" Herman De Wael: >Well, if a blml-reader is asked this question, he should >realize that L75D2 requires him to lie about it. > >Therefore, if he speaks (what is called by Richard et. >al.) "the truth", he is conveying UI _with design_, and >no Australian official is going to convince me otherwise. Richard Hills: To the best of my knowledge and belief, Grattan Endicott is not an Australian official. :-) 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 Sep 6 01:20:31 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:20:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46DE06F6.8090002@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070905161918.040dbce0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 08:35 PM 4/09/2007, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: > >" ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player >answers a question that the laws require him to answer. > Grattan ~ +=+" > >Herman De Wael: > > >Well, if a blml-reader is asked this question, he should > >realize that L75D2 requires him to lie about it. > > > >Therefore, if he speaks (what is called by Richard et. > >al.) "the truth", he is conveying UI _with design_, and > >no Australian official is going to convince me otherwise. > >Richard Hills: > >To the best of my knowledge and belief, Grattan Endicott >is not an Australian official. > >:-) Perhaps we could administer the new immigration test on him, in case he is of a mind to emigrate, Tony (Sydney) >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 Tue Sep 4 16:01:15 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:01:15 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] Translation problem References: Message-ID: <46DD652A.000015.18829@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Eric Landau Date : 04/09/2007 15:19:26 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Dear blmlists, I had a suuden revelation when reading this sentence from Eric : > If there is a difference, the UI *must not* be "disregarded". Eric obviously means : must (not be disregarded) i.e. don't disregard it or you'll be court-martialed One should note that in many languages, the word-for-word translation of must not be disregarded" means : not (must be disregarded) i.e. nobody will compel you to disregard it Did the translating teams ensure that all verbal modalities were correctly translated ? It might be the source of some strange interpretations I remember. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070904/c001d6e5/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/20070904/c001d6e5/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/20070904/c001d6e5/attachment-0001.gif From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 5 10:13:43 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:13:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DE6537.40905@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007: > > " ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player > answers a question that the laws require him to answer. > Grattan ~ +=+" > > Herman De Wael: > >> Well, if a blml-reader is asked this question, he should >> realize that L75D2 requires him to lie about it. >> >> Therefore, if he speaks (what is called by Richard et. >> al.) "the truth", he is conveying UI _with design_, and >> no Australian official is going to convince me otherwise. > > Richard Hills: > > To the best of my knowledge and belief, Grattan Endicott > is not an Australian official. > > :-) > Richard, please keep up with the discussion. YOU, the Australian official alluded to, are using Grattan's words to prove a point. I, the Belgian TD that's handling your case, am not doubting the validity of Grattan's words, but of your application thereof. Grattan speaks of people who do something without design. I tell you that I don't admit that you call what you do _without design_. So please counter that argument and don't go throwing about funny remarks just to confuse the issue. You have not responded to my argument - so I stop that discussion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Sep 5 12:30:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Even Herman De Wael acknowledges that under WBF by-laws > the WBF Laws Committee are the guardians who have the > power to interpret the Lawbook. Indeed - so what relevance does the CoP have to any debate on official interpretation of law? It is only the minutes of the WBFLC that bind us - not the CoP. Tim From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 5 16:12:43 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:12:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005b01c7efc6$d385e8c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6: > > 6. Internet Bridge Laws Mailing list. > The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the > Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest > Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, > began to take guidance from this source, some of whose > contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary > supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee > was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward > requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that > subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at > each year's meetings. > The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded > intentions of the Committee represented the position of the > Committee unless and until it changed them. > That blml should be seen by the WBFLC as a mild thorn in their side is IMO a good thing. It brings an element of "being seen to be rational" to their deliberations. I believe they should welcome it, problems indeed that it might create. john From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Sep 5 19:56:49 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:56:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] All is illusion. Message-ID: <00c701c7efe6$3c04c2d0$d6a487d9@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 "Epper si muove" = Eppur(e) si muove - "and yet it moves" From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Sep 5 20:45:44 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:45:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00dc01c7efee$adde9950$d6a487d9@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: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:30 AM Subject: Code of Practice: [was Re: [blml] Double Dummy play] : {SEC=UNOFFICIAL} > Richard wrote: >> >> Even Herman De Wael acknowledges that under WBF >> by-laws the WBF Laws Committee are the guardians >> who have the power to interpret the Lawbook. > > Indeed - so what relevance does the CoP have to any > debate on official interpretation of law? It is only the > minutes of the WBFLC that bind us - not the CoP. > > Tim > +=+ Relevance insofar as it is adopted. Quote: "The World Bridge Federation adopts the standards in this Code of Practice as regulations for the conduct of appeals from decisions of Tournament Directors and recommends their adoption to each affiliated Organization." 2. The minutes of the WBFLC become binding when ratified by the Executive Council of the WBF. 3. The Executive Council of the WBF has a specific power "to exercise appellate jurisdiction from acts or decisions of committees", and it has power "to exercise all .... powers of the WBF .... as are not required ..... to be done by the Congress." For this reason the assertion that "it is only the minutes of the WBFLC that bind us - not the CoP" is insecurely founded and is subject to any overriding decisions of the Executive Council (or of the Management Committee acting in its behalf between meetings). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 20:58:49 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:58:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] All is illusion. In-Reply-To: <00c701c7efe6$3c04c2d0$d6a487d9@Hellen> References: <00c701c7efe6$3c04c2d0$d6a487d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709051158q196557d8qfb0167cf7a9ef06a@mail.gmail.com> On 9/5/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > "Epper si muove" > = > Eppur(e) si muove - "and yet it moves" > Grattan, you have a talent for ambiguity. Though I found the reference from Google, I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you, like Galileo, recently been forced to make a public statement at odds with your true belief? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 6 00:12:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:12:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Spingold Teams, San Diego 1994 Dlr: North Vul: None \ JT93 \ AQJ98 \ 98 \ 62 --- \ AQ4 KT3 \ 752 QT765 \ 32 T9753 \ AKQJ8 K87652\ 64 \ AKJ4 \ 4 \ WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1NT 2C(1) 2D(2) Pass 2H 2S 3C 4S 5C Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted on both sides of the screen as a one-suited hand (2) Alerted by *East* as a transfer to hearts Result: North led the HA. Five clubs went down one trick, +100 to North-South. Facts: 2D was alerted on the North and East side of the screen as a Jacoby Transfer to hearts. Director's Ruling: North asked for a score adjustment based on the misinformation given during the auction. The director (Cukoff) awarded North- South +300 (down two) for misinformation from diverging explanations. East-West appealed claiming there was a mistaken bid not a misexplanation. Committee Decision: East-West produced system notes (typeset) clearly showing that their *agreement* was that 2D was a Jacoby Transfer bid. Thus, what occurred was a misbid rather than a misexplanation. The director, who did not see the system notes, made the correct ruling based on the assumption of a misexplanation. After the 2H bid, West told South, his screenmate, that there may have been a misunderstanding. The Committee felt that, based on the information North had, the lead of the HA was strongly indicated. [big snip] Richard Hills query: What ruling should the Committee have now made? For bonus points, guess what ruling the Committee now actually made. :-) 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 Sep 6 01:33:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:33:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] All is illusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709051158q196557d8qfb0167cf7a9ef06a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Grattan, you have a talent for ambiguity. Though I found the >reference from Google, I have no idea what you are talking about. >Have you, like Galileo, recently been forced to make a public >statement at odds with your true belief? Grattan Endicott (recent public posting, "But me no buts" thread): [snip] >>This is considered to be the dictionary meaning of 'but' and >>explicit, thus - for the majority of the subcommittee - in no >>need of further clarification. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Under the Westminster principle of Cabinet Solidarity, all discussions of the Cabinet are theoretically kept secret for a long period (in Australia thirty years), and all Ministers of the Cabinet must publicly support the majority decision of the Cabinet even if they privately disagreed during the secret debate. On the issue of "theoretically kept secret", this observation was made by Sir Humphrey Appleby: "The ship of state is the only ship which leaks from the top." :-) 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 Sep 6 01:56:13 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:56:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005b01c7efc6$d385e8c0$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John Probst on blml's usefulness to the WBF Laws Committee: >That blml should be seen by the WBFLC as a mild thorn in their side is IMO >a good thing. It brings an element of "being seen to be rational" to their >deliberations. I believe they should welcome it, problems indeed that it >might create. john Grattan Endicott concurred (17th July 2007): >> ... Much occasions no more than a wry smile and the delete button, but >>occasionally, one could say rarely, amongst the slurry one catches the >>sparkle of a tiny diamond to be sieved, washed, cut and polished. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 Thu Sep 6 02:07:44 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:07:44 EDT Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 05/09/2007 23:13:00 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Spingold Teams, San Diego 1994 Dlr: North Vul: None \ JT93 \ AQJ98 \ 98 \ 62 --- \ AQ4 KT3 \ 752 QT765 \ 32 T9753 \ AKQJ8 K87652\ 64 \ AKJ4 \ 4 \ WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1NT 2C(1) 2D(2) Pass 2H 2S 3C 4S 5C Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted on both sides of the screen as a one-suited hand (2) Alerted by *East* as a transfer to hearts Result: North led the HA. Five clubs went down one trick, +100 to North-South. It would appear to me that North was given the correct explanation and would therefore lead the AH all the time (his partner has 0 or 1 heart). The correct decision seems to be the table result of +100 to East-West and this is just bad luck for North-South. The fact that East bid 2H over 2D suggests to West that there is a misunderstanding, as 2D would be non-forcing in normal methods over Cappelletti. If East had passed, West would still have bid 3C over 2S, shaping out, so no problem there. West has volunteered information to South (they may, for example, have once played system off over Capp but now play system on) which shows active ethics. My guess is that the AC wrongly assigned a score of +500 to North-South (a diamond lead and South getting a heart ruff). Or maybe 5S doubled for +650 to North-South. The only justification for anything other than the correct ruling IMHO would seem to be if the AC had evidence that the system notes were typeset after the original ruling! Paul From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 6 02:39:03 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 01:39:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] All is illusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002b01c7f01e$c6c6f040$dbd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] All is illusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Jerry Fusselman: > >>Grattan, you have a talent for ambiguity. Though I found the >>reference from Google, I have no idea what you are talking about. >>Have you, like Galileo, recently been forced to make a public >>statement at odds with your true belief? > > Grattan Endicott (recent public posting, "But me no buts" thread): > > [snip] > >>>This is considered to be the dictionary meaning of 'but' and >>>explicit, thus - for the majority of the subcommittee - in no >>>need of further clarification. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Under the Westminster principle of Cabinet Solidarity, all > discussions of the Cabinet are theoretically kept secret for a > long period (in Australia thirty years), and all Ministers of the > Cabinet must publicly support the majority decision of the Cabinet > even if they privately disagreed during the secret debate. > > On the issue of "theoretically kept secret", this observation was > made by Sir Humphrey Appleby: > > "The ship of state is the only ship which leaks from the top." > > :-) > +=+ I say nothing as to recent occasions but adherence to the Westminster principle has meant that, from time to time, I have defended or stated a corporate position with which I am not in personal agreement. Traces may sometimes be found in WBFLC minutes here and there. Some cultures do not maintain this convention of corporate loyalty. Mine does. As an aside, during the later stages of WWII and the early stages of the ensuing 'peace' it was my regular responsibility in Rome to translate delicately ambiguous texts from the French and the Italian naval authorities into English of comparable delights for the benefit of Rear Admiral Warren RN, Commodore Ziroli USN, and their staffs - and just occasionally vice-versa. The Commodore was possibly more ethnically appreciative of the subtleties than the Rear Admiral. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 6 07:15:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:15:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070904151759.02143c30@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael noted: >AC ruled against this player, based on the dutch >precedent that a misbid is always misinformation. Richard Hills: Law 93B3 permits an Appeals Committee to determine the facts, whether a particular call was in fact misbid or misexplained. But Law 93B3 also prohibits an Appeals Committee from setting a legal precedent. Whether or not it should be a correct interpretation of Law 75 to rule that a misbid never happens, an Appeals Committee lacks the power to create such a legal precedent. Likewise, whether or not the De Wael School's interpretation of Law 75D2 should be adopted, the WBF LC minute of 24th August 1998 states that a blmler lacks the power to interpret Law. Therefore Herman's allegation that: "someone of Richard's stature knows he is breaking L75D2, and that he does so _with design_", is nugatory, since Herman lacks the legal authority to promulgate the interpretation of Law 75D2 that is the basis of his allegation. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "nugatory - Futile, trifling; inoperative, not 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 10:45:22 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:45:22 +1200 Subject: [blml] Quick Duck Message-ID: <2a1c3a560709060145o23009538gf4a6470fcb59f5b3@mail.gmail.com> In another forum a poster responded to this question: "On the diamond lead, (you have Tx of diamonds opposite Kx), what do you play? MP." - Kx in dummy if that is not clear. "Quick duck seems clear " I am not sure exactly what was intended by "Quick duck" but it seems to me that an "in tempo duck" is ok but a "quick duck" could be construed as trying to deceive the opponents by varying your tempo. "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made." L73D2 Could a "quick duck" be a violation here? Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 6 10:58:58 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:58:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070906105636.02148c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:07 5/09/2007 -0400, Gampas at aol.com wrote: >Dlr: North >Vul: None > >\ JT93 >\ AQJ98 >\ 98 >\ 62 >--- \ AQ4 >KT3 \ 752 >QT765 \ 32 >T9753 \ AKQJ8 >K87652\ >64 \ >AKJ4 \ >4 \ > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass 1NT 2C(1) >2D(2) Pass 2H 2S >3C 4S 5C Pass >Pass Dble Pass Pass >Pass > >My guess is that the AC wrongly assigned a score of +500 to North-South (a >diamond lead and South getting a heart ruff). Or maybe 5S doubled for +650 >to >North-South. The only justification for anything other than the correct >ruling > IMHO would seem to be if the AC had evidence that the system notes were >typeset after the original ruling! You know what ? That's my strong impression. It is so incredible to play 2D as a transfer in such a situation (what do you do on a flat hand ?) that it will need more than a piece of paper to convince me. 'credo quia absurdum' doesn't apply to bridge. Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Thu Sep 6 11:10:25 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:10:25 +0900 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070906105636.02148c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070906105636.02148c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200709060910.AA10464@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner ????????: >You know what ? That's my strong impression. It is so incredible to play 2D >as a transfer in such a situation (what do you do on a flat hand ?) that it >will need more than a piece of paper to convince me. 'credo quia absurdum' >doesn't apply to bridge. Playing 2D as a transfer after the OPPT's 2C may be "incredible" to you, but here in Japan, and I suspect in many other places, most good players use a double of 2C (in the sequence PARTNER=1NT, OPPT=2C (conventional)) as Stayman and all other bids are "system on" (i,e. the same meaning as if the oppt had passed). Since you couldn't bid 2D naturally if the oppt passed the general opinion is it's no big deal to give up the natural 2D in a competitive sequence. The gain is that you still get to play your who system (transfers, staymen, etc, etc). -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 6 11:24:05 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:24:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Quick Duck In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560709060145o23009538gf4a6470fcb59f5b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560709060145o23009538gf4a6470fcb59f5b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46DFC735.1080505@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > In another forum a poster responded to this question: > > "On the diamond lead, (you have Tx of diamonds opposite Kx), what do > you play? MP." - Kx in dummy if that is not clear. > > "Quick duck seems clear " > > I am not sure exactly what was intended by "Quick duck" but it seems > to me that an "in tempo duck" is ok but a "quick duck" could be > construed as trying to deceive the opponents by varying your tempo. > > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or > gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in > hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the > call or play is made." L73D2 > > Could a "quick duck" be a violation here? I imagine the original poster intended quick to be "in tempo" here. If a player has no problem and can follow suit, in tempo equates to "quick". There can be no quicker than in tempo when following suit with small cards. Your problem is a genuine one, Wayne, but not when ducking a suit. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Gampas at aol.com Thu Sep 6 11:35:19 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 05:35:19 EDT Subject: [blml] Quick Duck Message-ID: I am not sure exactly what was intended by "Quick duck" but it seems to me that an "in tempo duck" is ok but a "quick duck" could be construed as trying to deceive the opponents by varying your tempo. "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made." L73D2 K32 QJxx xxx xxx xx 87 T9xxx Kxx Qxx KJTx KJx QTxx AQJT94 A Axx Axx Say the auction is 1S-2S-4S. South, a quick analyst, realising he does not have an entry to take the ruffing heart finesse and enjoy it, plays the QH on the lead of the TH at the speed of light (well, maybe, just sound). On the previous board we will say he took 10 seconds after the dummy went down to play at trick one. East instinctively covers and then argues he was deceived by the speed of South's play. I would be surprised if any TD adjusted, and the fact that East's play was misere (there can be no reason on the auction for West to underlead a putative AH) must be relevant. I think that L73D2 is almost entirely concerned with hesitancy (for example the well-known KJ10x opposite A9xx situations). I cannot think of any situations where adjustments have been made for haste in the play. Paul From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 10:43:19 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:43:19 +1200 Subject: [blml] Quick Duck Message-ID: <2a1c3a560709060143s3fbe7cb9xc759774a04cf307f@mail.gmail.com> In another forum a poster responded to this question: "On the diamond lead, (you have Tx of diamonds opposite Kx), what do you play? MP." - Kx in dummy if that is not clear. "Quick duck seems clear " I am not sure exactly what was intended by "Quick duck" but it seems to me that an "in tempo duck" is ok but a "quick duck" could be construed as trying to deceive the opponents by varying your tempo. "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made." L73D2 Could a "quick duck" be a violation here? Wayne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070906/7e3ff413/attachment.htm From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Sep 6 12:01:39 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:01:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070906105636.02148c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070906105636.02148c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20070906060139.72861a12@linuxbox> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:58:58 +0200 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 20:07 5/09/2007 -0400, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > > >Dlr: North > >Vul: None > > > >\ JT93 > >\ AQJ98 > >\ 98 > >\ 62 > >--- \ AQ4 > >KT3 \ 752 > >QT765 \ 32 > >T9753 \ AKQJ8 > >K87652\ > >64 \ > >AKJ4 \ > >4 \ > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >--- Pass 1NT 2C(1) > >2D(2) Pass 2H 2S > >3C 4S 5C Pass > >Pass Dble Pass Pass > >Pass > > > >My guess is that the AC wrongly assigned a score of +500 to > >North-South (a diamond lead and South getting a heart ruff). Or > >maybe 5S doubled for +650 to > >North-South. The only justification for anything other than the > >correct ruling > > IMHO would seem to be if the AC had evidence that the system > > notes were > >typeset after the original ruling! > > > You know what ? That's my strong impression. It is so incredible to > play 2D as a transfer in such a situation Incredible to you it may be, but I've seen it often enough, especially over a Cappelletti/Hamilton/Pottage 2C overcall. >(what do you do on a flat > hand ?) The same as you'd have done over the 1NT opener without interference, of course. And if you'd have bid 2C Stayman, you double instead. > that it will need more than a piece of paper to convince me. Oh great. So now you're advocating that even system notes aren't proof of system if you happen not to like the system. Just what is it that you want, a copy that's been signed and dated by a High Court judge or something? > 'credo quia absurdum' doesn't apply to bridge. > The only absurd thing in all this is that you apparently believe a pair are going to dash out and typeset a set of system notes before they appear before a committee solely on the basis that YOU don't like they system they've chosen to play. Brian. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070906/b2f122b0/attachment.pgp From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 12:14:47 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:14:47 +1200 Subject: [blml] Quick Duck In-Reply-To: <46DFC735.1080505@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560709060145o23009538gf4a6470fcb59f5b3@mail.gmail.com> <46DFC735.1080505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560709060314r3273cfa8u82ee084d87d68996@mail.gmail.com> On 06/09/07, Herman De Wael wrote: > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > In another forum a poster responded to this question: > > > > "On the diamond lead, (you have Tx of diamonds opposite Kx), what do > > you play? MP." - Kx in dummy if that is not clear. > > > > "Quick duck seems clear " > > > > I am not sure exactly what was intended by "Quick duck" but it seems > > to me that an "in tempo duck" is ok but a "quick duck" could be > > construed as trying to deceive the opponents by varying your tempo. > > > > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or > > gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in > > hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the > > call or play is made." L73D2 > > > > Could a "quick duck" be a violation here? > > I imagine the original poster intended quick to be "in tempo" here. > > If a player has no problem and can follow suit, in tempo equates to > "quick". There can be no quicker than in tempo when following suit > with small cards. There surely can be when the tempo break is at trick one. Wayne > > Your problem is a genuine one, Wayne, but not when ducking a suit. > > > > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 12:16:23 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:16:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] Quick Duck In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560709060316w1da90e3cof4d5e26a5f26f732@mail.gmail.com> On 06/09/07, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > > I am not sure exactly what was intended by "Quick duck" but it seems > to me that an "in tempo duck" is ok but a "quick duck" could be > construed as trying to deceive the opponents by varying your tempo. > > "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or > gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in > hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the > call or play is made." L73D2 > > K32 > QJxx > xxx > xxx > xx 87 > T9xxx Kxx > Qxx KJTx > KJx QTxx > AQJT94 > A > Axx > Axx > > Say the auction is 1S-2S-4S. South, a quick analyst, realising he does not > have an entry to take the ruffing heart finesse and enjoy it, plays the QH on > the lead of the TH at the speed of light (well, maybe, just sound). On the > previous board we will say he took 10 seconds after the dummy went down to play > at trick one. East instinctively covers and then argues he was deceived by > the speed of South's play. I would be surprised if any TD adjusted, and the > fact that East's play was misere (there can be no reason on the auction for > West to underlead a putative AH) must be relevant. I think that L73D2 is almost > entirely concerned with hesitancy (for example the well-known KJ10x opposite > A9xx situations). I cannot think of any situations where adjustments have > been made for haste in the play. > I can't see how L73D2 is entirely concerned with hesitancy when it mentions "haste" and "hesitancy" equally. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 6 12:28:38 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:28:38 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__San_Diego_Lightfoot_Sue?= =?iso-8859-1?q?____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: <200709060910.AA10464@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46DFD656.000001.28633@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Robert Geller Date : 06/09/2007 11:11:16 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Alain Gottcheiner $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >You know what ? That's my strong impression. It is so incredible to play 2D >as a transfer in such a situation (what do you do on a flat hand ?) that it >will need more than a piece of paper to convince me. 'credo quia absurdum' >doesn't apply to bridge. Playing 2D as a transfer after the OPPT's 2C may be "incredible" to you, but here in Japan, and I suspect in many other places, most good players use a double of 2C (in the sequence PARTNER=1NT, OPPT=2C (conventional)) as Stayman and all other bids are "system on" (i,e. the same meaning as if the oppt had passed). WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1NT 2C(1) 2D(2) Pass 2H 2S 3C 4S 5C Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass AG : Sorry. This is how it appeared on my screen, giving the impression that 2D was a response to 2C. Hence my comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070906/5d20469c/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/20070906/5d20469c/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/20070906/5d20469c/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 6 12:35:14 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:35:14 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Quick_Duck?= References: <46DFC735.1080505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46DFD7E0.000004.28633@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 06/09/2007 11:24:07 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] Quick Duck Wayne Burrows wrote: > In another forum a poster responded to this question: > > "On the diamond lead, (you have Tx of diamonds opposite Kx), what do > you play? MP." - Kx in dummy if that is not clear. > > "Quick duck seems clear " > Herman : If a player has no problem and can follow suit, in tempo equates to "quick". There can be no quicker than in tempo when following suit with small cards. AG : if I understood the settings, this is a problem about what to do on the lead of a small card. In that case, playing quickly is indeed out of normal tempo. We had a case where a good but occacionally trickish declarer played quickly indeed the first card from dummy, and my partner took some time before playing his card. Declarer's complaint that my partner's tempo had given away UI was brushed aside 'in tempo' by TD, who told declarer he should take some time before playing dummy's first card and that he set the problem himself. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070906/eb783795/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/20070906/eb783795/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/20070906/eb783795/attachment-0001.gif From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 6 15:30:16 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:30:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... References: Message-ID: <000c01c7f08a$291518b0$899887d9@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, September 05, 2007 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... >> the position of the AC >> seems to be that misbids related to conventions are always >> infractions ...... Hans van Staveren wants to mobilize Dutch .>> TDs to action against the AC and mentioned (in a talk with >> Grattan Endicott at the open Europeans in Antalya) the >> possibility of TD strike (!). > > I believe that the laws should be followed by any AC, regardless > of its opinion on their correctness. > < +=+It was not only Hans who came to talk to me. I heard something of one particular case from both sides of the debate. Although it was evident the matter was causing feelings to become aroused, I did not fully grasp the background position as it is suggested to be in this correspondence. If the national AC is not prepared to listen to Ton Kooijman on the subject I do not see why it should listen to me. But what I read is bizarre. Case by case, one at a time, ACs can decide lawfully that there is a misexplanation rather than a misbid. The facts must be assessed since the laws do not provide for a blanket ruling that every case of a hand failing to comply with the disclosed meaning of a bid can be automatically ruled a misexplanation when that bid is conventional. There is no authority in the laws for that, and if that were the basis of a ruling sufficiently affecting a win/lose situation to incur referral externally to a Committee of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) it would seem wholly unlikely that the AC ruling could stand. At the least one would expect the ruling to be referred back to the AC for reconsideration of the facts in relation to a correct understanding of the laws of the game. Since the Dutch, in my experience, are meticulous observers of the ethics I can hope that the basis of the ruling is in truth other than as has been asserted in this thread. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mustikka at charter.net Thu Sep 6 15:37:05 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:37:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070906105636.02148c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01c7f08b$06a73410$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > At 20:07 5/09/2007 -0400, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > >>Dlr: North >>Vul: None >> >>\ JT93 >>\ AQJ98 >>\ 98 >>\ 62 >>--- \ AQ4 >>KT3 \ 752 >>QT765 \ 32 >>T9753 \ AKQJ8 >>K87652\ >>64 \ >>AKJ4 \ >>4 \ >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass 1NT 2C(1) >>2D(2) Pass 2H 2S >>3C 4S 5C Pass >>Pass Dble Pass Pass >>Pass (snip) > You know what ? That's my strong impression. It is so incredible to play > 2D > as a transfer in such a situation (what do you do on a flat hand ?) that > it > will need more than a piece of paper to convince me. 'credo quia absurdum' > doesn't apply to bridge. > > Best regards > > Alain Playing major suit transfers *on* over opposing Dbl or 2C is a very common method where I play (Western US). My estimate is that about 50% players do it and this may be a conservative estimate. It is also common with online pick up partners from anywhere in the world, who are beyond the intermediate level. Cheers, Raija From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 6 17:44:34 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:44:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quick Duck References: Message-ID: <008501c7f09e$7b6e6580$9e9c87d9@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: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Quick Duck > > I am not sure exactly what was intended by > "Quick duck" but it seems to me that an "in > tempo duck" is ok but a "quick duck" could > be construed as trying to deceive the opponents > by varying your tempo. > +=+ Oh, I think he means 'quck duck' as distinct from 'dead duck'. +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Thu Sep 6 18:00:24 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:00:24 EDT Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 06/09/2007 14:35:55 GMT Standard Time, mustikka at charter.net writes: From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > At 20:07 5/09/2007 -0400, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > >>Dlr: North >>Vul: None >> >>\ JT93 >>\ AQJ98 >>\ 98 >>\ 62 >>--- \ AQ4 >>KT3 \ 752 >>QT765 \ 32 >>T9753 \ AKQJ8 >>K87652\ >>64 \ >>AKJ4 \ >>4 \ >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass 1NT 2C(1) >>2D(2) Pass 2H 2S >>3C 4S 5C Pass >>Pass Dble Pass Pass >>Pass (snip) > You know what ? That's my strong impression. It is so incredible to play > 2D > as a transfer in such a situation (what do you do on a flat hand ?) that > it > will need more than a piece of paper to convince me. 'credo quia absurdum' > doesn't apply to bridge. I agree that playing 2D as a transfer is absolutely normal. A common treatment is "system on" after overcalls up to and including 3C, with double of 3C (weak) being Stayman. As I stated, my view was that the correct decision was that the result stood; I was being asked to speculate on what the AC decision was - a bit like "What happened next?" in the British quiz programme A Question of Sport. Paul From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 6 18:15:04 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:15:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:12:09 +1000." Message-ID: <200709061600.JAA25858@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Spingold Teams, San Diego 1994 > > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > \ JT93 > \ AQJ98 > \ 98 > \ 62 > --- \ AQ4 > KT3 \ 752 > QT765 \ 32 > T9753 \ AKQJ8 > K87652\ > 64 \ > AKJ4 \ > 4 \ > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass 1NT 2C(1) > 2D(2) Pass 2H 2S > 3C 4S 5C Pass > Pass Dble Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Alerted on both sides of the screen > as a one-suited hand > (2) Alerted by *East* as a transfer to > hearts > > Result: North led the HA. Five clubs > went down one trick, +100 to North-South. > > Facts: 2D was alerted on the North and > East side of the screen as a Jacoby > Transfer to hearts. > > Director's Ruling: North asked for a > score adjustment based on the > misinformation given during the auction. > The director (Cukoff) awarded North- > South +300 (down two) for misinformation > from diverging explanations. East-West > appealed claiming there was a mistaken > bid not a misexplanation. > > Committee Decision: East-West produced > system notes (typeset) clearly showing > that their *agreement* was that 2D was a > Jacoby Transfer bid. Thus, what occurred > was a misbid rather than a > misexplanation. The director, who did not > see the system notes, made the correct > ruling based on the assumption of a > misexplanation. > > After the 2H bid, West told South, his > screenmate, that there may have been a > misunderstanding. The Committee felt > that, based on the information North had, > the lead of the HA was strongly > indicated. > > [big snip] > > Richard Hills query: > > What ruling should the Committee have now > made? If 2D was clearly a transfer, according to the system notes, then West misbid and there's no infraction. The fact that West forgot the system during the auction (and made incorrect statements to South about the system) was irrelevant, in the face of the hard evidence of the system notes. This doesn't seem difficult to me. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 6 18:20:13 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:20:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:58:58 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20070906105636.02148c40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200709061605.JAA25950@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > You know what ? That's my strong impression. It is so incredible to play 2D > as a transfer in such a situation Not really. It's not at all uncommon to play "systems on" over a 2C overcall, with a double substituting for Stayman. My partner and I do this---*only* over 2C overcalls (whether natural or artificial), not over other overcalls. Part of the reason for this is that Lebensohl doesn't work over a natural 2C overcall, since you don't have room to use 2NT as a relay and then cue-bid 3C to bid "Stayman with a stopper". There are other ways around this, but agreeing to play "systems on" over 2C is one simple solution. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 7 02:41:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:41:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Committee Decision (continued): The Committee unanimously restored the original table result, +100 for North-South. The Committee voted to impose a procedural penalty against East-West to restore equity for a conventional mix-up resulting directly in damage to the innocent side. The Committee voted three to two to impose a five IMP procedural penalty, Weinstein and Ross dissented (they were in favour of a three IMP penalty). The laws are clear that when the offenders can *prove* they misbid, rather than misexplained, no adjustment is given. Thus, restoring the original result was mandated by the laws. The laws and other Committee guidelines are less clear about the imposition of procedural penalties. The Committee discussed this issue at length. The majority felt that the principle of "restoration of equity" was of primary importance. (A National Co-Chairman of the NABC Appeals Committee provided, at the request of the Committee, a directive from the ACBL Board of Directors that the Committee's primary responsibility was to *restore equity*.) They felt that the "rub of the green" concept was invalid because the East-West mix-up *directly caused North-South to lose a trick*. They also felt the fluke of the screen alignment should not damage the innocent side. Some members felt North-South were disadvantaged because only South was told of a "possible misunderstanding". Others argued that since West was under no (legal) obligation to say *anything*, he should not be penalized for helping only one opponent. The rebuttal was that this was contrary to the concept of "active ethics". The minority (who will comment separately) agreed that a procedural penalty was in order, but wanted to impose the "standard" three IMP penalty for a damaging conventional mix-up. They felt a larger penalty would subvert the laws as written. Additional comments from the Committee chairman, Bart Bramley: I have always disliked the legal distinction between a misbid and a misexplanation. The result in either case is a "partnership bidding error", regardless of which partner is "right". The effect on the innocent side is identical; they usually don't care who is "right". I understand the law is necessary to protect certain occurrences at the table, including intentional misbids (psyches) and mechanical errors (e.g., pulling the wrong bid from the bidding box). I don't understand why conventional mix-ups should fall under the umbrella of protection afforded by this part of the law. Damage is often svere when, as in this case, one partner thinks "natural" and the other "artificial". (A disproportionate number of these mix-ups seem to happen after an opening bid of 1NT.) Frequently, a normal bridge result becomes impossible to obtain. This is not how we were intended to play. I believe the offending side deserves the worst of it when such accidents occur. The screen alignment was relevant in this case. More often, the screen protects the players, but here it damaged them. Just as we sometimes ask: "What would have happened with screens?", here we could ask: "What would have happened *without* screens?" The answer is obvious. North would have been told about the misunderstanding before he led. (Of course, East-West might have a hard time justifying their auction after unauthorized information from the Alert. But that's a different problem.) Perhaps we can devise a simple mechanical solution to allow a player to interrogate each opponent independently behind screens. This would be useful in long constructive sequences involving relays or fancy versions of Blackwood. The fact that your opponents (or your partner) know that you are asking questions would not generally help any of them, but the answers could definitely help you. You could interrogate in this way anytime you suspected a mix-up. Dissenting opinion by Hugh Ross: West forgot a convention (which is legal). His partner bid impeccably subsequent to the misbid. West Alerted South that there was a possible misunderstanding before South bid 2S (unnecessarily in my opinion). West did not say anything to North prior to the opening lead, since the law specifically states that he does not have to. I do not believe any offense was committed by West. The Committee attempted to find out if a misbid is an offense but got no help on this point from anyone. Misbids have the identical effect as uncontrolled psyches. Why should a deliberate misbid carry no penalty, whereas an inadvertent should be penalized? The game itself provides penalties in the long run for psyching or misbidding; why should the police be adding additional penalties? Although the Committee believed an offense was committed, they made no effort to determine its effect on the subsequent auction. A good case can be made that the misbid allowed South an easier entry into the auction than he would have had if West had bid correctly. No attempt was made to find out what West would have bid if he had remembered his conventions. In this sense, North- South were not necessarily damaged to the extent of five IMPs. Sensing the mood of the majority of the Committee, and not knowing for sure whether an offense had been committed or not, I voted for a three IMP penalty as the best I could expect to get. I believe no penalty was justified. Miscarriages of justice like this ruling will continue to occur until Committees get proper guidelines on how to deal with common situations like this. Minority response by Howard Weinstein: As opposed to Hugh Ross' minority report, I agree in principle with the Committee's decision. As much as I dislike the legal differentiation between a misbid and a misexplanation (Bart and I are in almost complete agreement on this point), assessing a procedural penalty to match the likely IMP difference caused by the misbid is too heavy handed a method to produce equity. Though the Committee decision had no bearing on the match result, there has been considerable "feedback" on the Committee decision. Several questions on policy posed by the Committee received differing responses from various authorities after the Committee was held. The fact we had these questions on policy and differing responses needs to be discussed. As long as the laws apparently cannot be written to provide equity when an unintentional misbid is made (i.e. forgetting or not knowing what conventions/treatments you're playing), should we try to provide equity through other means such as procedural penalties? This should be a stated goal or non-goal given to all Committees. The Committee should not have to try to determine policy, only to produce the equitable ruling under the current policy. In order to provide consistent rulings there must be a published reference of guidelines covering both the objectives and ranges of remedies in situations where the laws do not explicitly express such remedies. The Laws Commission, Co-Chairmen of NABC Appeals, and the top directors must agree on whether equity is our ultimate objective and when the laws fail to provide equity, specify the Committee's range of legal options. Another question that might be addressed is whether active ethics does now (or should) provide that a player correct a conventional mix- up or differing explanation to the opponents after the auction is complete, regardless of who screwed up. One other area also relating to this Committee is the apparent legal distinction between being able to assess a procedural penalty against a partnership for not knowing their agreements, and not being able to assess a procedural penalty if a player just forgets a convention. This legal distinction seems specious at best. The Committee spent the majority of its time trying to determine "policy" from knowledgeable sources and a smaller part of its time on the actual bridge situation. The answers given in Committee to our questions on current policy were apparently very nebulous. The Committee shouldn't be in this position. Chairperson - Bart Bramley Members - Bob Lipsitz, Howard Weinstein, Hugh Ross, George Steiner 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 Fri Sep 7 02:54:00 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:54:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:41:04 +1000." Message-ID: <200709070039.RAA30575@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: [quoting Bart Bramley] > The screen alignment was relevant in this case. > More often, the screen protects the players, but > here it damaged them. Just as we sometimes ask: > "What would have happened with screens?", here we > could ask: "What would have happened *without* > screens?" The answer is obvious. North would have > been told about the misunderstanding before he > led. I don't think it's that obvious. There are two possible scenarios: (1) After hearing East's explanation, West realizes he screwed up and forgot the system. (2) After hearing East's explanation, West believed that East forgot the system. The auction should continue the same way either way, since (by the UI laws) West needs to bid as if East had explained 2D according to what West thought it was when he made the bid (it's a bit more complex than that, of course, because of logical alternatives). But in case #1, nobody would have told North anything, because there was no misunderstanding or misexplanation to tell North about (and there is no requirement to tell the opponents that you misbid); while in case #2, West would have believed he was required to tell North about East's supposed misexplanation. So I don't understand how Bramley would have thought the answer would be so obvious. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 7 04:20:35 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:20:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709070039.RAA30575@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 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. Appeals Committee decision, 1994: >The laws are clear that when the offenders can >*prove* they misbid, rather than misexplained, no >adjustment is given. Thus, restoring the original >result was mandated by the laws. Bart Bramley, Appeals Committee chair, 1994: >Damage is often severe when, as in this case, one >partner thinks "natural" and the other >"artificial". (A disproportionate number of these >mix-ups seem to happen after an opening bid of >1NT.) Frequently, a normal bridge result becomes >impossible to obtain. This is not how we were >intended to play. I believe the offending side >deserves the worst of it when such accidents >occur. Richard Hills: Even under the 1987 Lawbook which applied for this 1994 appeal, the Law 75 footnote stated that for a misbid "there is no infraction of law". So the question begging that the committee majority and its chairman got tangled up in was referring to "offenders" and "offending side". If a side has not infracted law, they ipso facto cannot be an "offending side", but must instead be a "non-offending side". So therefore they are not subject to Law 90, which only permits a procedural penalty to be applied for 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 Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 7 10:33:22 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 04:33:22 EDT Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >In a message dated 07/09/2007 03:20:57 GMT Standard Time, >richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >If a side has not infracted law, they ipso facto >cannot be an "offending side", but must instead be >a "non-offending side". So therefore they are not >subject to Law 90, which only permits a procedural >penalty to be applied for an "offence". I totally agree that the committee in this 1994 case was badly mistaken in assessing a procedural penalty in order to try to compensate North-South for their bad luck, or to punish East-West for a bidding misunderstanding. It is human nature to bend the laws to try and get the result one wants, however wrongly. The fourth official advised the referee to send Zidane off in the last World Cup final for a head butt (apologies to those who don't care about soccer), even though his viewing of the video monitor did not allow him to do that; he, of course claimed he was watching Zidane with his eyes at the time, even though play was 40 yards away, and this entitled him to act (he was so empowered if he saw it first hand). Some doubted the veracity of the statement, although believing justice was done. Here the laws appear clear that the misbid is not an infraction (assuming the AC believed the documentation). The PP was, IMHO, acting ultra vires and the AC should be so advised by the governing body. Paul From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Sep 7 10:38:06 2007 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:38:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> This is exactly what the Dutch AC is now doing. If your opponents misbid, in general they get a bad score. However, sometimes they are lucky. It is human nature to see this as unjust, and try to compensate. However, the Laws state specifically that they are allowed to keep their good score when they get lucky. Hans -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens Gampas at aol.com Verzonden: vrijdag 7 september 2007 10:33 Aan: blml at amsterdamned.org Onderwerp: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >In a message dated 07/09/2007 03:20:57 GMT Standard Time, >richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >If a side has not infracted law, they ipso facto >cannot be an "offending side", but must instead be >a "non-offending side". So therefore they are not >subject to Law 90, which only permits a procedural >penalty to be applied for an "offence". I totally agree that the committee in this 1994 case was badly mistaken in assessing a procedural penalty in order to try to compensate North-South for their bad luck, or to punish East-West for a bidding misunderstanding. It is human nature to bend the laws to try and get the result one wants, however wrongly. The fourth official advised the referee to send Zidane off in the last World Cup final for a head butt (apologies to those who don't care about soccer), even though his viewing of the video monitor did not allow him to do that; he, of course claimed he was watching Zidane with his eyes at the time, even though play was 40 yards away, and this entitled him to act (he was so empowered if he saw it first hand). Some doubted the veracity of the statement, although believing justice was done. Here the laws appear clear that the misbid is not an infraction (assuming the AC believed the documentation). The PP was, IMHO, acting ultra vires and the AC should be so advised by the governing body. Paul _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 7 12:33:52 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:33:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003c01c7f13e$fdfd22c0$609587d9@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: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Here the laws appear clear that the misbid is > not an infraction (assuming the AC believed the > documentation). The PP was, IMHO, acting > ultra vires and the AC should be so advised > by the governing body. > > Paul > +=+ My initial reaction is that the AC should have been instructed as to the law by the Director, who should then have refused to impose a penalty for a supposed offence which in law was not an offence. Am I missing something? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 7 13:03:42 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:03:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> Message-ID: <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* "Progress is not an accident but a necessity." {Herbert Spencer} vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > This is exactly what the Dutch AC is now doing. If your > opponents misbid, in general they get a bad score. However, > sometimes they are lucky. It is human nature to see this as > unjust, and try to compensate. However, the Laws state > specifically that they are allowed to keep their good score > when they get lucky. > > Hans > +=+ The position Hans adopts is based firmly on the law book statement that "... the mistake was in South's bid. Here there is no infraction of law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands". (The book goes on to remind players that when they are aware that their call has been misinterpreted that knowledge is UI and they must not base their further actions upon it.) On the question of misbid/misexplanation there is no legal basis for any other stance. However, I do have one disquiet, namely that the SO may have licensed the use of convention X on condition that it may not be misused or psyched. There would then be an infraction of a regulation established under Law 40D, independent of and without regard to misexplanation. Such a condition is not excluded by the unrestricted language of Law 40D. The remedy would then be whatever remedy is prescribed for illegal use of a convention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 14:22:08 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:22:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003c01c7f13e$fdfd22c0$609587d9@Hellen> References: <003c01c7f13e$fdfd22c0$609587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709070522x69dcd86dq81b5d994d4e6a61f@mail.gmail.com> On 9/7/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ My initial reaction is that the AC should have been > instructed as to the law by the Director, who should then > have refused to impose a penalty for a supposed offence > which in law was not an offence. Am I missing something? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > At the end of the appeal process, the director may (or must?) override an AC's final decision that imposes a penalty whenever the director decides there was no offense? This is in the law book? Has it ever happened in the ACBL? Jerry Fusselman From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 7 15:12:42 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:12:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003f01c7f150$c6597e60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: quoting snip > > The Committee spent the majority of its time > trying to determine "policy" from knowledgeable > sources and a smaller part of its time on the > actual bridge situation. The answers given in > Committee to our questions on current policy were > apparently very nebulous. The Committee shouldn't > be in this position. > > Chairperson - Bart Bramley > Members - Bob Lipsitz, Howard Weinstein, Hugh > Ross, George Steiner > > The committee were abysmally failed by the intructing TD. He's the one who should be shot. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 7 15:46:58 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:46:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003c01c7f13e$fdfd22c0$609587d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0709070522x69dcd86dq81b5d994d4e6a61f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601c7f155$ab2ee580$909587d9@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: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 9/7/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> +=+ My initial reaction is that the AC should have been >> instructed as to the law by the Director, who should then >> have refused to impose a penalty for a supposed offence >> which in law was not an offence. Am I missing something? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > At the end of the appeal process, the director may (or must?) override > an AC's final decision that imposes a penalty whenever the director > decides there was no offense? This is in the law book? Has it ever > happened in the ACBL? > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ Law 81C5 requires the Director to administer and interpret the Laws. Law 81B2 states that the Director is bound by the laws and supplementary regulations. Law 93B3 authorizes the appeals committee to exercise the powers the Director has so long as it does not seek to overrule him on a point of law or regulation or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. I would think the foregoing is explicit enough - and that in particular the requirement to 'administer' lays a duty upon the Director. My extended memory does tell me that on at least one occasion my good friend William J. Schoder did tell an AC in an international event that, as a matter of law, it could not do what it had decided to do. However, when needed it can appear that some of the most outwardly virile TDs lack the requisite testicular equipment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 7 15:52:05 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:52:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709070522x69dcd86dq81b5d994d4e6a61f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c7f156$46b3f9f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > On 9/7/07, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ My initial reaction is that the AC should have been > > instructed as to the law by the Director, who should then > > have refused to impose a penalty for a supposed offence > > which in law was not an offence. Am I missing something? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > At the end of the appeal process, the director may (or must?) override > an AC's final decision that imposes a penalty whenever the director > decides there was no offense? This is in the law book? Has it ever > happened in the ACBL? I hope not; I think this would be improper by the Director. What he can do is to recommend a further appeal to the National Authority. (Assuming of course that he during the appeal process has reminded the AC about Law 93B3 if he feels that Law applicable) Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 7 16:01:59 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E159D7.7070300@ntlworld.com> [Ricahrd Hills: Spingold Teams, San Diego 1994] Dlr: North Vul: None \ JT93 \ AQJ98 \ 98 \ 62 --- \ AQ4 KT3 \ 752 QT765 \ 32 T9753 \ AKQJ8 K87652\ 64 \ AKJ4 \ 4 \ WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1NT 2C(1) 2D(2) Pass 2H 2S 3C 4S 5C Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted on both sides of the screen as a one-suited hand (2) Alerted by *East* as a transfer to hearts Result: North led the HA. Five clubs went down one trick, +100 to North-South. Facts: 2D was alerted on the North and East side of the screen as a Jacoby Transfer to hearts. Director's Ruling: North asked for a score adjustment based on the misinformation given during the auction. The director (Cukoff) awarded North-South +300 (down two) for misinformation from diverging explanations. East-West appealed claiming there was a mistaken bid not a misexplanation. Committee Decision: East-West produced system notes (typeset) clearly showing that their *agreement* was that 2D was a Jacoby Transfer bid. Thus, what occurred was a misbid rather than a misexplanation. The director, who did not see the system notes, made the correct ruling based on the assumption of a misexplanation. After the 2H bid, West told South, his screenmate, that there may have been a misunderstanding. The Committee felt that, based on the information North had, the lead of the HA was strongly indicated. If 2D was clearly a transfer, according to the system notes, then West misbid and there's no infraction. The fact that West forgot the system during the auction (and made incorrect statements to South about the system) was irrelevant, in the face of the hard evidence of the system notes. The Committee unanimously restored the original table result, +100 for North-South. The Committee voted to impose a procedural penalty against East-West to restore equity for a conventional mix-up resulting directly in damage to the innocent side. The Committee voted three to two to impose a five IMP procedural penalty, Weinstein and Ross dissented (they were in favour of a three IMP penalty). The laws are clear that when the offenders can *prove* they misbid, rather than misexplained, no adjustment is given. Thus, restoring the original result was mandated by the laws. The laws and other Committee guidelines are less clear about the imposition of procedural penalties. The Committee discussed this issue at length. The majority felt that the principle of "restoration of equity" was of primary importance. (A National Co-Chairman of the NABC Appeals Committee provided, at the request of the Committee, a directive from the ACBL Board of Directors that the Committee's primary responsibility was to *restore equity*.) They felt that the "rub of the green" concept was invalid because the East-West mix-up *directly caused North-South to lose a trick*. They also felt the fluke of the screen alignment should not damage the innocent side. Some members felt North-South were disadvantaged because only South was told of a "possible misunderstanding". Others argued that since West was under no (legal) obligation to say *anything*, he should not be penalized for helping only one opponent. The rebuttal was that this was contrary to the concept of "active ethics". The minority (who will comment separately) agreed that a procedural penalty was in order, but wanted to impose the "standard" three IMP penalty for a damaging conventional mix-up. They felt a larger penalty would subvert the laws as written. Additional comments from the Committee chairman, Bart Bramley: I have always disliked the legal distinction between a misbid and a misexplanation. The result in either case is a "partnership bidding error", regardless of which partner is "right". The effect on the innocent side is identical; they usually don't care who is "right". I understand the law is necessary to protect certain occurrences at the table, including intentional misbids (psyches) and mechanical errors (e.g., pulling the wrong bid from the bidding box). I don't understand why conventional mix-ups should fall under the umbrella of protection afforded by this part of the law. Damage is often severe when, as in this case, one partner thinks "natural" and the other "artificial". (A disproportionate number of these mix-ups seem to happen after an opening bid of 1NT.) Frequently, a normal bridge result becomes impossible to obtain. This is not how we were intended to play. I believe the offending side deserves the worst of it when such accidents occur. The screen alignment was relevant in this case. More often, the screen protects the players, but here it damaged them. Just as we sometimes ask: "What would have happened with screens?", here we could ask: "What would have happened *without* screens?" The answer is obvious. North would have been told about the misunderstanding before he led. (Of course, East-West might have a hard time justifying their auction after unauthorized information from the Alert. But that's a different problem.) Perhaps we can devise a simple mechanical solution to allow a player to interrogate each opponent independently behind screens. This would be useful in long constructive sequences involving relays or fancy versions of Blackwood. The fact that your opponents (or your partner) know that you are asking questions would not generally help any of them, but the answers could definitely help you. You could interrogate in this way anytime you suspected a mix-up. Dissenting opinion by Hugh Ross: West forgot a convention (which is legal). His partner bid impeccably subsequent to the misbid. West Alerted South that there was a possible misunderstanding before South bid 2S (unnecessarily in my opinion). West did not say anything to North prior to the opening lead, since the law specifically states that he does not have to. I do not believe any offense was committed by West. The Committee attempted to find out if a misbid is an offense but got no help on this point from anyone. Misbids have the identical effect as uncontrolled psyches. Why should a deliberate misbid carry no penalty, whereas an inadvertent should be penalized? The game itself provides penalties in the long run for psyching or misbidding; why should the police be adding additional penalties? Although the Committee believed an offense was committed, they made no effort to determine its effect on the subsequent auction. A good case can be made that the misbid allowed South an easier entry into the auction than he would have had if West had bid correctly. No attempt was made to find out what West would have bid if he had remembered his conventions. In this sense, North-South were not necessarily damaged to the extent of five IMPs. Sensing the mood of the majority of the Committee, and not knowing for sure whether an offense had been committed or not, I voted for a three IMP penalty as the best I could expect to get. I believe no penalty was justified. Miscarriages of justice like this ruling will continue to occur until Committees get proper guidelines on how to deal with common situations like this. Minority response by Howard Weinstein: As opposed to Hugh Ross' minority report, I agree in principle with the Committee's decision. As much as I dislike the legal differentiation between a misbid and a misexplanation (Bart and I are in almost complete agreement on this point), assessing a procedural penalty to match the likely IMP difference caused by the misbid is too heavy handed a method to produce equity. Though the Committee decision had no bearing on the match result, there has been considerable "feedback" on the Committee decision. Several questions on policy posed by the Committee received differing responses from various authorities after the Committee was held. The fact we had these questions on policy and differing responses needs to be discussed. As long as the laws apparently cannot be written to provide equity when an unintentional misbid is made (i.e. forgetting or not knowing what conventions/treatments you're playing), should we try to provide equity through other means such as procedural penalties? This should be a stated goal or non-goal given to all Committees. The Committee should not have to try to determine policy, only to produce the quitable ruling under the current policy. In order to provide consistent rulings there must be a published reference of guidelines covering both the objectives and ranges of remedies in situations where the laws do not explicitly express such remedies. The Laws Commission, Co-Chairmen of NABC Appeals, and the top directors must agree on whether equity is our ultimate objective and when the laws fail to provide equity, specify the Committee's range of legal options. Another question that might be addressed is whether active ethics does now (or should) provide that a player correct a conventional mix- up or differing explanation to the opponents after the auction is complete, regardless of who screwed up. One other area also relating to this Committee is the apparent legal distinction between being able to assess a procedural penalty against a partnership for not knowing their agreements, and not being able to assess a procedural penalty if a player just forgets a convention. This legal distinction seems specious at best. The Committee spent the majority of its time trying to determine "policy" from knowledgeable sources and a smaller part of its time on the actual bridge situation. The answers given in Committee to our questions on current policy were apparently very nebulous. The ommittee shouldn't be in this position. Chairperson - Bart Bramley Members - Bob Lipsitz, Howard Weinstein, Hugh Ross, George Steiner [Richard Hills] Even under the 1987 Lawbook which applied for this 1994 appeal, the Law 75 footnote stated that for a misbid "there is no infraction of law". So the question begging that the committee majority and its chairman got tangled up in was referring to "offenders" and "offending side". If a side has not infracted law, they ipso facto cannot be an "offending side", but must instead be a "non-offending side". So therefore they are not subject to Law 90, which only permits a procedural penalty to be applied for an "offence". [Nige1] I understand that most BLMLers feel that this sort of ruling is contrary to the law but I've a lot of sympathy for a brave Committee who try to uphold "Equity" (stubbornly sticking to the dictionary meaning of the word -- roughly "justice" "fairness"). [A] Whenever I've served on a committee, I've always had the director confirm that our decision was in accord with the law. This committee tried hard to do that. If their decision was illegal it was certainly not their fault. [B] It is amazing how often pairs adopt exotic conventions with hazy meanings that they are prone to forget. They trot out what is, in effect a "random overcall", when not vulnerable, especially against vulnerable opponents. I feel that Scandinavia have got it right, if as Sven (I think) said: when "Guess them" and similar conventions are abused in this way, they rule misinformation rather than misbid. [C] A reputation for such efforts can benefit the secretary bird in several ways. (C1) Some jurisdictions stupidly expect a pair to protect themselves, by asking about seemingly absurd bids that are not alerted. When the bid was, in fact, systemically natural, the partner of the asker then has to lean over backwards not to take advantage of resulting unauthorised information. Typically, this results in severe damage to his own side. (C2) When you suspect a misexplanation, you have to pull in your horns because daft jurisdictions will deny you redress if your normally exuberant and aggressive style of bidding is considered to be "wild and gambling." It it turns out that opponents have committed no offence, then you suffer damage by losing the game or slam that your normal methods would reach. [D] The current law rewards those who can convincingly claim misbid rather than misexplanation. Often the misbid/misexplanation arises because of a recent proposal to change to the system -- so it is easy to produce authentic "system-notes" to substantiate the old or new meaning, as appropriate. [E] Hence, IMO, in such a case, the CONVENTION CARD should be photocopied immediately and used as the *primary* source of information about a current agreement -- especially for a bizarre agreement that may require a special defence. IMO, this illustrates the unfortunate legal trend -- not only to over-reward law-breaking (e.g. with L12C3 fudges) -- but also to encourage "economy with the truth". From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 7 16:11:39 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:11:39 EDT Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 07/09/2007 12:05:48 GMT Standard Time, grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk writes: >On the question of misbid/misexplanation there is no legal >basis for any other stance. However, I do have one disquiet, >namely that the SO may have licensed the use of convention X >on condition that it may not be misused or psyched. There would >then be an infraction of a regulation established under Law 40D, >independent of and without regard to misexplanation. Such a >condition is not excluded by the unrestricted language of Law >40D. The remedy would then be whatever remedy is prescribed >for illegal use of a convention. ~ Grattan ~ >+=+ I think it improbable that the SO would have not allowed "system on over Cappelletti" which is what this pair were using in the Diego-gate case. Indeed, such restrictions on the use of a convention normally apply when a convention lends itself to abuse. For example, a "Watson double of a freely bid 3NT" by the opponents, asking partner to lead a suit other than the one in which you have overcalled, cannot be used when you have psyched. Similarly a third-in-hand one spade psyche with a weak two bid in clubs might in itself be a breach if partner's most likely method of progressing the auction is to begin with Drury. Neither of these is remotely applicable to the cited case. From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 7 16:50:45 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:50:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:38:06 +0200." <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> Message-ID: <200709071436.HAA04850@mailhub.irvine.com> Hans wrote: > This is exactly what the Dutch AC is now doing. If your opponents misbid, in > general they get a bad score. However, sometimes they are lucky. Your last two sentences are just as valid if you replace the word "misbid" with "misplay". Interestingly, I have never seen anyone claim that "justice" should be done when somebody botches the play of a hand and it works out well for them on the lie of the cards. For that matter, I don't even think anyone thinks it's "unjust" when someone makes a stupid bidding decision, such as passing a game invitation when it's obvious that it should be bid, and getting lucky because the suits break really terribly. They complain about being fixed, but I've never heard of anyone believing that there should be a penalty or that they are entitled to a score adjustment of some sort. There's something about the forgetting of a conventional bid that seems to cause people to claim they were damaged under the Laws, moreso than other dumb mistakes. Off the top of my head, I suspect this may be because the various bridge organizations have been (correctly) pushing the need for players to disclose all their agreements, but some players have perhaps confused the "right to know the opponents' agreements" with the "right to know what's in an opponent's hand", and thus feel that when the second "right" is violated it's tantamount to the first right being violated. I can understand why this could be confusing---normally when someone makes a conventional bid and it's explained properly, you *do* know something about the bidder's hand. But we have to recognize this as a confusion and not give into it. It's distressing that even high-ranking officials and committee members seem to be making this same mistake. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 7 20:00:17 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:00:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Sep 7, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > However, I do have one disquiet,namely that the > SO may have licensed the use of convention X on > condition that it may not be misused or psyched. There would > then be an infraction of a regulation established under Law 40D, > independent of and without regard to misexplanation. Such a > condition is not excluded by the unrestricted language of Law > 40D. The remedy would then be whatever remedy is prescribed > for illegal use of a convention. Hm. SOs have an untrammeled right to regulate conventions, so a regulation prohibiting the misuse of a convention - as seems the case in fact if not in law in some jurisdictions wrt Ghestem - is legal. I'm not so sure it's right, in the broad sense of that word, though. As to remedy, what if the regulation provides none? It would then be up to the TD to apply an applicable law - but convention regulations are made under Law 40D, and that law does not specify a remedy. It would seem we're left with Law 12A1. Or is there something I've missed? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 7 20:04:26 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:04:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c7f155$ab2ee580$909587d9@Hellen> References: <003c01c7f13e$fdfd22c0$609587d9@Hellen> <2b1e598b0709070522x69dcd86dq81b5d994d4e6a61f@mail.gmail.com> <000601c7f155$ab2ee580$909587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: On Sep 7, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > My extended memory does tell me that on at least one > occasion my good friend William J. Schoder did tell an > AC in an international event that, as a matter of law, it > could not do what it had decided to do. And did the AC comply with the TD, or do what it had decided to do anyway? I wouldn't be surprised either way, to tell the truth. > However, when needed it can appear that some of the most outwardly > virile TDs lack the requisite testicular equipment. ROFL! Hear, hear! From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 8 02:14:19 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:14:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp><003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Hm. SOs have an untrammeled right to regulate conventions, so a > regulation prohibiting the misuse of a convention - as seems the case > in fact if not in law in some jurisdictions wrt Ghestem - is legal. > I'm not so sure it's right, in the broad sense of that word, though. > +=+ I think you are questioning whether such a regulation is desirable. I have long held the view that legislators should make the law, but that regulators should make the policy. My belief is that a shack in Mossley Hill or a villa in the Dordogne is no location for judging the ethos of play in Los Angeles or in Sao Paulo.+=+ > > As to remedy, what if the regulation provides none? It would then be > up to the TD to apply an applicable law - but convention regulations > are made under Law 40D, and that law does not specify a remedy. It > would seem we're left with Law 12A1. Or is there something I've missed? > +=+ 84E +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Sep 8 06:27:55 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:27:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:14 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ 84E +=+ Sho'nuf. :-) From brian at meadows.pair.com Sat Sep 8 13:19:56 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 07:19:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <20070908071956.3602f930@linuxbox> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:14:19 +0100 wrote: > > > +=+ I think you are questioning whether such a regulation is > desirable. I have long held the view that legislators should make the > law, but that regulators should make the policy. My belief is that a > shack in Mossley Hill or a villa in the Dordogne is no location for > judging the ethos of play in Los Angeles or in Sao Paulo.+=+ > > Well, that's a view that (AFAIK) doesn't hold sway in any of the other games with which I'm familiar. The Aussies gave up the 8-ball over many years ago, golf is now played with the same size ball the world over, and FIFA sorted out the Yanks with no messing around before they gave them the World Cup. The downside to your devolved system comes for those of us who play online, where a substantial percentage of players seem to be of the view that it's THEIR local regulations which are in force (particularly the ACBL members, I have to say) and nobody really knows what is or isn't alertable in a game where the players are from widely differing locations. Hopefully your eventual successors on the WBFLC will recognise the increasing popularity of online bridge and try to introduce a bit more standardisation to the game. Brian. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070908/cdedfdf8/attachment.pgp From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 8 17:00:44 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709071515.l87FFdfc001342@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709071515.l87FFdfc001342@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ The position Hans adopts is based firmly on the law book > statement that "... the mistake was in South's bid. Here there is > no infraction of law... ... > namely that the SO may have licensed the use of convention X > on condition that it may not be misused or psyched. The ACBL has that regulation with regard to artificial strong bids (or is it artificial, strong _opening_ bids?) but (so far as I know) no others. > The remedy would then be whatever remedy is prescribed > for illegal use of a convention. Unfortunately, I don't believe the ACBL has any regulation on this subject. The only time I've been at a table where an illegal convention was used, the ruling was "redeal." :-( As we have discussed here many times, absent regulation there are at least two possible rulings. (Three if we count "redeal.") > +=+ My initial reaction is that the AC should have been > instructed as to the law by the Director, who should then > have refused to impose a penalty for a supposed offence > which in law was not an offence. Am I missing something? You are missing the woeful state of both directing and organization of AC's in the ACBL. ACs have improved enormously since 1994 (thanks to a few individuals who seem to have gotten precious little thanks from ACBL management), TDs perhaps a little. That's not to say competent TDs don't exist -- I know several locally, all trained by the same highly-competent individual -- but the average TD at the average tournament does not meet a high standard as far as rulings go. From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Sat Sep 8 17:41:11 2007 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:41:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709071515.l87FFdfc001342@cfa.harvard.edu> <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46E2C297.2040302@nyc.rr.com> The ACBL general convention chart include under disallowed: Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings. The midchart and superchart convention charts include under disallowed: Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. So, under midchart/superchart it seems (by ommission) you are allowed to psych conventional opening bids that are not artificial (and conventional responses thereto) -- I wonder what exactly that caters to? Does that mean for instance you can't pysch 2D Flannery but you can psych 2H Flannery? Steve Willner wrote: > The ACBL has that regulation with regard to artificial strong bids (or > is it artificial, strong _opening_ bids?) but (so far as I know) no others. > -- Mike Kopera Futures are harder to trade than pasts. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Sep 8 20:42:57 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:42:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070908071956.3602f930@linuxbox> References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> <20070908071956.3602f930@linuxbox> Message-ID: <0BD95937-6E19-4DE2-8E8F-FD099EEE3498@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 8, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Brian wrote: > The downside to your devolved system comes for those of us who play > online, where a substantial percentage of players seem to be of the > view that it's THEIR local regulations which are in force > (particularly > the ACBL members, I have to say) and nobody really knows what is or > isn't alertable in a game where the players are from widely differing > locations. Law 80 says, among other things, "A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: [snip] F. Supplementary Regulations to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." So if somebody sets up a game online, and doesn't specify any alerting regulations, then arguably *nothing* is alertable. Additionally, one could argue that failure to specify certain regulations, in particular as to what conventions are permitted (or not permitted) and how and what to alert, is dereliction of the SO's duty - for which the appropriate penalty ought, it seems to me, to be refusal to play in that SO's games. ACBL club owners/managers typically don't specify such regulations. Recently, when I asked a local club owner who'd asked me to direct her game (last night's game, in fact) what convention regulations she wished to be in place, she said "just be nice to the players". I'm told by some correspondents that "it's just a club game, who cares?" Doesn't seem a very professional attitude for a TD - or an SO - to take, but given that attitude it's not surprising that nobody specifies what alert regulations should be in force in their online games. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Sep 8 21:06:25 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:06:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709071515.l87FFdfc001342@cfa.harvard.edu> <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <8D106F0F-FFB5-4ED9-9247-A85F253DB75B@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 8, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> namely that the SO may have licensed the use of convention X >> on condition that it may not be misused or psyched. > > The ACBL has that regulation with regard to artificial strong bids (or > is it artificial, strong _opening_ bids?) but (so far as I know) no > others. From the GCC, item 2 under "Disallowed": "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings." Misuse is not addressed. > >> The remedy would then be whatever remedy is prescribed >> for illegal use of a convention. > > Unfortunately, I don't believe the ACBL has any regulation on this > subject. The only time I've been at a table where an illegal > convention > was used, the ruling was "redeal." :-( As we have discussed here many > times, absent regulation there are at least two possible rulings. > (Three > if we count "redeal.") I think the correct ruling may depend on when the infraction is discovered. In a case where, for example, the opening bid is illegal, and the director is called immediately, I think it would be right to cancel the bid, allow the offending side some minimal time to discuss changes to their system, and require the opening bidder to choose another call, informing responder of his obligation under Law 73C. I'm not sure I can find a justification in law for this ruling, though. The alternative, and the only choice (I think) if the infraction is discovered later in the auction, is to allow the auction and play to proceed, and adjust the score afterwards. I also think that redeal is legal (see Law 6D3) if and only if the board has not previously been played. Or is abandoning a hand on which bidding, albeit illegal, has already commenced "incompatible with these laws"? It might be incompatible with Law 17, I suppose. >> +=+ My initial reaction is that the AC should have been >> instructed as to the law by the Director, who should then >> have refused to impose a penalty for a supposed offence >> which in law was not an offence. Am I missing something? > > You are missing the woeful state of both directing and organization of > AC's in the ACBL. ACs have improved enormously since 1994 (thanks > to a > few individuals who seem to have gotten precious little thanks from > ACBL > management), TDs perhaps a little. That's not to say competent TDs > don't exist -- I know several locally, all trained by the same > highly-competent individual -- but the average TD at the average > tournament does not meet a high standard as far as rulings go. I may be mistaken, but I think there's another aspect here. Grattan implies that an AC's decision is implemented by the TD, and that the TD has a right and duty to refuse to implement an illegal decision. It has always been my impression that the AC's decision is implemented as a matter of course, whatever the TD thinks of it. I don't recall reading anything in any AC guidance I've seen that contradicts this impression. OTOH, I have almost no experience with ACs, so quite possibly I've missed something. Heh. Given that last statement as to the standard of *tournament* directing, how much more lamentable must be the standard of *club* directing? :-( From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 8 23:34:50 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:34:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8D106F0F-FFB5-4ED9-9247-A85F253DB75B@rochester.rr.com> References: <200709071515.l87FFdfc001342@cfa.harvard.edu> <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> <8D106F0F-FFB5-4ED9-9247-A85F253DB75B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <46E3157A.2060206@ntlworld.com> [Ed Reppert] Heh. Given that last statement as to the standard of *tournament* directing, how much more lamentable must be the standard of *club* directing? :-( [Nige1] Given the dissension among BLMLers over the simplest rulings, how can tournament and club directors be criticised? IMO most of the blame lies with incomplete ambiguous over-sophisticated and over-subjective laws. Consistency is further undermined by legal fragmentation into minutes and such like. Diverging regulations at local level are the final straw. It frightens me that WBFLC members like Grattan Endicott seem to feel that this is a defensible strategy. When this subject is broached, Richard Hills approvingly quotes... [Walt Whitman (1819-1892)] Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" [Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)] "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." A strange attitude for a man who loves to draw attention to the allegedly faulty arguments of others. As Richard well knows, from a contradiction *any* conclusion can be derived :( :( :( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 9 00:53:34 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 18:53:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E3157A.2060206@ntlworld.com> References: <200709071515.l87FFdfc001342@cfa.harvard.edu> <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> <8D106F0F-FFB5-4ED9-9247-A85F253DB75B@rochester.rr.com> <46E3157A.2060206@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Given the dissension among BLMLers over the simplest rulings, how can > tournament and club directors be criticised? Easily. :-) From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Sep 9 01:54:58 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 19:54:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0BD95937-6E19-4DE2-8E8F-FD099EEE3498@rochester.rr.com> References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> <20070908071956.3602f930@linuxbox> <0BD95937-6E19-4DE2-8E8F-FD099EEE3498@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070908195458.7ccaf5d3@linuxbox> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:42:57 -0400 Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Brian wrote: > > > The downside to your devolved system comes for those of us who play > > online, where a substantial percentage of players seem to be of the > > view that it's THEIR local regulations which are in force > > (particularly > > the ACBL members, I have to say) and nobody really knows what is or > > isn't alertable in a game where the players are from widely > > differing locations. > > Law 80 says, among other things, "A sponsoring organization > conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and > powers: > > [snip] > > F. Supplementary Regulations > to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in > conflict with, these Laws." > > So if somebody sets up a game online, and doesn't specify any > alerting regulations, then arguably *nothing* is alertable. > Additionally, one could argue that failure to specify certain > regulations, in particular as to what conventions are permitted (or > not permitted) and how and what to alert, is dereliction of the SO's > duty - for which the appropriate penalty ought, it seems to me, to > be refusal to play in that SO's games. > You misunderstand me, Ed. It's not the case that the online games don't specify alerting regulations - they do, at least the ones with which I'm familiar (OKBridge and BBO). The problem is that so many players have no idea what goes on outside their own SO. The WBFLC had an attempt at setting up an online set of Laws some while back, and I have to say that it was met with general derision, at least on the OKBridge mailing list. If the WBFLC really want to perform a service for online bridge, which is at least arguably the future of the game, then set up a set of *world-wide* alerting regulations, and publish them as an appendix to the Laws but noted as applying to online play. And require those SOs that publish a translation of the Laws to both preserve and translate that appendix, too. > ACBL club owners/managers typically don't specify such regulations. > Recently, when I asked a local club owner who'd asked me to direct > her game (last night's game, in fact) what convention regulations > she wished to be in place, she said "just be nice to the players". > I'm told by some correspondents that "it's just a club game, who > cares?" Doesn't seem a very professional attitude for a TD - or an SO > - to take, but given that attitude it's not surprising that nobody > specifies what alert regulations should be in force in their online > games. > But as above, they *do*. The problem is that many players don't seem to understand that their own SO's regulations aren't in force worldwide. I still maintain that bridge is the exception rather than the rule as regards the degree to which the rules are localised, and it's that which I would like to see changed, even if it means we have two separate sets of Laws - which is really no bad idea, since we could throw out large chunks of the Laws that are irrelevant to online play. The simpler the Laws, the more likely that players are to read them, and it's idiocy to have online players read through large chunks of code burbling on about revokes, plays out of turn, etc. Yes, I remember that DWS had a bet with me about someone writing an online game which **deliberately** allowed such irregularities. As I recall, I gave him 100-1 on a 1 Euro bet over a 10 year period, and I still think my money is safe. Brian. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070908/cf621d61/attachment-0001.pgp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 9 04:35:51 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:35:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dissenting opinion by Hugh Ross: >West forgot a convention (which is legal). His >partner bid impeccably subsequent to the misbid. >West Alerted South that there was a possible >misunderstanding before South bid 2S >(unnecessarily in my opinion). West did not say >anything to North prior to the opening lead, >since the law specifically states that he does >not have to. I do not believe any offense was >committed by West..... Richard Hills: It is true that a misbid of a convention is not an infraction (unless, as Grattan points out, the sponsoring organisation has merely given conditional approval to a convention, with that condition being that that particular convention is never psyched or misbid). And it is true that West had no obligation to tell North that West had misbid. The footnote to Law 75 states that a misbidder has no responsibility to reveal that they have misbid, neither immediately nor subsequently. Appeals committee, "active ethics" assertion: >.....Others argued that since West was under no >(legal) obligation to say *anything*, he should >not be penalized for helping only one opponent. >The rebuttal was that this was contrary to the >concept of "active ethics"..... WBF Code of Practice, "Ethics" (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." Richard Hills: However, a misexplanation of an agreement is an infraction. Under the ACBL screen regulation, created pursuant to Law 80E, West was required to alert and explain his own calls to South. West failed to alert his own 2D call, which by partnership agreement was a conventional transfer to hearts. It is true that once East bid 2H, West then told South that West believed a partnership misunderstanding occurred. So it is true that South knew exactly what was happening at the table - West believed that 2D showed diamonds, while East believed that 2D showed hearts. But West did not tell South which of these two beliefs was the actual East-West partnership agreement, so West had only partially rectified his infraction of the first sentence of Law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40)." The question is whether a procedural penalty can be applied to West for West's partial technical misinformation infraction of Law 75A which not only did not damage South, but could not damage South. The answer is yes, since such a technical infraction fits the Law 90A criterion "violates correct procedure". Whether it is desirable that such a policy should exist mandating a procedural penalty for every technical non-damaging infraction of Law is another matter. Either zillions more Directors would need to be hired to enforce this policy, or an average session would last a week with the Director answering zillions of requests from players to assess procedural penalties after each and every technical non-damaging infraction. According to anecdote, one National Bridge Organisation has a compromise policy. If a Director rules, "infraction, but no damage", the Director does not apply a procedural penalty. Should the non-offending side then launch a meritless appeal against the Director's ruling, the Appeals Committee also rules, "infraction, but no damage". But the Appeals Committee relieves its frustration for being forced to waste time hearing that meritless appeal by applying a procedural penalty to the offending side for its infraction of law. This compromise policy means that the score of the offending side arbitrarily varies according to whether their opponents are silly enough to launch a meritless appeal. This anecdotal NBO policy is contrary to the WBF Code of Practice recommendation on the "Inclination of committee" (page 6): "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented. For this reason the Director must inform the committee if a ruling in favour of the non-offending side reflects a margin of doubt that continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure." Richard Hills: Ergo, if the Director's assessment of fact under Laws 84 and 85 is that a particular infraction of law is too trivial to warrant a procedural penalty, then the Appeals Committee should find some new and relevant facts before deciding to impose a procedural penalty. 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 Sep 9 05:39:25 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 13:39:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c7f155$ab2ee580$909587d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >My extended memory does tell me that on at least one >occasion my good friend William J. Schoder did tell an >AC in an international event that, as a matter of law, it >could not do what it had decided to do. However, when >needed it can appear that some of the most outwardly >virile TDs lack the requisite testicular equipment. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The virile Aussie national director, and blml lurker, Laurie Kelso also has the requisite testicular equipment. On one occasion, this auction occurred: Me LHO Pard RHO 1S 1NT Pass 2D RHO waited for her LHO to alert her 2D bid as a transfer to hearts. When LHO failed to do so, RHO decided to be helpful and alerted her own 2D bid herself. So the TD, Laurie Kelso, was summoned, and followed the standard Law 16 ruling to require the bidding and play of the deal to continue. LHO completed the transfer to 2H, RHO raised to 4H, cold for ten tricks, +420. If, however, the opponents had played in 2D, they would have made five tricks, -150. After completion of the play, the opponents advised Laurie that while LHO often forgot to alert, LHO never forgot a transfer. According to some textbooks, the most efficient method to respond to a 1NT overcall is to use a cuebid of the opponent's suit as Stayman, while other suit bids at the two-level are used as natural and non-forcing. But at least 99% of Aussie players prefer the less efficient but easier to remember method of "front-of-card", playing identical methods for both 1NT opening bids and also 1NT overcalls. (So the Aussie style means that, after a 1S opening bid and a 1NT overcall, a response of 2H is an inefficient idle bid, since you would never want to transfer to spades in order to play in an opponent's five- card major.) Given the 99% Aussie style, and after consultation with the other Directors, Laurie had no difficulty in deciding to agree with the opponents' assertion as to the facts, so Laurie ruled "infraction, but no damage". But I foolishly chose to launch a Secretary Bird appeal. The original decision of the Appeals Committee was extraordinary. It initially ruled that for the offending side LHO had indeed selected an illegal logical alternative of completing the transfer, so adjusted their score to 2D -150. But it also initially ruled that for my non-offending side LHO's acceptance of the transfer was the only logical alternative, so our score remained -420. Laurie demonstrated that he had testicular equipment by not only rejecting the Appeals Committee decision, but by also giving the Appeals Committee a period of mandatory detention, as he ordered them to reconvene until they produced a legal ruling. :-) 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 Sep 9 06:34:01 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 14:34:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070908071956.3602f930@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I think you are questioning whether such a regulation is >>desirable. I have long held the view that legislators should make the >>law, but that regulators should make the policy. My belief is that a >>shack in Mossley Hill or a villa in the Dordogne is no location for >>judging the ethos of play in Los Angeles or in Sao Paulo.+=+ Brian Meadows: >Well, that's a view that (AFAIK) doesn't hold sway in any of the other >games with which I'm familiar. The Aussies gave up the 8-ball over >many years ago, Richard Hills: So I presume that Brian is not familiar with Major League Baseball, and its variable policy on the Designated Hitter which is created by the differing local regulations of the two leagues. Likewise, Brian's idea that cricket has adopted the idea of stultifying universal uniformity of unchanging rules down to the tiniest detail is incorrect. It was television advertising imperatives which caused Australia to shrink its traditional eight-ball over to a six-ball over, not a desire for universal uniformity of rules. England did not wait for International Cricket Council approval - which did not occur until 2001 - before introducing the Duckworth-Lewis method as a rule for deciding the rain-shortened second ODI match Zimbabwe-England five years earlier in the 1996/1997 season. Brian Meadows: >The downside to your devolved system comes for those of us who play >online ..... nobody really knows what is or isn't alertable in a game >where the players are from widely differing locations. Richard Hills: Brian's problems are not unique to online play. Due to the tyranny of distance in Australia, with our biggest cities separated by hundreds or thousands of kilometres, there are a number of different bridge subcultures in Australia. So, when these subcultures mix at our summer nationals, different opponents accustomed to playing against different methods require different alerts since different calls are for them alertably unusual. But it seems to me that this problem can be solved by application of common sense. The point of alerting is not merely obeying a regulation that your sponsoring organisation chose to create. The reason that your sponsoring organisation chose to create an alert regulation was to help you help the opponents by fulfilling the fundamental principle of Law that your agreements must fully and freely available to the opponents. Therefore, when I play against different Aussie bridge subcultures at the Aussie nationals, I do not assume that because a particular one of my partnership agreements is normal and general in my local subculture it is necessarily normal and general in my opponents' subculture. Rather, I carefully pre-alert, alert, and post-alert all of my methods which I think may be unexpected. (Indeed, against inexperienced players, I even pre-alert them to the Aussie alert regulations, pointing out to them that it may be to their advantage to enquire about all of my partnership's doubles at the time they are made, since the ABF alert rules prohibit alerting of doubles during the auction.) 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 Sep 9 07:05:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 15:05:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E3157A.2060206@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Given the dissension among BLMLers over the simplest rulings, how >can tournament and club directors be criticised? IMO most of the >blame lies with incomplete ambiguous over-sophisticated and over- >subjective laws. > >Consistency is further undermined by legal fragmentation into >minutes and such like. Richard Hills: Apart from "over-subjective", I agree with Nigel's criticism. Which is why I think that the Appendix to the new Lawbook will be such a huge step forward. Clarifications, explanations and case studies - previously scattered through the WBF LC minutes and the WBF Code of Practice, etc, etc, etc - will now be very easily accessible to club directors in this "one-stop shop" Appendix. Nigel Guthrie: >Diverging regulations at local level are the final straw. > >It frightens me that WBFLC members like Grattan Endicott seem to >feel that this is a defensible strategy. Richard Hills: But even Nigel Guthrie feels that this is a defensible strategy. On one occasion Nigel had to admit that a diverging regulation at a local level, "non-kosher food not permitted", was sensible. Old and politically incorrect joke -> Man to woman: "If I gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?" Woman to man: "Yes." Man to woman: "If I gave you ten cents, would you sleep with me?" Woman to man: "What sort of woman do you think I am?" Man to woman: "We have already established what sort of woman you are. Now we are merely haggling about the price." So the debate between Grattan and Nigel is merely a matter of haggling about the price. The question is not whether differing local regulations should be permitted, but rather at what point should the overall universal framework created at a villa in the Dordogne cease, and instead local regulations created by a local tournament organiser for local conditions take effect. 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 Sun Sep 9 08:39:51 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 07:39:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp><003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen><000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred><20070908071956.3602f930@linuxbox> <0BD95937-6E19-4DE2-8E8F-FD099EEE3498@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003301c7f2ac$39abde10$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] snip > > ACBL club owners/managers typically don't specify such regulations. > Recently, when I asked a local club owner who'd asked me to direct > her game (last night's game, in fact) what convention regulations she > wished to be in place, she said "just be nice to the players". I'm > told by some correspondents that "it's just a club game, who cares?" > Doesn't seem a very professional attitude for a TD - or an SO - to > take, but given that attitude it's not surprising that nobody > specifies what alert regulations should be in force in their online > games. > BridgeClubLive certainly does. Each "room" has the alerting system defined. The EBU room is "EBU alerting". I'd guess the ABF room is ABF alerting. The international rooms are WBF alerting, and all tournaments have their alerting rules specified in the CoC. The club spends a lot of effort on educating the members, and by and large, the alerting procedures are well followed. We adjust scores for the MI causing damage associated with failure to alert (as one would in a f2f game) and this impacts the players ratings directly. cheers John (ChienFou) Probst; CTD BridgeClubLive > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 9 14:35:29 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:35:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E3E891.8040405@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] Apart from "over-subjective", I agree with Nigel's criticism. Which is why I think that the Appendix to the new Lawbook will be such a huge step forward. Clarifications, explanations and case studies - previously scattered through the WBF LC minutes and the WBF Code of Practice, etc, etc, etc - will now be very easily accessible to club directors in this "one-stop shop" Appendix. [Nige1] Thank you Richard. I agree that the Appendix will be a great help in refining director's "judgement", especially if it concentrates on *borderline* examples. For example "if the four of clubs were a three then the ruling would be different." Even better, IMO, would be a sustained effort to reduce the subjectivity (as well as the complexity) of laws. It would be a hard but worthwhile task. [Richard Hills] So the debate between Grattan and Nigel is merely a matter of haggling about the price. The question is not whether differing local regulations should be permitted, but rather at what point should the overall universal framework created at a villa in the Dordogne cease, and instead local regulations created by a local tournament organiser for local conditions take effect. [nige1] I concede that, in *general* law, Richard's argument for local variation makes some sense. In *Bridge* Law, however, local variation seems to add no value. BLMLers like me prefer conformity but would happily settle for less: we advocate that the WBFLC formulate a *complete* set of rules for Bridge, that local jurisdictions are *encouraged* to adopt. Another hard but worthwhile task. Then, if a local jurisdiction still insisted on its own brand of "Fairy Bridge", so be it; but local jurisdiction would no longer be *forced* to cobble together local regulations to *plug gaps* in the WBF laws. From john at asimere.com Sun Sep 9 16:46:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 15:46:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46E3E891.8040405@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <001e01c7f2f0$2c2dcb60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] > Apart from "over-subjective", I agree with Nigel's criticism. > Which is why I think that the Appendix to the new Lawbook will be > such a huge step forward. Clarifications, explanations and case > studies - previously scattered through the WBF LC minutes and the > WBF Code of Practice, etc, etc, etc - will now be very easily > accessible to club directors in this "one-stop shop" Appendix. > I'll be damned if I'm going to take a wheelbarrow to tournaments to shlep my new law book around. The total weight of all my necessary documentation is about 4 kilos. Why in hell does it need to be in one volume? John John > [Nige1] > Thank you Richard. I agree that the Appendix will be a great help in > refining director's "judgement", especially if it concentrates on > *borderline* examples. For example "if the four of clubs were a three > then the ruling would be different." Even better, IMO, would be a > sustained effort to reduce the subjectivity (as well as the > complexity) of laws. It would be a hard but worthwhile task. > > [Richard Hills] > So the debate between Grattan and Nigel is merely a matter of > haggling about the price. The question is not whether differing > local regulations should be permitted, but rather at what point > should the overall universal framework created at a villa in the > Dordogne cease, and instead local regulations created by a local > tournament organiser for local conditions take effect. > > [nige1] > I concede that, in *general* law, Richard's argument for local > variation makes some sense. In *Bridge* Law, however, local variation > seems to add no value. > > BLMLers like me prefer conformity but would happily settle for less: > we advocate that the WBFLC formulate a *complete* set of rules for > Bridge, that local jurisdictions are *encouraged* to adopt. Another > hard but worthwhile task. > > Then, if a local jurisdiction still insisted on its own brand of > "Fairy Bridge", so be it; but local jurisdiction would no longer be > *forced* to cobble together local regulations to *plug gaps* in the > WBF laws. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 9 17:07:30 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:07:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c7f2f0$2c2dcb60$0701a8c0@john> References: <46E3E891.8040405@ntlworld.com> <001e01c7f2f0$2c2dcb60$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <46E40C32.9070005@ntlworld.com> [John Probst] I'll be damned if I'm going to take a wheelbarrow to tournaments to shlep my new law book around. The total weight of all my necessary documentation is about 4 kilos. Why in hell does it need to be in one volume? [nige1] Life can be hard for a Mad Dog :( What was suggested was a comprehensive law-book on the internet. Then a human director would consult a computer for arcane and abstruse point of law :) I suppose, at a pinch, if the tournament venue had no internet connection, he might have to consult the web on his mobile phone :( From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 9 17:16:06 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:16:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cheat? Message-ID: <46E40E36.4050900@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] Indeed. I agree that one of Nigel's apparent points over his recent series of postings - that the current Lawbook encourages and rewards cheating - is just silly. And another of Nigel's apparent points - that cheating is difficult to detect - is even sillier. (Advance apologies to Nigel if I have again misinterpreted a nuance in the tenor of his postings.) There is no purpose in cheating unless the cheater wants a better-than-normal result. But given the statistical nature of bridge, and the fact that bridge experts and weather forecasters are unique in their ability to accurately predict outcomes, a cheat who consistently gains better-than-normal results for no readily apparent reason will be noticed. A case in point was the 1980s scandal involving the ACBL expert partnership Cokin-Sion. They consistently gained better-than- normal results on the most difficult aspect of bridge, the opening lead. This inexplicable outcome caused Cokin-Sion to be closely observed by spectators, and eventually a kibitzer noticed a correlation between the suit of the opening lead and the orientation of the pencil of the opening leader's partner. [Nige1] I overlooked this interesting posting by Richard. My often stated belief is that few players cheat but many players rationalise rule-breaking (easy to do, given the current state of legislation). Richard is right that I think it is hard to *prove* that a pair cheat. Richard claims that cheating is easy to detect because "a cheat who consistently gains better-than-normal results for no readily apparent reason will be noticed." I concede some truth in Richard's assertion. For example, over the last 70 years, after a good performance against an American team, a foreign pair were often accused of cheating :( Admittedly, in a few instances, it seems that a pair was actually cheating :( :( :( The Reese-Shapiro case is a counter-example to Richard's scenario. At Buenos Aires, R-S results were worse than usual. The so-called "internal evidence" (from bidding and play) was inconclusive. The potentially damning evidence was the "observation and decoding" of "finger-signals". The WBF initially delivered an ambiguous verdict -- based on a preponderance of kibitzer evidence. However when the year-long British investigation exonerated R-S, the WBF unsheathed its claws and pronounced them guilty. In the Kokish-Sion" case, Richard implies that "internal evidence" gave rise to suspicion. OK. But Richard admits that they were condemned by the evidence of a kibitzer who alleged a correlation between pen-orientation and lead. Katz-Cohen were also exonerated. In their case, did "internal evidence" give rise to suspicion? What method were they alleged to have employed? Has any pair been convicted on "internal evidence" alone? Has a *contested ban* on alleged cheats ever lasted a full year? Have the WBF published a comprehensive protocol to investigate cheating allegations? Has the WBF specified appropriate standards of "proof"? Has the WBF issued guidelines as to how to proceed when a "adequate" evidence is collected against a pair. From cibor at poczta.fm Sun Sep 9 18:07:12 2007 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 18:07:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cheat? References: <46E40E36.4050900@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <020701c7f2fb$7c50ed60$0a01a8c0@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" > In the Kokish-Sion" case, Richard implies that "internal evidence" Kokish? It is a typo, I hope... > gave rise to suspicion. OK. But Richard admits that they were > condemned by the evidence of a kibitzer who alleged a correlation > between pen-orientation and lead. > > Katz-Cohen were also exonerated. In their case, did "internal > evidence" give rise to suspicion? What method were they alleged to > have employed? Does anyone know anything more about this case other than they were banned from playing together and kicked out of the ACBL? This case is one of the most mysterious to me. I assume that they were accused of cheating but does anyone know anything more detailed? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Generator zabawnych dowodow! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1b96 From john at asimere.com Sun Sep 9 18:10:14 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 17:10:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cheat? References: <46E40E36.4050900@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <001201c7f2fb$e84caa40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 4:16 PM Subject: [blml] Cheat? > [Richard Hills] > Indeed. I agree that one of Nigel's apparent points over his > recent series of postings - that the current Lawbook encourages > and rewards cheating - is just silly. And another of Nigel's > apparent points - that cheating is difficult to detect - is > even sillier. BridgeClubLive chucks out two or three pairs a year. For commercial reasons we don't name them or report them to their NBO, but we do present them with evidence, ask them to comment on it before we go public or withdraw from membership..In all cases they have chosen to terminate their memberships. The internal evidence is overwhelming in all these cases. Now I know it's on-line and we all know that msn is a way to give partner UI, but even f2f it doesn't take rocket science to detect a pair who are at it. The question becomes, simply, "How?". In the UK not so long ago, we determined "how" a player was doing it, and created a "sting". He sensibly pleaded guilty. 10 years. It's interesting that we can even identify how they're doing it without even being there - there's a signature to different methods of passing UI, which is indicated by what is done differently to how a pair of that class would normally play. I am entirely confident we have not yet presented evidence to a pair who just play a high variance game, and that all our cases have truly been "... gravest possible ...". We have even detected single players who're playing with prior knowledge of the hands, who played with innocent partners. Hands stay live long enough on most sites for this to be easy to do. Now BCL may well be the only site that spends a sizeable chunk of its income on cleaning up the game, but we think it's worthwhile. The same methods would work perfectly well f2f.. Nigel's talking through his hat again. John (ChienFou) Probst, CTD BridgeClubLive > > (Advance apologies to Nigel if I have again misinterpreted a > nuance in the tenor of his postings.) > > There is no purpose in cheating unless the cheater wants a > better-than-normal result. But given the statistical nature > of bridge, and the fact that bridge experts and weather > forecasters are unique in their ability to accurately predict > outcomes, a cheat who consistently gains better-than-normal > results for no readily apparent reason will be noticed. > > A case in point was the 1980s scandal involving the ACBL expert > partnership Cokin-Sion. They consistently gained better-than- > normal results on the most difficult aspect of bridge, the > opening lead. This inexplicable outcome caused Cokin-Sion to > be closely observed by spectators, and eventually a kibitzer > noticed a correlation between the suit of the opening lead and > the orientation of the pencil of the opening leader's partner. > > [Nige1] > I overlooked this interesting posting by Richard. > > My often stated belief is that few players cheat but many players > rationalise rule-breaking (easy to do, given the current state of > legislation). > > Richard is right that I think it is hard to *prove* that a pair cheat. > > Richard claims that cheating is easy to detect because "a cheat who > consistently gains better-than-normal results for no readily > apparent reason will be noticed." > snip From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Sep 9 21:34:07 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:34:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] 2 hands In-Reply-To: <200709041521.l84FLYeK019914@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709041521.l84FLYeK019914@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46E44AAF.1060705@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Grabiner" > N/S aren't allowed to have any special conventional agreements after the > insufficient bid, > From: Gampas at aol.com > Any method of continuing the auction is permitted, but agreements over > insufficient bids are not. Where did either of you find those rules? Something like them was once in effect in the ACBL, but it was repealed long ago. As far as I can tell, the ACBL's present convention charts are valid whether or not opponents have made an insufficient bid. And as David indicates, agreements that are not conventions (nor light initial actions) cannot be regulated. > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > I don't see any rule that disallows [OS] to act in a conventional manner. > Disallowance of conventions over incorrections applies to the NOS ; and even > so it's only "new conventions", e.g. you may une negative doubles of > insufficient bids if you use them at all. Again, where did you find such a rule? It seems astonishing to allow OS more freedom than NOS. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 9 22:30:50 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:30:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46E3E891.8040405@ntlworld.com> <001e01c7f2f0$2c2dcb60$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <004601c7f321$7f7a99c0$f9a087d9@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: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I'll be damned if I'm going to take a wheelbarrow to > tournaments to shlep my new law book around. The > total weight of all my necessary documentation is > about 4 kilos. Why in hell does it need to be in one > volume? John > +=+ The present expectation is that, subject to Executive Council concurrence, both the Laws and the Appendix will be available on the web. The potential status of the Appendix is currently viewed by some as 'advice'. But it is obviously open to the WBFLC (subject to Executive Council ratification) to vest some parts or the whole of the Appendix with the status of 'interpretation'. Whether this will happen it would be folly to predict. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 9 22:35:46 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:35:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004701c7f321$80728e50$f9a087d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************* vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>To me, it is obvious that this reasoning is nonsense. >> It basically says that if my date stood me up that >> there has never been an agreement to meet in the >> first place. >> +=+ The 'date' may simply not have told you that at no time did she ever intend to be there. In that case there never was an actual agreement although there may have been a purported agreement. In the law book the existence of an 'agreement' is conditioned by notions of disclosure (Law 40B et al) and of announcement (Law 75). "What a man would like to be true, that he more readily believes." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Sep 10 00:29:04 2007 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:29:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue Message-ID: <46E473B0.3000406@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Ed Reppert > ACBL club owners/managers typically don't specify such regulations. I used to play at a club where the (unwritten) rules were: 1. Play any conventions you like. (One pair played forcing pass for awhile.) 2. Bring any convention card you like, or none. 3. Alert anything you like, or nothing. But: 4. If the opponents are damaged by not knowing what's going on, it's your fault. That worked OK in a small, informal club. While I doubt it would work at a tournament, something like it might work for Ed. [Thanks, by the way, to the people who posted the correct ACBL regulation about psyching conventions. I should have looked it up.] [illegal convention] > I also think that redeal is legal (see Law 6D3) if and only if the board has > not previously been played. This was the situation when it happened to me. The problem was that we had a potential advantage by having opened a weak NT when the opponents used an illegal convention over it. Redealing nullified our potential swing (one way or the other) against the strong NT pair who would hold our cards at the other table. > Given that last statement as to the standard of *tournament* > directing, how much more lamentable must be the standard of *club* > directing? If anyone is in the Boston area on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday evenings, I can direct you to clubs with excellent directing, far better than you will find at local tournaments. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 01:34:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:34:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E3E891.8040405@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >In *Bridge* Law, however, local variation seems to add no value. > >BLMLers like me prefer conformity but would happily settle for >less we advocate that the WBFLC formulate a *complete* set of >rules for Bridge, Richard Hills: It is impossible to have a sensible debate using undefined terms such as "complete". Nigel has already admitted that a bridge venue's culinary regulation is excluded from his concept of "complete". But what else is also excluded from Nigel's concept of "complete"? Hiring fee for the Director? Starting time? Length of session? Movement of players and boards? Victory point scale? Etc? Etc, etc? John (ChienFou) Probst: >>I'll be damned if I'm going to take a wheelbarrow to >>tournaments to shlep my new law book around. :-) 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 Sep 10 02:17:13 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:17:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E48D09.3020001@ntlworld.com> Richard Hills: It is impossible to have a sensible debate using undefined terms such as "complete". Nigel has already admitted that a bridge venue's culinary regulation is excluded from his concept of "complete". But what else is also excluded from Nigel's concept of "complete"? Hiring fee for the Director? Starting time? Length of session? Movement of players and boards? Victory point scale? Etc? Etc, etc? [nige1] As usual, I assume a simple common-sense interpretation. I'm sorry if Richard finds such a proposal hard to grasp. I mean complete in the sense that the rules for most games are complete. In the case of Bridge, I feel this should include disclosure rules (e.g screens, convention cards, pre-announcements, announcements, alerting, licensing and the like). Rules about new devices like clocks, dealing machines, duplimates, and even computers. Probably also suggestions for Victory point scales and Swiss competitions. Most of these rules already exist in one form or another. For example, online sites like BBO have created sensible disclosure rules for that medium. I agree that rules about the starting time, length of session, director's hair-style and the like are outside the remit of the normal rules for a game. From geller at nifty.com Mon Sep 10 02:27:09 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:27:09 +0900 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E48D09.3020001@ntlworld.com> References: <46E48D09.3020001@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200709100027.AA10513@geller204.nifty.com> I don't think the problem is so serious. For example, in the case of many events in Japan we adopt the regulation that where no specfic local regulation exists the WBF conditions of contest are held to apply. This kind of approach allows the combination of local rules (regarding alerting, conventions, etc) with a default for really obscure cases. -Bob Guthrie ????????: >Richard Hills: >It is impossible to have a sensible debate using undefined terms >such as "complete". Nigel has already admitted that a bridge >venue's culinary regulation is excluded from his concept of >"complete". But what else is also excluded from Nigel's concept >of "complete"? > >Hiring fee for the Director? >Starting time? >Length of session? >Movement of players and boards? >Victory point scale? >Etc? >Etc, etc? > >[nige1] >As usual, I assume a simple common-sense interpretation. I'm sorry if >Richard finds such a proposal hard to grasp. > >I mean complete in the sense that the rules for most games are >complete. In the case of Bridge, I feel this should include disclosure >rules (e.g screens, convention cards, pre-announcements, >announcements, alerting, licensing and the like). Rules about new >devices like clocks, dealing machines, duplimates, and even computers. >Probably also suggestions for Victory point scales and Swiss competitions. > >Most of these rules already exist in one form or another. For example, >online sites like BBO have created sensible disclosure rules for that >medium. > >I agree that rules about the starting time, length of session, >director's hair-style and the like are outside the remit of the normal >rules for a game. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sep 10 03:21:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:21:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cheat? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <020701c7f2fb$7c50ed60$0a01a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>In the Kokish-Sion" case, Richard implies that "internal >>evidence" Konrad Ciborowski: >Kokish? It is a typo, I hope... Richard Hills: Nigel's typo. I correctly wrote COKIN-Sion. Nigel Guthrie: >>gave rise to suspicion. OK. But Richard admits that they >>were condemned by the evidence of a kibitzer who alleged >>a correlation between pen-orientation and lead. Richard Hills: Not exactly what I said. They were not condemned by "a" kibitzer's evidence. Numerous kibitzers observed Cokin- Sion over many sessions before they were convicted of cheating. (Indeed, a later Bridge World editorial criticised the ACBL for being too slow to act, as after credible kibitzer reports were given to the ACBL at a National, the ACBL decided to defer any investigation until the _following_ National, three months later.) Nigel Guthrie: >>Katz-Cohen were also exonerated. In their case, did >>"internal evidence" give rise to suspicion? What method >>were they alleged to have employed? Konrad Ciborowski: >Does anyone know anything more about this case other than >they were banned from playing together and kicked out of >the ACBL? > >This case is one of the most mysterious to me. > >I assume that they were accused of cheating but does >anyone know anything more detailed? Richard Hills: Thanks to my collection of 1970s Bridge Worlds, I know the chronology of the cheating _allegations_ against Katz- Cohen. Unlike the Cokin-Sion partnership, the Katz-Cohen partnership were never _convicted_ of cheating. Indeed, after real-life legal action, the ACBL's failure to apply natural justice to Katz-Cohen in the 1976 Houston Affair saw both Katz and Cohen reinstated as ACBL members. In 1972, John Crawford publicly told the ACBL Board of Directors that he knew in his bones that Katz-Cohen were cheats, but he had no evidence as to how this alleged cheating occurred. Due to John Crawford's severe violation of the Proprieties in making such a public allegation, the ACBL took disciplinary action against Crawford. In 1976, during the final of the American selection trial for the next Bermuda Bowl, the five-man Gerber team (John Gerber was the non-playing captain) was leading by a significant margin with 32 boards to play. At this point Katz and Cohen resigned from the ACBL. Since the Gerber team was now reduced to only three players, it had to forfeit the match. It was later alleged that Katz and Cohen agreed to resign from the ACBL in return for the ACBL not making any public statement on why they might have chosen that action. If this allegation is true, then Katz-Cohen chose poorly. The then ACBL President, the late Lew Mathe, could not reasonably be described as being as discreet as Grattan Endicott without committing a terminological inexactitude. Once Lew Mathe opened his big mouth, John Gerber then felt honour-bound to break his previous discreet silence, so Gerber disclosed that the allegation against Katz-Cohen was that they had circumvented the screens by using the old rubber bridge cheating technique of coded sniffing. No evidence was ever presented correlating a sniff by Katz or Cohen with unusual bidding or play. It is distinctly possible that Katz-Cohen were unfairly accused of cheating because their Standard American accusers did not have any comprehensive understanding of the unusual tri-level Breakthrough system used by Katz-Cohen. Ergo, those Standard American accusers may have thought that a particular call was clear evidence of cheating when in fact that call was mandatory under the Breakthrough system. Complete records of the bidding and play in the 1976 Houston final were kept. Some years later another player who used the Breakthrough system analysed those deals and argued in a book that the actions of Katz and Cohen in that match were fully consistent with their system. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 10 04:04:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 22:04:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20070908195458.7ccaf5d3@linuxbox> References: <014601c7f12a$695447c0$a000000a@bridge.corp> <003d01c7f13e$fee47580$609587d9@Hellen> <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> <20070908071956.3602f930@linuxbox> <0BD95937-6E19-4DE2-8E8F-FD099EEE3498@rochester.rr.com> <20070908195458.7ccaf5d3@linuxbox> Message-ID: <7163CEC9-7C8F-4003-AB73-9AC2FA02A08B@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 8, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Brian wrote: > The problem is that many players don't seem to > understand that their own SO's regulations aren't in force worldwide. I daresay that many players don't understand what an SO *is* under the laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 05:45:37 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:45:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709071436.HAA04850@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >some players have perhaps confused the "right to know >the opponents' agreements" with the "right to know >what's in an opponent's hand" [snip] >It's distressing that even high-ranking officials and >committee members seem to be making this same mistake. Richard Hills: It is even more distressing when a prominent and prolific blmler, who claims to understand the meaning the Lawbook (so therefore ought to know better), still argues that it is more "truthful" to describe the contents of partner's hand than it is to describe the contents of the mutual partnership agreement. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 06:22:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:22:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8D106F0F-FFB5-4ED9-9247-A85F253DB75B@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >I think the correct ruling may depend on when the infraction is >discovered. In a case where, for example, the opening bid is illegal, >and the director is called immediately, I think it would be right to >cancel the bid, allow the offending side some minimal time to discuss >changes to their system, and require the opening bidder to choose >another call, informing responder of his obligation under Law 73C. >I'm not sure I can find a justification in law for this ruling, >though. The alternative, and the only choice (I think) if the >infraction is discovered later in the auction, is to allow the >auction and play to proceed, and adjust the score afterwards. I also >think that redeal is legal (see Law 6D3) if and only if the board has >not previously been played. Or is abandoning a hand on which bidding, >albeit illegal, has already commenced "incompatible with these laws"? >It might be incompatible with Law 17, I suppose. Richard Hills: I think both of Ed's suggested remedies of cancelling the call and/or redealing the board are unLawful. I think he is begging the question by stating "the opening bid is illegal". Any opening bid below the eight level is ipso facto legal, but it is possible that the agreed partnership meaning for that opening bid may be contrary to a Law 40D regulation. If Law 40D is relevant, then the question that the Director must then ask is whether the non-offending side are damaged by that infraction. The only way that the Director can find out if damage has occurred is to let the bidding and play conclude. It is possible that the offending side's infraction of Law 40D causes the offending side to suffer a penalty of -7600. If so, then as TD I would rule that the non-offending side was not damaged and let the score stand. I would also require the offending side to play legal methods for the rest of the session, ignoring any pleas from the non- offending side that the illegal convention be used again. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 10 06:28:49 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:22 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > I think he is begging the question > by stating "the opening bid is illegal". > > Any opening bid below the eight level is ipso facto legal, but it is > possible that the agreed partnership meaning for that opening bid may > be contrary to a Law 40D regulation. Pfui. If the agreement is illegal per the regulation, then bidding according to that agreement is illegal. Try again. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 06:56:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:56:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E473B0.3000406@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >If anyone is in the Boston area on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday >evenings, I can direct you to clubs with excellent directing, far >better than you will find at local tournaments. Richard Hills: The Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory (BFACT) has taken advantage of the fact that Australia's Chief Director, Sean Mullamphy, is also the resident Chief Director of the Canberra Bridge Club by hiring him to present regular training seminars to Canberra's other directors and aspirant directors. In order to encourage those directors and aspirant directors to attend, BFACT substantially subsidises the cost of these seminars. Also, if any Aussie or Kiwi blmlers will be attending the January 2008 Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra, the Australian Bridge Directors Association intends to provide a FREE seminar on the new Lawbook (assuming that the current WBF timetable for the release of the new Lawbook does not collide with a last-minute glitch). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Former President of BFACT 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 Sep 10 07:35:22 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:35:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Any opening bid below the eight level is ipso facto legal, but it is >>possible that the agreed partnership meaning for that opening bid may >>be contrary to a Law 40D regulation. Ed Reppert: >Pfui. If the agreement is illegal per the regulation, then bidding >according to that agreement is illegal. Try again. Richard Hills: Good point, I used sloppy language. A mechanical illegality, such as dealing the cards 13-13-14-12, may make the board unplayable, thus mandating a redeal. An information illegality, such as using an illegal convention, does not make the board unplayable, so a redeal is not mandatory. Indeed, as Steve Willner pointed out, a redeal could be unfair to the non- offending side, whose expectation on the board before the redeal is at least 60% for receiving Ave+ or their better than Ave+ table score. A priori, at the moment of the redeal, the non-offending side's expectation on the board is reduced from 60% plus to 50% plus-or-minus. The same principle applies to those using Hesitation Blackwood. Under the 1975 Lawbook, if the first time a board was played in a team match a pair successfully used Hesitation Blackwood the board was redealt. This deprived the non-offending side of any chance of picking up a slam swing by its superior bidding methods (which did not need any hesitating for their success) in the other room. So the 1997 Lawbook prescribes an adjusted score for Hesitation Blackwood instead. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 10 07:35:54 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:35:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01745DD8-A8E5-4646-B790-0329740C6B8A@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:56 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Also, if any Aussie or Kiwi blmlers will be attending the January > 2008 Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra, the Australian Bridge > Directors Association intends to provide a FREE seminar on the new > Lawbook (assuming that the current WBF timetable for the release of > the new Lawbook does not collide with a last-minute glitch) Hm. Summer Festival. It's gonna be cold and snowy around here. brr. Now where did I put that winning lottery ticket? :-) From geller at nifty.com Mon Sep 10 08:16:34 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:16:34 +0900 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709100616.AA10517@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > So the 1997 >Lawbook prescribes an adjusted score for Hesitation Blackwood instead. Which Law? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 7 17:34:17 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:34:17 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__San_Diego_Lightfoot_Sue?= References: <200709071436.HAA04850@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <46E16F78.000004.67431@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Adam Beneschan Date : 07/09/2007 16:51:02 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc : adam at irvine.com Sujet : Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue There's something about the forgetting of a conventional bid that seems to cause people to claim they were damaged under the Laws, moreso than other dumb mistakes. Off the top of my head, I suspect this may be because the various bridge organizations have been (correctly) pushing the need for players to disclose all their agreements, but some players have perhaps confused the "right to know the opponents' agreements" with the "right to know what's in an opponent's hand", and thus feel that when the second "right" is violated it's tantamount to the first right being violated. AG : I have a slightly different analysis. Nobody will ever voluntarily botch the play. Very few will ever claim they made an inferior play on purpose, for tactical reasons. And the partner of that player will never do anything that could mislead you. However, there are players who pretend they made a psyche, or a misbid, to conceal their partner's misexplanation. And in general, partner's bona fide explanation of a misbid contributes to the confusion. I think the dislike for misbids doesn't come from occasional lucky strikes, but from (understandable) wariness and the discomfortable feeling that the rules for disclosing conventions and the way they were disclosed contributed to the misleading effect, in total legality. "If only he hadn't told me that ..." Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070907/ba595f4f/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/20070907/ba595f4f/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/20070907/ba595f4f/attachment-0001.gif From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 09:54:32 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:54:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709100616.AA10517@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Under the 1975 Lawbook, if the first time a board was played in a >>team match a pair successfully used Hesitation Blackwood the board >>was redealt. This deprived the non-offending side of any chance >>of picking up a slam swing by its superior bidding methods (which >>did not need any hesitating for their success) in the other room. >>So the 1997 Lawbook prescribes an adjusted score for Hesitation >>Blackwood instead. Robert Geller: >Which Law? 1975 Lawbook, Law 82 (Adjusted Score in Team Play), clause B1(b): "When no rectification will permit normal play of the board: If time permits, the Director should substitute a new board to be played at both tables: When the teammates of the players involved have not yet played the board." * * * 1997 Lawbook, Law 86 (In Team Play), clause B: "When the Director assigns non-balancing adjusted scores (see Law 12C) in knockout play, each contestant's score on the board is calculated separately. The average of the two scores is then assigned to both contestants." 1997 Lawbook, Law 12C (Awarding an Adjusted Score), clause 2: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a nonoffending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing." 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 Mon Sep 10 13:46:08 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:46:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c7f1b0$06200b90$a6c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: "Football is football. If it was different it wouldn't be the same game." - Garth Crooks. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' No sponsoring organization, nor a TD or AC, when using our lawbook, is able to decide that a regulation telling that a convention may not be misbid is a legal one. Only in organizations where laws can be used in any way the 'chiefs' like to use them, such regulation can be declared to be legal, and of course then you even find people defending such decision. ton From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 10 15:19:26 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:19:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: <46E2C297.2040302@nyc.rr.com> References: <200709071515.l87FFdfc001342@cfa.harvard.edu> <46E2B91C.90108@cfa.harvard.edu> <46E2C297.2040302@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <3AC3A391-7A64-4DD9-A315-E169F547F173@starpower.net> On Sep 8, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Michael Kopera wrote: > The ACBL general convention chart include under disallowed: > > Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or > conventional > responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are > less > than 2NT, to natural openings. > > The midchart and superchart convention charts include under > disallowed: > > Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses > thereto. > > So, under midchart/superchart it seems (by ommission) you are > allowed to > psych conventional opening bids that are not artificial (and > conventional responses thereto) -- I wonder what exactly that > caters to? > Does that mean for instance you can't pysch 2D Flannery but you can > psych 2H Flannery? IMO, no. I read the two prohibitions as identical with respect to opening bids. The GCC statement, however, includes a prohibition of conventional responses to natural opening, which means that the ACBL has made it illegal to psych a Stayman or transfer response to 1NT. I was previously unaware that the ACBL's anti-psyching regulations went that far. Oh my. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 10 17:47:39 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:47:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005901c7f3c2$003f6c70$5db687d9@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: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > If the agreement is illegal per the regulation, then bidding > according to that agreement is illegal. > +=+ In an earlier contribution to this thread I averred that "the SO may have licensed the use of convention X on condition that it may not be misused or psyched. There would then be an infraction of a regulation established under Law 40D". Under the Westminster convention previously alluded to, I present no personal opinion but consider myself bound, as a member of the WBFLC, to put forward only its corporate decision - viz. (1st Nov 2001): "The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn to situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the psyching of opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the American Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and by the European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated reported occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of Ghestem except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice*." (* "a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage.") So the WBFLC interpretation of the law is that regulation of conventions is wholly unrestricted, and an infraction of regulation may lead to score adjustment. However, misuse of a convention should not be the occasion of a penalty, even if it breaches the regulation, unless it is several times repeated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jrmayne at mindspring.com Tue Sep 11 00:02:38 2007 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Cheat? Message-ID: <7486936.1189461758293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: John Probst >Sent: Sep 9, 2007 12:10 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blml] Cheat? > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Guthrie" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 4:16 PM >Subject: [blml] Cheat? > > >> [Richard Hills] >> Indeed. I agree that one of Nigel's apparent points over his >> recent series of postings - that the current Lawbook encourages >> and rewards cheating - is just silly. And another of Nigel's >> apparent points - that cheating is difficult to detect - is >> even sillier. > >BridgeClubLive chucks out two or three pairs a year. I used to do this for OKbridge; we removed about 50 accounts a year, but OKbridge was far larger at the time, I think. (Further, a failure to do very much about cheating before I got there led to, well, more cheating. Still not a lot of it, but enough.) I say this only for background; I have many agreements and some slight disagreements with John. For commercial reasons >we don't name them or report them to their NBO, but we do present them with >evidence, ask them to comment on it before we go public or withdraw from >membership..In all cases they have chosen to terminate their memberships. >The internal evidence is overwhelming in all these cases. Now I know it's >on-line and we all know that msn is a way to give partner UI, but even f2f >it doesn't take rocket science to detect a pair who are at it. The question >becomes, simply, "How?". In the UK not so long ago, we determined "how" a >player was doing it, and created a "sting". He sensibly pleaded guilty. 10 >years. > >It's interesting that we can even identify how they're doing it without even >being there - there's a signature to different methods of passing UI, which >is indicated by what is done differently to how a pair of that class would >normally play. I think this is a little bit of an overstatement. There's a real difference between live bridge investigations and online investigations. In online investigations, I didn't care much how the cheating is done, and in many cases, I didn't know. Phones, instant messaging, and shills were popular. In some cases, we could make very educated guesses, but in others, we couldn't. Online investigations also permit you to have full records of every hand played. This is incredibly valuable. Further, most (but not all!) cheaters are not of the expert class. These people make very poor successful plays. In live bridge, you don't have enough records (usually) to go without getting to, "How?" If you find the method, you've got 'em dead. If not, it's much harder. I am entirely confident we have not yet presented evidence to >a pair who just play a high variance game, and that all our cases have truly >been "... gravest possible ...". We have even detected single players >who're playing with prior knowledge of the hands, who played with innocent >partners. Hands stay live long enough on most sites for this to be easy to >do. Single cheaters do occur. There's one on OKbridge I never got thrown off, and it annoys me to this day. (Reasons he's not off are non-public and make me grumpy to think about.) This is obviously the preferred way to cheat as a pro; you want your clients to think you are a genius. > >Now BCL may well be the only site that spends a sizeable chunk of its income >on cleaning up the game, but we think it's worthwhile. The same methods >would work perfectly well f2f.. Nigel's talking through his hat again. I disagree. The best methods for online bridge are different; hand records are the linchpin of online bridge investigations. Without having a full record, it is hard to beat a high-variance (or lucky idiot) argument. I salute BCL for hiring John to police this stuff, of course. It's a good and useful use of resources. My old employer OKbridge recently announced that defensive tempo is irrelevant to rulings (permitting hesitating with a stiff), and otherwise made some baffling decisions as to permissible conventions and treatments. I don't think I'm all that sensitive to changing the rules that I propounded just out of ego, but I'm at a stage of sustained disbelief at what's happening on rulings and rules. I have no idea what they do on cheating now, but my guess is, "very little." If they bounce 10 accounts a year, I'd be very surprised. If they bounce three, I'd be a little surprised. BBO also bounces very few (to my understanding), but OTOH, it's mostly free. Mostly free is good. Ah, well. --JRM > >John (ChienFou) Probst, CTD BridgeClubLive From adam at irvine.com Tue Sep 11 00:45:08 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:45:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Cheat? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:21:24 +1000." Message-ID: <200709102230.PAA07195@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > >>Katz-Cohen were also exonerated. In their case, did > >>"internal evidence" give rise to suspicion? What method > >>were they alleged to have employed? > > Konrad Ciborowski: > > >Does anyone know anything more about this case other than > >they were banned from playing together and kicked out of > >the ACBL? > > > >This case is one of the most mysterious to me. > > > >I assume that they were accused of cheating but does > >anyone know anything more detailed? > > Richard Hills: > > Thanks to my collection of 1970s Bridge Worlds, I know the > chronology of the cheating _allegations_ against Katz- > Cohen. Unlike the Cokin-Sion partnership, the Katz-Cohen > partnership were never _convicted_ of cheating. Indeed, > after real-life legal action, the ACBL's failure to apply > natural justice to Katz-Cohen in the 1976 Houston Affair > saw both Katz and Cohen reinstated as ACBL members. Under the condition that they not play with each other as partners, if I recall correctly. I don't believe they were ever officially exonerated; they were probably suspended (I'm not sure about that part), and then quit the ACBL and sued, and as I recall, the end result---that they be readmitted to the ACBL and allowed to play but not with each other---was part of a legal settlement. So there was never really a full investigation into whether they cheated or not, and thus they were never actually convicted or exonerated. At least that's how I recall the story, but I'd have to look it up to be sure. Danny Kleinman published his own analysis in which he concluded that Katz and Cohen were not cheating, but of course this was just Kleinman's opinion. > Once Lew Mathe opened his big mouth, John Gerber then felt > honour-bound to break his previous discreet silence, so > Gerber disclosed that the allegation against Katz-Cohen > was that they had circumvented the screens by using the > old rubber bridge cheating technique of coded sniffing. > > No evidence was ever presented correlating a sniff by Katz > or Cohen with unusual bidding or play. The way I've heard it was that Katz's frequent sniffing was probably due to an addiction to cocaine---not to be confused with Cokin, and definitely not with Kokish. :) :) -- Adam From Gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 11 01:17:11 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:17:11 EDT Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules Message-ID: The current issue of the EBU Orange Book requires an alert for: "(l) Any bid where the partnership has an agreement over alternative possible calls that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable category. For example, see (c)(5), (e)(2) and (g) above. Also the 3H bid in the auction 1NT (pass) 2D (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not be alertable just because the partnership plays a 3H response to 1NT as pre-emptive." A similar rule exists in the ABF regulations: "3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (b) The bid is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: ?A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit. ?A jump raise of opener?s one level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive. ?A single raise of partner?s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1D - 2D forcing. ?The rebid in a canap? sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first. ?A 1H opening which denies holding 4+ spades. (It goes on to clarify that at the end of the auction, the declaring side should explain any special nuances and ...) These explanations may occasionally need to include negative inferences, such as hand types partner probably does not have for his bidding." The perceptive member will notice that the EBU Orange Book tagged on this example: "Also the 3H bid in the auction 1NT (pass) 2D (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not be alertable just because the partnership plays a 3H response to 1NT as pre-emptive." Some will notice that this was as a result of an appeal at Brighton 2005, which can be found on the EBU website under publications, where the decision of the AC (that the 3H bid in this auction was alertable) met with ridicule and disdain. The relevant sentence prior to that appeal was as follows: (about which bids to alert) c) it is natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. The producer of the Orange Book decided that this very sensible clause should go, and inserted the example above where a 3H bid should not be alerted. But is this right? Clearly the fact that the pair plays 1NT - 3H as pre-emptive is unlikely to be expected by the opponents (A survey of 10 strong pairs at Brighton this year found only one pair playing these methods but an American friend tells me the method is more popular if 1NT is 10-12.) The 3H bid in the quoted auction (or in any similar auction) therefore excludes many hands that are weak with six hearts, and virtually all hands that are weak with seven hearts, and this information can be crucially relevant to the opponents deciding whether to compete further. So, while the 3H bid itself still means the same thing - namely competitive with hearts - its meaning IS affected by other agreements (it is competitive with hearts but not likely to be weak with six or seven hearts). Our appeal (by myself and my partner), was solely on a point of principle when the TD ruled that 3H should not be alerted. Our score was, I recall, around 50%, so we had no real interest in any adjustment. Several players condemned the AC roundly, with adjectives such as pettifogging, ridiculous, mad being used freely. The AC was, in my view, exactly right, and I respected their opinion about the percentage of the time my partner would have bid 3NT. The 1NT opener was a former World Junior Champion and his partner a current National Champion, so they should have known the alerting regulations. Let us say that the auction goes 1NT - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2H - (P) - P - (Dble) and the doubler's partner gets into a 4-3 spade fit, and drifts one off, whereas the opponents were in a 5-2 heart fit, also going one off. The backroom lawyer is undeterred and is ready for them. He knows that the opponents would always break with four trumps (in fact he probably knew this before balancing), and now calls the director and quotes the following alerting rule, word for word, almost like the Lords Prayer: (You should alert:) (f) The completion of a transfer that denies four card support (which is shown by some other bid), since this shows something specific. He argues that if he had known that they could not have a nine-card fit, he would not have protected, as the chances of a 5-2 fit would have gone up. The TD is reluctantly forced to find in his favour, as there was an infraction. But this is what I regard as a "miserable, pettifogging abuse of process", not the AC ruling in the Brighton 2005 case. And I also think it was very poor form for the publisher of the Orange Book to specifically include an example which an AC decided was alertable, indicating that it is not alertable. Also inviting the pair ruled against to comment in the 2005 Appeal publication on the EBU site was poor procedure as well IMHO. Sorry if I have bored you to tears! Paul From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 11 01:37:33 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:37:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules References: Message-ID: <006001c7f403$8fcec340$0100a8c0@stefanie> Yes. The note in the Orange Book was added as a reference to this case. The author of the Orange Book, who is not subjected to any oversight, disagreed with the ruling and decided to add this specific example so as to change the rules to suit his preference, even though a very high-quality AC, chaired by perhaps the UK's finest AC Chairman, had decided that the bid should be alerted. In addition, the author of the Orange Book (and, of course, of the Appeals Booklet) knew perfectly well that the appealing pair did not care about the result on the hand itself, but was concerned that the bid in question be ruled alertable. Cheers Stefanie Rohan ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Rules > The current issue of the EBU Orange Book requires an alert for: > > "(l) Any bid where the partnership has an agreement over alternative > possible calls that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable > category. For > example, see (c)(5), (e)(2) and (g) above. Also the 3H bid in the auction > 1NT (pass) 2D (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not be alertable just because the > partnership plays a 3H response to 1NT as pre-emptive." > > A similar rule exists in the ABF regulations: > > "3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are > self-alerting), viz. > > > > (b) The bid is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, > which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: > ?A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a > stopper in the overcalled suit. > ?A jump raise of opener?s one level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive. > ?A single raise of partner?s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. > 1D - > 2D forcing. > ?The rebid in a canap? sequence where the second suit may be longer than > the > first. > ?A 1H opening which denies holding 4+ spades. > > (It goes on to clarify that at the end of the auction, the declaring side > should explain any special nuances and ...) > > These explanations may occasionally need to include negative inferences, > such as hand types partner probably does not have for his bidding." > > The perceptive member will notice that the EBU Orange Book tagged on this > example: > > "Also the 3H bid in the auction 1NT (pass) 2D (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not > be alertable just because the partnership plays a 3H response to 1NT as > pre-emptive." > > Some will notice that this was as a result of an appeal at Brighton 2005, > which can be found on the EBU website under publications, where the > decision of > the AC (that the 3H bid in this auction was alertable) met with ridicule > and > disdain. The relevant sentence prior to that appeal was as follows: (about > which bids to alert) > > c) it is natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which > your > opponents are unlikely to expect. > > The producer of the Orange Book decided that this very sensible clause > should go, and inserted the example above where a 3H bid should not be > alerted. > But is this right? Clearly the fact that the pair plays 1NT - 3H as > pre-emptive > is unlikely to be expected by the opponents (A survey of 10 strong pairs > at > Brighton this year found only one pair playing these methods but an > American > friend tells me the method is more popular if 1NT is 10-12.) The 3H bid > in > the quoted auction (or in any similar auction) therefore excludes many > hands > that are weak with six hearts, and virtually all hands that are weak with > seven > hearts, and this information can be crucially relevant to the opponents > deciding whether to compete further. So, while the 3H bid itself still > means the > same thing - namely competitive with hearts - its meaning IS affected by > other agreements (it is competitive with hearts but not likely to be weak > with > six or seven hearts). > > Our appeal (by myself and my partner), was solely on a point of principle > when the TD ruled that 3H should not be alerted. Our score was, I recall, > around 50%, so we had no real interest in any adjustment. Several players > condemned the AC roundly, with adjectives such as pettifogging, > ridiculous, mad being > used freely. The AC was, in my view, exactly right, and I respected their > opinion about the percentage of the time my partner would have bid 3NT. > The 1NT > opener was a former World Junior Champion and his partner a current > National > Champion, so they should have known the alerting regulations. > > Let us say that the auction goes 1NT - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2H - (P) - P - > (Dble) and the doubler's partner gets into a 4-3 spade fit, and drifts > one off, > whereas the opponents were in a 5-2 heart fit, also going one off. The > backroom > lawyer is undeterred and is ready for them. He knows that the opponents > would always break with four trumps (in fact he probably knew this before > balancing), and now calls the director and quotes the following alerting > rule, word > for word, almost like the Lords Prayer: > > (You should alert:) > (f) The completion of a transfer that denies four card support (which is > shown by > some other bid), since this shows something specific. > > He argues that if he had known that they could not have a nine-card fit, > he > would not have protected, as the chances of a 5-2 fit would have gone up. > > The TD is reluctantly forced to find in his favour, as there was an > infraction. But this is what I regard as a "miserable, pettifogging abuse > of > process", not the AC ruling in the Brighton 2005 case. > > And I also think it was very poor form for the publisher of the Orange > Book > to specifically include an example which an AC decided was alertable, > indicating that it is not alertable. Also inviting the pair ruled against > to comment > in the 2005 Appeal publication on the EBU site was poor procedure as well > IMHO. > > Sorry if I have bored you to tears! > > Paul > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 02:13:20 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:13:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul wrote: [big snip] >Some will notice that this was as a result of an appeal at >Brighton 2005, which can be found on the EBU website under >publications, [big snip] >The AC was, in my view, exactly right, [big snip] Richard Hills, 2005 EBU Appeals Casebook commentator: I disagree with both the TD and the AC. The TD was right in asserting that a competitive and natural 3H bid which showed values need not be alerted. Indeed, it would have been a competitive 3H bid which might be made on zero values which would have needed to be alerted. However, I believe that the AC gave the right ruling for the wrong reason. When North enquired about the previous (alerted) 2D call, the over-succinct explanation of "transfer" was misinformation. Rather, the explanation should have been, "transfer, promising at least five hearts, but if partner holds six or more hearts then partner is guaranteeing some values, since we play an immediate 3H response as pre-emptive." If North had been given such a timely explanation of 2D, then some of the time North might have opted to trap-pass the transfer to await developments. And, given West's shape, then some of the time those developments would have been West trying a game invitational raise to 3H, causing North to pass again. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 08:11:16 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:11:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006001c7f403$8fcec340$0100a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan asserted: >Yes. The note in the Orange Book was added as a reference to this case. >The author of the Orange Book, who is not subjected to any oversight, >disagreed with the ruling and decided to add this specific example so as >to change the rules to suit his preference, even though a very high- >quality AC, chaired by perhaps the UK's finest AC Chairman, had decided >that the bid should be alerted. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: To the best of my knowledge and belief, two of Stefanie's assertions are incorrect. Firstly, it was not the editor of the Orange Book who over-ruled the Appeals Committee decision on his own initiative. Rather, the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee used its Law 93C power as a National Authority to over-rule the Appeals Committee decision. The final sentence of the EBU L&EC commentary in the casebook was this unambiguous statement: "The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to require an alert." Secondly, it is not true that the Editor of new versions of the EBU Orange Book and the EBU White Book, David Stevenson, "is not subjected to any oversight". His new drafts do not by fait accompli arrive on the desks of the EBU Law and Ethics Committee for a routine rubber stamp. Rather, those new drafts are circulated well in advance to a panel of bridge law experts for analysis and review (including non-EBU expert analysts such as, for example, a wild colonial boy from Orstraya). :-) 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 Sep 11 08:28:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:28:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01c7f150$c6597e60$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >The committee were abysmally failed by the instructing TD. He's >the one who should be shot. Richard Hills: The 1994 instructing TD was abysmally failed by the 1994 WBF, who failed to publish their Code of Practice until five years later. The 1994 WBF are the ones who should have been shot? Heckler to politician: "What do you think of abortion?" Politician to heckler: "In your case it should be retrospective." :-) 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 11 10:52:36 2007 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:52:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00d501c7f451$1a2cf230$0100a8c0@stefanie> > > Firstly, it was not the editor of the Orange Book who over-ruled the > Appeals Committee decision on his own initiative. Rather, the EBU Laws > and Ethics Committee used its Law 93C power as a National Authority to > over-rule the Appeals Committee decision. The final sentence of the EBU > L&EC commentary in the casebook was this unambiguous statement: > > "The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case > was not sufficient to require an alert." I ws wondering about this. I would be very surprised if the L&EC heard an appeal and made a decision without informing one of the pairs involved. But perhaps it did happen. > > > Rather, those new drafts are circulated well in advance to a panel of > bridge law experts for analysis and review (including non-EBU expert > analysts such as, for example, a wild colonial boy from Orstraya). Who have the power to overrule...? Cheers Stefanie Rohan From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 23:56:18 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:56:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00d501c7f451$1a2cf230$0100a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Firstly, it was not the editor of the Orange Book who over-ruled the >>Appeals Committee decision on his own initiative. Rather, the EBU Laws >>and Ethics Committee used its Law 93C power as a National Authority to >>over-rule the Appeals Committee decision. The final sentence of the >>EBU L&EC commentary in the casebook was this unambiguous statement: >> >>"The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case >>was not sufficient to require an alert." Stefanie Rohan: >I was wondering about this. I would be very surprised if the L&EC heard >an appeal and made a decision without informing one of the pairs >involved. But perhaps it did happen. Richard Hills: A National Authority can subtly exercise its Law 93C power. It may decide to over-rule a flawed precedent set by an Appeals Committee, but at the same time decide to not over-rule the result set by the Appeals Committee, on the grounds that any change to the result is out of time. Law 92B (Time of Appeal): "The right to request or appeal a Director's ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different time period." Richard Hills: I note that the preparation of an EBU Appeals Casebook takes slightly longer than 30 minutes. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 00:04:06 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:04:06 +1200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <00d501c7f451$1a2cf230$0100a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560709111504u5d433391pfee5513628f189d4@mail.gmail.com> On 12/09/2007, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > Stefanie Rohan: > > >I was wondering about this. I would be very surprised if the L&EC heard > >an appeal and made a decision without informing one of the pairs > >involved. But perhaps it did happen. > > Richard Hills: > > A National Authority can subtly exercise its Law 93C power. It may > decide to over-rule a flawed precedent set by an Appeals Committee, but > at the same time decide to not over-rule the result set by the Appeals > Committee, on the grounds that any change to the result is out of time. > That doesn't seem subtle to me. It seems overtly abusive of the appeal process. If an appeal is to be heard I would have thought that as a minimum the parties would be entitled to present a case. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 12 01:36:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:36:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560709111504u5d433391pfee5513628f189d4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>A National Authority can subtly exercise its Law 93C power. It may >>decide to over-rule a flawed precedent set by an Appeals Committee, but >>at the same time decide to not over-rule the result set by the Appeals >>Committee, on the grounds that any change to the result is out of time. Wayne Burrows: >That doesn't seem subtle to me. It seems overtly abusive of the >appeal process. > >If an appeal is to be heard I would have thought that as a minimum the >parties would be entitled to present a case. Richard Hills: The EBU has just held an online survey inviting *all* EBU members to present a case on what the EBU alerting rules should be. The EBU Law and Ethics Committee will consider the results of that survey at its forthcoming meeting on Wednesday 19th September. 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 01:49:09 2007 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:49:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560709111504u5d433391pfee5513628f189d4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560709111649p4c89b7dakdf886ba0f2b73266@mail.gmail.com> On 12/09/2007, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>A National Authority can subtly exercise its Law 93C power. It may > >>decide to over-rule a flawed precedent set by an Appeals Committee, but > >>at the same time decide to not over-rule the result set by the Appeals > >>Committee, on the grounds that any change to the result is out of time. > > Wayne Burrows: > > >That doesn't seem subtle to me. It seems overtly abusive of the > >appeal process. > > > >If an appeal is to be heard I would have thought that as a minimum the > >parties would be entitled to present a case. > > Richard Hills: > > The EBU has just held an online survey inviting *all* EBU members to > present a case on what the EBU alerting rules should be. > > The EBU Law and Ethics Committee will consider the results of that > survey at its forthcoming meeting on Wednesday 19th September. > > What's the problem? > That I must say is a great process. After yet another change to our national regulations without any prior warning to players, my Centre (CDCBC - think province) recently asked the national association (NZCBA) to include consultation in the process for ammending or adding rules and regulations. This is especially relevant when those rules affect the systems that some players play. Under the current process you could turn up to play the system you have played for years only to find that it was now illegal without any forewarning. The NZCBA have indicated that the laws and ethics sub-committee (or whatever is the relevant subcommittee) will take this suggestion into consideration. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 12 02:46:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:46:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560709111504u5d433391pfee5513628f189d4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes, 16th May 2007: 3.9 Player being woken up by an Alert or Announcement The Committee considered correspondence where a player intended to open 1S but placed 1NT on the table. When partner announced 12 to 14, the player realised his error. The Committee noted there were other situations where, for example, an alert might wake the player up. The Committee confirmed that knowledge of the mechanical error was authorised information; the TD should be summoned who could apply Law 25A. Law 25A (Immediate Correction of Inadvertency): Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable 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 Gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 12 03:02:56 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:02:56 EDT Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills is correct to state that the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee decided: (after the auction 1NT - ( P ) - 2D! - (Dble) - P! - (3D) - 3H): "The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to require an alert." The wording of the rule, prior to the change in the Orange Book, was that a bid should be alerted if: c) it is natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. The decision of the AC was that we would have been "unlikely to expect" that 1NT - 3H was pre-emptive, and therefore the actual auction, in addition to the auction 1NT - 3H, should be alerted. This appears correct to me. The L & E decided, in its wisdom, that we were "likely to expect" 1NT - 3H to be pre-emptive. I think this is cloud-cuckoo-land. The clear intent of the phrase was (it has been removed now) was that the methods in question would be normal, and the majority choice. How else could we be likely to expect them? For example, if someone makes a negative double and then bids a new major, this would be expected to be non-forcing and there would be no infraction for a failure to alert. If it is forcing, perhaps because the pair play disturbed responses as non-forcing, the bid needs to be alerted. This does not even seem contentious; else why have the rule at all, and why remove it because it produced an AC ruling that was unpopular? The comparison with not alerting an opening 4H or 4S bid when a SAT bid is available was made by some commentators. And someone else said "Why not alert 1H - 1NT - 2H" and say "I am alerting because we play sound weak twos"? I agree the line has to be drawn somewhere. The first mentioned is expressly covered, as the Orange Book indicates that the 4H or 4S bid is not alertable. No problem there. In the second case, the player considering balancing will know that the opener must be above the weak two range and can establish that range. Obviously this should not be alerted, as the meaning "I have six hearts, am not interested in game, and considered my hand too strong for a weak two" is exactly what the opponents are likely to expect. In the Brighton case, the opponents knew that the responder could not have a weak hand with hearts - the responder drew attention to that fact in the post mortem when the defence had slopped a trick - and that information was clearly relevant to the opponents at the time in a competitive auction, and therefore should have been indicated by an alert. Those who say "everything should be alerted then because of negative inferences" are completely missing the point. Paul Lamford From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 03:03:25 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:03:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560709111504u5d433391pfee5513628f189d4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709111803j1e7f7c41s84c4ed0895c70e6a@mail.gmail.com> On 9/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes, 16th May 2007: > > 3.9 Player being woken up by an Alert or Announcement > > The Committee considered correspondence where a player > intended to open 1S but placed 1NT on the table. When > partner announced 12 to 14, the player realised his > error. The Committee noted there were other situations > where, for example, an alert might wake the player up. > The Committee confirmed that knowledge of the > mechanical error was authorised information; the TD > should be summoned who could apply Law 25A. > > > Law 25A (Immediate Correction of Inadvertency): > > Until his partner makes a call, a player may > substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call > but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without > pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands > without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the > applicable Law. > I have no idea what this means: "The Committee confirmed that knowledge of the mechanical error was authorised information; the TD should be summoned who could apply Law 25A." Of course the TD *should* be summoned and of course he *could* apply Law 25A, but what are the possible outcomes and why? What are they saying should happen? -Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 12 10:16:48 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:16:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E48D09.3020001@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I agree that rules about the starting time, length of session, >director's hair-style and the like are outside the remit of >the normal rules for a game. Richard Hills: Okay, so rather than having a futile debate about the Laws of Duplicate Bridge being "incomplete", we can now have a sensible debate about what it is practical to include as a Law in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Nigel Guthrie: >I feel this should include disclosure rules (e.g screens, >convention cards, pre-announcements, announcements, alerting, >licensing and the like). Richard Hills: It is practical to include the IMP scale as a Law of Duplicate Bridge (Law 78B), because the vast majority of Duplicate Bridge team games are scored with imps. It is not practical to waste several pages in the Lawbook with detailed rules for screens, because the vast majority of Duplicate Bridge sessions do not use screens. Therefore, it is more practical to simply include an enabling clause for screen regulation, which is what Law 80E does. Likewise, since the concept of "licensing" is a local English peculiarity, not a world-wide habit, it is not practical to replicate the Orange Book procedure on gaining a "license" for your pet convention in the world-wide Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The ABF, for example, prefers the concept of "classifying" to that of "licensing". Just as Julius Caesar divided Gaul into three parts, so the ABF has divided systems into eight types. But the ABF has delegated to each State and club the power to allow or prohibit any number of those eight types as they see fit - a laissez-faire solution which would not necessarily be adopted world-wide. And, of course, Nigel's assertion that the Law 40E "convention card" rule is incomplete presumably carries his Trojan Horse (or hobby horse) inference that a standard convention card and a standard system should be adopted world-wide as a reference point for disclosure. "Too late," she cried, as she waved her wooden leg. Those who are nostalgic for the 1930s, when "everyone" played the Culbertson system, are remembering a Golden Age which never actually existed. The entertaining and enlightening history of bridge of that time, "The Walk of the Oysters", reveals that the number of different (and usually weird) bidding systems back then was just as vast as the number of such weird bidding systems existing today. :-) 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 dcrc2h at hotmail.co.uk Wed Sep 12 12:43:12 2007 From: dcrc2h at hotmail.co.uk (David Collier) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:43:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The current issue of the EBU Orange Book requires an alert for: > >"(l) Any bid where the partnership has an agreement over alternative >possible calls that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable >category. For >example, see (c)(5), (e)(2) and (g) above. Also the 3H bid in the auction >1NT (pass) 2D (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not be alertable just because the >partnership plays a 3H response to 1NT as pre-emptive." No it doesn't. This is in the section on calls that "players should NOT alert". Such things were alertable before Aug 2006, but are not now. (The ABF regulation appears to be based on the pre-2006 EBU regulation.) _________________________________________________________________ Can you see your house from the sky? Try Live Search Maps http://maps.live.com From Gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 12 14:00:53 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:00:53 EDT Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules Message-ID: >The current issue of the EBU Orange Book requires an alert for: > >"(l) Any bid where the partnership has an agreement over alternative >possible calls that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable >category. For example, see (c)(5), (e)(2) and (g) above. Also the 3H bid in the >auction 1NT (pass) 2D (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not be alertable just because the >partnership plays a 3H response to 1NT as pre-emptive." >dcrc2h at hotmail.co.uk wrote: No it doesn't. This is in the section on calls that >"players should NOT alert". You are right and I misread it. Mea Culpa! That was partly as I was expecting a similar wording and location to the predecessor of the Orange Book which was the one on which the appeal at Brighton 2005 was based. That was: "5.2.1 You must alert a call if (c) it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect." So ... the Laws and Ethics Committee has now moved 5.2.1 (c) into the non-alertable category, almost agreeing that the decision of the AC in Appeal 1 from Brighton 2005 was correct, but not what was desired. On balance I think that the the L&E are correct, as there clearly is great difficulty reaching agreement on what the opponents are likely or unlikely to expect. Someone wanting to know about alternative bids that limit a hand type, pattern or strength can ask. Of course there is a danger of conveying UI from the questions, a problem alleviated by screens. I suppose one can ask partner to leave the table before interrogating RHO, but like Hawkeye or goal-line technology, some will see this as interrupting the flow of the game. Paul From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 12 14:48:00 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:48:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <360952AB-EB32-40B2-9510-3A2DBDB1CF72@starpower.net> On Sep 11, 2007, at 9:02 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > The L & E decided, in its wisdom, that we were "likely to expect" > 1NT - 3H > to be pre-emptive. I think this is cloud-cuckoo-land. The clear > intent of the > phrase was (it has been removed now) was that the methods in > question would > be normal, and the majority choice. How else could we be likely to > expect > them? I would quibble with Paul's choice of words, which suggest that "normal" is somehow equivalent to "the majority choice". We must recognize that there are numerous situations in which more than one treatment of a particular call is sufficiently well known and played by a substantial percentage of players to be considered "normal". Indeed, in many of these situations there may be no "majority choice". Experience has proven repeatedly that attempting to build an alert procedure around the notion that any given call can have only (or at most) one non-alertable meaning leads to confusion and chaos. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 12 14:55:09 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:55:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709111803j1e7f7c41s84c4ed0895c70e6a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560709111504u5d433391pfee5513628f189d4@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0709111803j1e7f7c41s84c4ed0895c70e6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 9/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: >> EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes, 16th May 2007: >> >> 3.9 Player being woken up by an Alert or Announcement >> >> The Committee considered correspondence where a player >> intended to open 1S but placed 1NT on the table. When >> partner announced 12 to 14, the player realised his >> error. The Committee noted there were other situations >> where, for example, an alert might wake the player up. >> The Committee confirmed that knowledge of the >> mechanical error was authorised information; the TD >> should be summoned who could apply Law 25A. >> >> Law 25A (Immediate Correction of Inadvertency): >> >> Until his partner makes a call, a player may >> substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call >> but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without >> pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands >> without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the >> applicable Law. > > I have no idea what this means: "The Committee confirmed that > knowledge of the mechanical error was authorised information; the TD > should be summoned who could apply Law 25A." Of course the TD > *should* be summoned and of course he *could* apply Law 25A, but what > are the possible outcomes and why? What are they saying should > happen? I suspect that the minute merely reinforces the accepted interpretation of L25A that the phrase "without pause for thought" applies to the time at which the player realized he had placed the wrong bid card on the table rather than the time at which he actually put it there, regardless of how the fact that he had done so came to his attention. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 12 18:16:20 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:16:20 EDT Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules Message-ID: >In a message dated 12/09/2007 13:48:25 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net >writes: >We must recognize that there are numerous situations in which more >than one treatment of a particular call is sufficiently well known >and played by a substantial percentage of players to be considered >"normal". Indeed, in many of these situations there may be no >"majority choice". Experience has proven repeatedly that attempting >to build an alert procedure around the notion that any given call can >have only (or at most) one non-alertable meaning leads to confusion >and chaos. That is a good point, and I approve the change by the L&E to make bids which contain negative inferences not alertable (other than as specified in the Orange Book). There is a downside however. Under the new rules, if the auction goes 1NT - (P) - 2H! - (P) - 2S - (P) - P - (Dble) - P - 2NT (two places to play), this is alertable, but 3C, 3D or 3H instead of 2NT would not be, even thought it denies two four-card suits. This is because its non-forcing nature is not a surprise, and the extra information that we could have made some other bid is now expressly excluded. Paul From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 12 18:19:26 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:19:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003001c7f558$b0422300$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > In the Brighton case, the opponents knew that the responder could not > have a > weak hand with hearts - the responder drew attention to that fact in the > post mortem when the defence had slopped a trick - and that information > was > clearly relevant to the opponents at the time in a competitive auction, > and > therefore should have been indicated by an alert. Those who say > "everything should > be alerted then because of negative inferences" are completely missing > the > point. I am by no means always in accord with Paul, I find him a bit over-picky, but in this case, failure fully to disclose has damaged the non-offending side and the offenders could have known this'd be the case. I don't actually give a damn about the mechanism for full disclosure, but if it needed to be done by an alert then one should have been given, or a pre-opening lead statement should be made. I find it impossible to play bridge if my opponents are in the dark as to my side's agrrements. john > > Paul Lamford > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 12 18:24:09 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:24:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560709111504u5d433391pfee5513628f189d4@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0709111803j1e7f7c41s84c4ed0895c70e6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003d01c7f559$59e3bc20$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 9/11/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes, 16th May 2007: >> >> 3.9 Player being woken up by an Alert or Announcement >> >> The Committee considered correspondence where a player >> intended to open 1S but placed 1NT on the table. When >> partner announced 12 to 14, the player realised his >> error. The Committee noted there were other situations >> where, for example, an alert might wake the player up. >> The Committee confirmed that knowledge of the >> mechanical error was authorised information; the TD >> should be summoned who could apply Law 25A. >> >> >> Law 25A (Immediate Correction of Inadvertency): >> >> Until his partner makes a call, a player may >> substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call >> but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without >> pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands >> without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the >> applicable Law. >> > > I have no idea what this means: "The Committee confirmed that > knowledge of the mechanical error was authorised information; the TD > should be summoned who could apply Law 25A." Of course the TD > *should* be summoned and of course he *could* apply Law 25A, but what > are the possible outcomes and why? What are they saying should > happen? They are saying that the TD should be summoned and that the TD could apply Law 25A. Seems blindingly obvious to me and I have no idea why they feel the need to pronounce on it.. (In English, "you get your bid back with no penalty" and in this example can change your call to 1S.) > > -Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 12 21:13:17 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:13:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01c7f559$59e3bc20$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c7f570$fb218a10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John Probst > >> EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes, 16th May 2007: > >> > >> 3.9 Player being woken up by an Alert or Announcement > >> > >> The Committee considered correspondence where a player > >> intended to open 1S but placed 1NT on the table. When > >> partner announced 12 to 14, the player realised his > >> error. The Committee noted there were other situations > >> where, for example, an alert might wake the player up. > >> The Committee confirmed that knowledge of the > >> mechanical error was authorised information; the TD > >> should be summoned who could apply Law 25A. > >> > >> > >> Law 25A (Immediate Correction of Inadvertency): > >> > >> Until his partner makes a call, a player may > >> substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call > >> but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without > >> pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands > >> without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the > >> applicable Law. > >> > > > > I have no idea what this means: "The Committee confirmed that > > knowledge of the mechanical error was authorised information; the TD > > should be summoned who could apply Law 25A." Of course the TD > > *should* be summoned and of course he *could* apply Law 25A, but what > > are the possible outcomes and why? What are they saying should > > happen? > > They are saying that the TD should be summoned and that the TD could apply > Law 25A. Seems blindingly obvious to me and I have no idea why they feel > the need to pronounce on it.. Law 25A says "Until his partner makes a call ..." We have had cases where other actions from partner than the one actually described in the law shall have the same effect as the described action. One example is the present laws 61B and 63B which forbid a defender to ask his partner about a possible revoke. Law 63B was added in 1997 to capture the situations where a defender did not actually _ask_ his partner but in some other way called his attention to the possibility that he had revoked. I assume that what the Committee discussed was if any action (not only a call) from partner shall close the time window during which Law 25A can be applied and that the answer from the Committee was a clear "no"? The TD must judge if the circumstances corroborate a claim that a call actually made was indeed inadvertent, and if he finds this to be the case he should then allow a Law 25A correction regardless of the manner in which the player became aware of his mistake. (Of course on the conditions that partner has not subsequently called and that the offender had no "pause for thought".) Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 12 23:29:35 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:29:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7f570$fb218a10$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7f570$fb218a10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46E85A3F.5090706@ntlworld.com> [Sven Pran] One example is the present laws 61B and 63B which forbid a defender to ask his partner about a possible revoke. Law 63B was added in 1997 to capture the situations where a defender did not actually _ask_ his partner but in some other way called his attention to the possibility that he had revoked. I assume that what the Committee discussed was if any action (not only a call) from partner shall close the time window during which Law 25A can be applied and that the answer from the Committee was a clear "no"? The TD must judge if the circumstances corroborate a claim that a call actually made was indeed inadvertent, and if he finds this to be the case he should then allow a Law 25A correction regardless of the manner in which the player became aware of his mistake. (Of course on the conditions that partner has not subsequently called and that the offender had no "pause for thought".) [nige1] I think it is simpler and fairer for the law to penalize slips of the hand the same way as it penalizes slips of the mind. Hence I dislike 25A, which seems to reward economy with the truth. Moreover, I hate the EBU interpretation that is the subject of this thread. Case A. You play a variable notrump. You are not vulnerable, but you think you are vulnerable and open 1N with a balanced 17 HCP. Partner (correctly) announces "12-14". 25A is likely to save you if you call the director and claim inadvertence. Case B. RHO opens 1D. With your 10 HCP and 5 spades, you intend to overcall 1S but inadvertently bid 1N. Partner announces "15-18". Under EBU regulations, this announcement is illegal but it is a common kind if mistake and normally escapes without penalty. Here however it wakes you up to your mechanical error. How should the director rule now? Stupid and unnecessary regulations like 25A will always spawn such difficult scenarios. The honest player will be penalized. The dishonest or self-deluding secretary bird may be rewarded. Anticipating a common quibble: A player in our club had a problem with his grip. He would often pull the wrong bidding or playing card -- sometimes several at at time. Even 25A would not have covered all these cases. Of course, no daft law was necessary. We had no real problem! Naturally, his opponents always waived any penalty. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 13 01:18:21 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:18:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46E85A3F.5090706@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c7f593$365890c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie ............ > The TD must judge if the circumstances corroborate a claim that a call > actually made was indeed inadvertent, and if he finds this to be the > case he > should then allow a Law 25A correction regardless of the manner in > which the > player became aware of his mistake. (Of course on the conditions that > partner has not subsequently called and that the offender had no > "pause for > thought".) > > [nige1] > I think it is simpler and fairer for the law to penalize slips of the > hand the same way as it penalizes slips of the mind. Hence I dislike > 25A, which seems to reward economy with the truth. Moreover, I hate > the EBU interpretation that is the subject of this thread. > > Case A. > You play a variable notrump. You are not vulnerable, but you think you > are vulnerable and open 1N with a balanced 17 HCP. Partner (correctly) > announces "12-14". 25A is likely to save you if you call the director > and claim inadvertence. No I don't think so. TD should find the probable reason that he has mistaken the zone. > > Case B. > RHO opens 1D. With your 10 HCP and 5 spades, you intend to overcall 1S > but inadvertently bid 1N. Partner announces "15-18". Under EBU > regulations, this announcement is illegal but it is a common kind if > mistake and normally escapes without penalty. Here however it wakes > you up to your mechanical error. How should the director rule now? If he finds that it most likely was a pure mechanical error he should allow a Law 25A correction of the call. > Stupid and unnecessary regulations like 25A will always spawn such > difficult scenarios. The honest player will be penalized. The > dishonest or self-deluding secretary bird may be rewarded. Rather than discussing your anticipation (which I deleted) I will post a different example: The player who says (spoken auction); "One Diamond eh I mean one heart". Nobody around the table has the least doubt that it was a plain slip of the tongue. Now, if you want to rule that he has bid one diamond I shall accept your position (without agreeing with it), but if you accept that this guy shall be permitted to having bid one heart and nothing else I challenge you to make up Law 25A in a proper way to cater for that situation as you apparently do not like the current text in that law. Remember that Law 25A accepts "slip of the tongue" but not "slip of the mind", so the Director must verify that there probably was a true "slip of the tongue". One way of trying that is to determine if the player seems to having possibly reconsidered his call after he became aware of his alleged mistake. My almost thirty years of TD experience tells me that Law 25A very seldom causes any difficulty. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 13 02:18:28 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:18:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c7f593$365890c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002801c7f59b$9be65cd0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> [nige1] >> I think it is simpler and fairer for the law to penalize slips of the >> hand the same way as it penalizes slips of the mind. Hence I dislike >> 25A, which seems to reward economy with the truth. Moreover, I hate >> the EBU interpretation that is the subject of this thread. >> I could buy into this, but it changes the way bridge has been played since 1914. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 13 03:49:41 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:49:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: John Probst: >I could buy into this, but it changes the way bridge has >been played since 1914. Richard Hills: It is possible that the WBF could, in the 2017 edition of the Lawbook, not only abolish Law 25A and rewrite Law 75 to define a misbid as an infraction, but also change Law 1 to read: "Duplicate Contract Bridge is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately on a square board composed of an 8x8 grid of 64 squares alternately light (the 'white' squares) and dark (the 'black' squares)." Garth Crooks: >>Football is football. If it was different it wouldn't be >>the same game. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 13 06:33:04 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:33:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cheat? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709102230.PAA07195@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>the ACBL's failure to apply natural justice to Katz-Cohen >>in the 1976 Houston Affair saw both Katz and Cohen >>reinstated as ACBL members. Adam Beneschan: >Under the condition that they not play with each other as >partners, if I recall correctly. > >I don't believe they were ever officially exonerated; they >were probably suspended (I'm not sure about that part), >and then quit the ACBL [snip] Richard Hills: No, according to The Bridge World reports, the ACBL applied extremely flawed unnatural justice to Katz-Cohen. They resigned from the ACBL under duress, since the ACBL was unable to hold a timely Disciplinary Committee hearing at Houston. Rather, the ACBL offered them a Hobson's Choice of being suspended for some months while their reputations were being publicly trashed, and only then getting a chance for exoneration at a formal hearing. The problem was incompetent planning by the ACBL. The only people at Houston who were eligible to join a Disciplinary Committee were the same people who were accusing Katz-Cohen of cheating, creating a conflict of interest between the roles of prosecutor and jury. Justice delayed is justice denied. :-( The good news is that some sponsoring organisations learnt from the 1976 debacle, noting that the ACBL's incompetence cost it zillions in the subsequent legal actions. The European Bridge League provided swift and sure natural justice in the more recent 2005 "Racecars" case. :-) 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 Sep 13 07:51:54 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:51:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00d501c7f451$1a2cf230$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan asked: >Who have the power to overrule...? Richard Hills replies: In theory a proof-reading analyst has zero power to over-rule the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee when the EBU L&EC has arguably published an unLawful regulation in its Orange Book. For example, the first paragraph of Orange Book clause 3B9 is arguably unLawfully contrary to Law 75A. For another example, Orange Book clause 3B10 is arguably unLawfully contrary to Law 75B. But..... In practice a disgruntled sea-lawyer can sue the EBU in a real-life court. If that real-life court discovered that the EBU did nothing when it was informed that some of its regulations were arguably unLawful, and if that real-life court accepted the argument that those regulations were indeed unLawful, then the EBU may have to pay out substantial real-life money instead of its usual payment of false-life masterpoints. :-) 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 Thu Sep 13 10:03:10 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:03:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46E48D09.3020001@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <20070913040310.1c5ec29f@linuxbox> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:16:48 +1000 richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: <...> > > Likewise, since the concept of "licensing" is a local English > peculiarity, not a world-wide habit, it is not practical to > replicate the Orange Book procedure on gaining a "license" for > your pet convention in the world-wide Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > <...> There is, however, something to be said for requiring those authorities who regulate conventions to at least have some means for the ordinary player to seek permission to play their particular gadget. While the EBU's scheme might not be for everyone, EBU members do at least know that (provided they jump through all the hoops) their pet gadgets will receive consideration, which is/was not the case with the ACBL - or at least, that's what they told me when I asked(*), and you would expect that they ought to know their own procedures. Still, I'm sure the online games are happy with the ACBL's point of view. Brian. (*) No, I was *not* trying to get the ACBL to allow a multi 2D under the GCC. :') -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070913/1fc29ffb/attachment.pgp From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 13 15:40:13 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:40:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Web publishing Message-ID: <46E93DBD.2060403@ntlworld.com> Several times a year, the EBU publish amendments and clarifications to their Orange book on their web-site. Unfortunately the Orange Book is a large file, so it takes minutes to download the amended book over a normal telephone connection. The EBU also publish the changes as a separate pdf file but that assumes you are familiar with the current version of the complete Orange Book. IMO, simpler and better would be to web-publish the Orange Book as html, for fast on-line access. Of course, like other organisations, the EBU could still use pdf for material that it does not want people to read or copy, on-line. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 13 16:10:32 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:10:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E944D8.9020007@ntlworld.com> [Paul] On balance I think that the the L&E are correct, as there clearly is great difficulty reaching agreement on what the opponents are likely or unlikely to expect. Someone wanting to know about alternative bids that limit a hand type, pattern or strength can ask. Of course there is a danger of conveying UI from the questions, a problem alleviated by screens. I suppose one can ask partner to leave the table before interrogating RHO, but like Hawkeye or goal-line technology, some will see this as interrupting the flow of the game. [nige1] EBU alerting rules are hard to remember. Few players get them right except in the simplest cases. For example do you alert partner's bids in the following common auctions... [1] 1H (X) P Where partner passes with rubbish but also passes with a strong hand and heart tolerance? [2] 1H (2C) P Where partner passes with rubbish but also passes with a strong hand that wants to penalize 2C? [3] 1H (2C) X where the double promises at least four spades? [4] 1H (P) 3H Weak, pre-emptive? [5] 1H (1S) 3H Weak, pre-emptive? [6] (1H) P (1N) X Where the double is takeout of 1S? [7] 1H (X) XX (1S); X (2C) X Where partner's double is penalty? [8] (1N) P (2H "spades") P; (2S) X Where partner's double is take-out? [9] 4N Opening bid asking for specific aces. If you get any wrong, you are in good company. Even EBU tournament directors sometimes get them wrong. Now for something completely different... King George puts hive in hat to mount hobby horse... If the rules were changed so that you disclose departures from a standard system, then you would have to learn another (useful playable) system but.. [A] You would avoid having to learn disclosure rules that, effectively, define a local (unplayable) system. [B] Disclosure rules could become simple clear and universal. From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 13 19:18:31 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:18:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules References: <46E944D8.9020007@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <002a01c7f62a$1beacae0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Rules > King George puts hive in hat to mount hobby horse... > > If the rules were changed so that you disclose departures from a > standard system, then you would have to learn another (useful > playable) system but.. > [A] You would avoid having to learn disclosure rules that, > effectively, define a local (unplayable) system. > [B] Disclosure rules could become simple clear and universal. > Why the hell should I put in the HUNDREDS of hours necessary to learn a system I'll never play. I doubt I even have any agreements in many sequencs that get discussed here in partnerships where I have put in the hundreds of hours and I'd rather be buggered by Nigel than learn something that 1) I won't use 2) I will forget 3) is full of contradictions 4) is not natural to my way of thinking. Nigel you are getting totally ridiculous with your unending attempts to try to promulgate your totally unrealistic, unworkable and unwieldy idea. Your standard system will run to about 150 pages of dense script. My agreements with Damian do, and they're not even complete. cheers John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 13 22:21:03 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:21:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules In-Reply-To: <46E944D8.9020007@ntlworld.com> References: <46E944D8.9020007@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <1FB3BEB5-070A-4E3D-A9C8-34F8F4B91855@starpower.net> On Sep 13, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Guthrie wrote: > If the rules were changed so that you disclose departures from a > standard system, then you would have to learn another (useful > playable) system but.. "Another"? In order to properly meet their L40B full disclosure obligation under Nigel's "standard system" proposal, 99.99% of partnerships would need to achieve a mastery of the details of that system at a level well beyond their understanding of the system they have chosen to play. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 14 03:25:43 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:25:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>the explanation should have been, "transfer, promising at >>least five hearts, but if partner holds six or more >>hearts then partner is guaranteeing some values, since we >>play an immediate 3H response as pre-emptive." In a private email, another blmler quibbled: >You are right, of course, that full explanation must >always be given, but the practicalities of tournament play >make that difficult. I can imagine a director walking past >and saying, "Are you still giving an explanation of that >multi? I have already told you that you are two boards >behind; now get a move on!" But you are right that >"transfer" in the case in question does adopt a minimalist >approach. Richard Hills re-asserts: If I was the Director, I would not accept an excuse that: "I had to give incomplete and therefore misleading information about our agreements because we have chosen such complex methods that timely full disclosure would be impossible." Rather, after adjusting the score and applying a procedural penalty, I would then order that pair to play a simpler system for the rest of the session (ABF Alert Regulation, clause 10.1). 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 Fri Sep 14 04:01:21 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:01:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709131901l9b7e5ecw63cfd004a32a551a@mail.gmail.com> > > Richard Hills re-asserts: > > If I was the Director, I would not accept an excuse that: > > "I had to give incomplete and therefore misleading > information about our agreements because we have chosen > such complex methods that timely full disclosure would be > impossible." > > Rather, after adjusting the score and applying a procedural > penalty, I would then order that pair to play a simpler > system for the rest of the session (ABF Alert Regulation, > clause 10.1). > I wonder what definition of *complete* you use. I would like a complete description of my opponent's carding methods and tendencies on opening lead. Do you really think anyone can give a *complete* description of this in an hour? There are lots of procedural penalty points to give out, your way, and lots of orders to change systems. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 14 06:12:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:12:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709131901l9b7e5ecw63cfd004a32a551a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hypothetical excuse: >>"I had to give incomplete and therefore misleading >>information..." Jerry Fusselman quibbled: >I wonder what definition of *complete* you use. I >would like a complete description of my opponent's >carding methods and tendencies on opening lead. >Do you really think anyone can give a *complete* >description of this in an hour? [snip] Richard Hills: Information given about partnership methods is for all intents and purposes "complete" if it is not misleading, so that any trivial "incompleteness" does not cause damage. As for Jerry's implication that tendencies on opening lead need not be disclosed -> >From the "Clarification" thread, 25th July 2007: >>>The contract is 3NT. Declarer needs two stoppers >>>in spades to make the game. The lead is a fourth >>>best deuce of spades, promising an honour. >>> >>>North (Dummy) >>> >>>S QT >>> >>>South (Declarer) >>> >>>S A9 >>> >>>East-West have a concealed partnership >>>understanding that they never lead from a jack- >>>empty suit (except when they hold four jack-empty >>>suits). Just such a strong opening lead tendency was discussed by Edgar Kaplan in one of his Bridge World editorials, in response to a reader's letter. He advised that reader that any advantage she gained in the defence by knowing her partner's defensive tendencies was balanced by the Law 75 requirement to disclose those defensive tendencies to declarer. 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 Sep 14 07:08:31 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:08:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1FB3BEB5-070A-4E3D-A9C8-34F8F4B91855@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >In order to properly meet their L40B full disclosure >obligation under Nigel's "standard system" proposal, >99.99% of partnerships would need to achieve a mastery >of the details of that system at a level well beyond >their understanding of the system they have chosen to >play. James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, page 183: "Berkeley political scientist Chandra Nemeth has shown in a host of studies of mock juries that the presence of a minority viewpoint, all by itself, makes a group's decisions more nuanced and its decision-making process more rigorous. This is true even when the minority viewpoint turns out to be ill-conceived." Richard Hills: So the ill-conceived bee-in-bonnet hobby-horse views of Nigel Guthrie (and Herman De Wael) have caused postings by other blmlers to be more nuanced and rigorous, such as the excellently nuanced point propounded by Eric Landau (with John Probst concurring). :-) Furthermore, it is not always the case that Nigel's minority viewpoints are ill-conceived. For example, Nigel validly buzzes with his bee-in-bonnet assertion that the 1997 version of Law 76 could be substantially improved in the next edition of the Lawbook. 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 Sep 14 17:15:08 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:15:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EAA57C.8050604@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] In order to properly meet their L40B full disclosure obligation under Nigel's "standard system" proposal, 99.99% of partnerships would need to achieve a mastery of the details of that system at a level well beyond their understanding of the system they have chosen to play. [James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, page 183] "Berkeley political scientist Chandra Nemeth has shown in a host of studies of mock juries that the presence of a minority viewpoint, all by itself, makes a group's decisions more nuanced and its decision-making process more rigorous. This is true even when the minority viewpoint turns out to be ill-conceived." [Richard Hills] So the ill-conceived bee-in-bonnet hobby-horse views of Nigel Guthrie (and Herman De Wael) have caused postings by other blmlers to be more nuanced and rigorous, such as the excellently nuanced point propounded by Eric Landau (with John Probst concurring). :-) Furthermore, it is not always the case that Nigel's minority viewpoints are ill-conceived. For example, Nigel validly buzzes with his bee-in-bonnet assertion that the 1997 version of Law 76 could be substantially improved in the next edition of the Lawbook. [nige1] I don't fully accept Eric Landau' criticism. I concede that disclosure from a standard system is unlikely to completely satisfy L40B obligations. All that I claim is that current disclosure regulations are a greater memory burden and perform worse in that area. The disclosure rules that I advocate do have drawbacks but they are still better conceived than current disclosure laws and regulations. If your opponents are acquaintances or friends then their methods are likely to be familiar. Hence disclosure is no a great problem. Efficient disclosure is most important when your opponents are strangers or foreigners. Now, what is perfectly natural to you may seem bizarre to them. And vice versa. Currently, each local legislature has different disclosure regulations. Implicit in each, is an enormous set of local norms from which you disclose departures. Hence, effectively, these regulations define an unplayable mishmash of local systems. You must learn a different set of arbitrary regulations for each country in which you play bridge. Well, that is not quite true. Fortunately, on-line bridge is rapidly evolving simpler legislation. On multi-national Bridge web-sites, almost everybody *can* play a coherent basic system (based on strong notrump, Stayman, transfers, five card majors, weak twos in three suits, weak jump overcalls and so on). Hence you are expected to disclose departures from that standard. It seems to work OK, in practice. There is less to learn and consequently fewer mistakes than with (say) EBU alerting regulations. Whatever system a player normally employs, the standard system is a boon for beginners, pick-up partnerships, individual tournaments (and international competitions staged for PR and a wide audience). Richard is right that: like Herman, I find it strange that most BLMLers see no merit in my arguments on this issue (although I am grateful to receive supportive private correspondence). As current internet trends continue, however, and the merits of simpler disclosure practices become apparent to more players, this debate may well become academic. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Sep 14 17:44:42 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:44:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46EAA57C.8050604@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000301c7f6e6$2b498d20$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [snipped much] Nigel writes: > Efficient disclosure is most important when your opponents are > strangers or foreigners. Now, what is perfectly natural to you may > seem bizarre to them. And vice versa. > > Currently, each local legislature has different disclosure > regulations. Implicit in each, is an enormous set of local norms from > which you disclose departures. > > Hence, effectively, these regulations define an unplayable mishmash of > local systems. You must learn a different set of arbitrary regulations > for each country in which you play bridge. You have brought up on a few occasions this "each country in which you play bridge" argument. The international top level players are well equipped to prepare themselves, the rest of the travelers is small in numbers and should not become the prime, IMO not even one the main considerations in what local alerting regulations are/should be. IMHO. Raija From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 14 18:05:39 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:05:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46EAA57C.8050604@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <003f01c7f6e9$181b8ca0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > As current internet trends continue, however, and the merits of > simpler disclosure practices become apparent to more players, this > debate may well become academic. > There's no doubt that Nigel is right here. I can envisage (the unetymological Americans would envision) alerting eventually becoming dependent on "internet standard" and will probably fall into the "pre-alert basic method, WBF alerting, full disclosure" style. ... and I strongly feel that the NBO's, ostrich-like, keep their heads in the sand in not seeing this is the way things are going and that they are failing to seize an enormous opportunity. However this is long into the future, and at the moment most people play mostly in their own manor, and local alerting is fine. Part of the fun in going to another country to play is to find out what's diferent and what's (not) permitted. john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 19:01:13 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:01:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0709131901l9b7e5ecw63cfd004a32a551a@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709141001x436db97eo88486f176e969af1@mail.gmail.com> On 9/13/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >From the "Clarification" thread, 25th July 2007: > > >>>The contract is 3NT. Declarer needs two stoppers > >>>in spades to make the game. The lead is a fourth > >>>best deuce of spades, promising an honour. > >>> > >>>North (Dummy) > >>> > >>>S QT > >>> > >>>South (Declarer) > >>> > >>>S A9 > >>> > >>>East-West have a concealed partnership > >>>understanding that they never lead from a jack- > >>>empty suit (except when they hold four jack-empty > >>>suits). > > Just such a strong opening lead tendency was > discussed by Edgar Kaplan in one of his Bridge World > editorials, in response to a reader's letter. He > advised that reader that any advantage she gained in > the defence by knowing her partner's defensive > tendencies was balanced by the Law 75 requirement to > disclose those defensive tendencies to declarer. > Did Edgar Kaplan also suggest assigning a procedural penalty here? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 15 04:18:08 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:18:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709141001x436db97eo88486f176e969af1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills memory laned: >>Just such a strong opening lead tendency was >>discussed by Edgar Kaplan in one of his Bridge World >>editorials, in response to a reader's letter. He >>advised that reader that any advantage she gained in >>the defence by knowing her partner's defensive >>tendencies was balanced by the Law 75 requirement to >>disclose those defensive tendencies to declarer. Jerry Fusselman asked: >Did Edgar Kaplan also suggest assigning a procedural >penalty here? Richard Hills answers: The point of the editorial was the letter writer's sincere belief that only the explicit agreements her partnership had for their defensive methods needed to be disclosed. Edgar Kaplan informed her that her partnership's _implicit_ defensive agreements also needed to be disclosed. An official policy of the Directors at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge is that procedural penalties are not applied to the (vast majority of) players who _unintentionally_ infract Law. Ergo, at the Summer Festival ignorance of the Law is a partial excuse; it does not affect the adjusted score, but it does affect whether or not a subsequent procedural penalty is applied. But if with my autodidactic knowledge of the Lawbook I should choose to infract a "could have known" Law at the forthcoming Summer Festival, then I have no doubt that I would deserve and also receive a substantial procedural penalty. 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 Sep 17 08:46:38 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:46:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46EBA516.70006@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (from the "San Diego Lightfoot Sue") thread: [snip] >>Therefore, when I play against different Aussie bridge subcultures >>at the Aussie nationals, I do not assume that because a particular >>one of my partnership agreements is normal and general in my local >>subculture it is necessarily normal and general in my opponents' >>subculture. >> >>Rather, I carefully pre-alert, alert, and post-alert all of my >>methods which I think may be unexpected. (Indeed, against >>inexperienced players, I even pre-alert them to the Aussie alert >>regulations, pointing out to them that it may be to their >>advantage to enquire about all of my partnership's doubles at the >>time they are made, since the ABF alert rules prohibit alerting of >>doubles during the auction.) Private response from a blmler, but authorised for public release: >Your solution assumes a high level of >.. empathy (with strange opponents), >.. knowledge (of what methods may be strange to them) and >.. active ethics (well above normal legal obligations). > >If your protocol were law, most players would lack the mental >equipment and moral fibre to conform to it. [big snip of cogent complaints about related issues] >I would prefer to conduct future correspondence on BLML, in the >hopes of eventually influencing somebody else. Richard Hills: Clarification. What I have described is not "my" protocol because it _is_ Law. Or at least it is what is required for all Aussie bridge players by the Australian Alert Regulation, as created by the ABF pursuant to Law 75. ABF Alerting Regulations, clause number 1: "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents. These Regulations set principles and guidelines for the approved alerting procedures. "The ABF System Regulations require each player to have a legibly completed approved system card on the table, with the partnership cards being systemically identical. The purpose of an alert is to draw the opponents' attention to any call that has a special meaning, or a meaning the opponents may not expect. The fact that your system card explains the meaning of a call does not remove the obligation to alert it when required by these regulations. (However see 2.4 below for self-alerting calls.) "You should follow the principle of full disclosure (as required by the Laws) in following these Regulations and in explanations of calls. Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can. A careless failure to follow this policy may result in an adjusted score, and possibly procedural penalties, when the opponents have been damaged. If you make a positive effort to meet your obligations under full disclosure, you will rarely if ever fall foul of these regulations. "Your agreements include not only specific agreements appearing on your system card but also partnership understandings which have arisen through partnership discussion or experience. The opponents are entitled to know about these understandings. General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there has been no prior discussion, are not alertable, but any inferences that can be drawn from partnership experience must be disclosed." 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 Sep 17 09:08:42 2007 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:08:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Web publishing In-Reply-To: <46E93DBD.2060403@ntlworld.com> References: <46E93DBD.2060403@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <20070917030842.55cdf723@linuxbox> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:40:13 +0100 Guthrie wrote: > Several times a year, the EBU publish amendments and clarifications > to their Orange book on their web-site. > > Unfortunately the Orange Book is a large file, so it takes minutes to > download the amended book over a normal telephone connection. The EBU > also publish the changes as a separate pdf file but that assumes you > are familiar with the current version of the complete Orange Book. > > IMO, simpler and better would be to web-publish the Orange Book as > html, for fast on-line access. > What's wrong with providing both alternatives? I don't know what program DWS uses to write/edit the OB, but any modern word processor will generate both HTML and PDF versions at the cost of a few mouse clicks. > Of course, like other organisations, the EBU could still use pdf for > material that it does not want people to read or copy, on-line. > You've got me on this one, Nigel. I've never heard of an organisation choosing to publish in PDF format **in order to prevent people reading or copying the material online**. Do you have any examples? IMO, organisations publish in PDF because it's the de facto standard, with reader programs available for all but the oldest and/or most obscure operating systems. Brian. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070917/063256b7/attachment.pgp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 19 06:37:29 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:37:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (3rd October 2006): [snip] >Part of the problem is that the 1997, 1987 and 1975 Lawbooks >were patchwork evolutions, not fundamental redrafts, [snip] >The WBF Executive Council, at its Montreal meeting in 2002, >gave a riding instruction to the WBF LC drafting sub- >committee that ambiguity should be minimised in next year's >Lawbook. > >Of course, given the length and complexity of the 1997 >Lawbook, this is a Sisyphean task. But to a certain extent >blml is a friend of Sisyphus, as blml finds stones of >ambiguity that might otherwise be overlooked until 2017. > >:-) Nassim Nicholas Taleb, "Fooled by Randomness", page 190: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western businesspeople involved in what became Russia discovered an annoying (or entertaining) fact about the legal system: It had conflicting and contradictory laws. It just depended on which chapter you looked up. I don't know whether the Russians wanted it as a prank (after all, they lived long, humourless years of oppression) but the confusion led to situations where someone had to violate a law to comply with another. I have to say that lawyers are quite dull people to talk to; talking to a dull lawyer who speaks broken English with a strong accent and a vodka breath can be quite straining - so you give up. This spaghetti legal system came from the piecewise development of the rules: You add a law here and there and the situation is too complicated as there is no central system that is consulted every time to ensure compatibility of all the parts together. Napoleon faced a similar situation in France and remedied it by setting up a top-down code of law that aimed to dictate a full logical consistency. 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 J.P.Pals at uva.nl Wed Sep 19 14:02:06 2007 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:02:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <5F0F9BC233F06246850197E67C73C44AF88290@CPEXBE-EML12.kpnsp.local> Message-ID: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. Suppose the regular auction becomes: West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass What are the lead penalties for West? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 19 14:36:06 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:36:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <5F0F9BC233F06246850197E67C73C44AF88290@CPEXBE-EML12.kpnsp.local> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070919142439.02155c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:02 19/09/2007 +0200, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. > >Suppose the regular auction becomes: > >West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass > >What are the lead penalties for West? East's bid says something specific about two suits, spades and diamonds, so a lead of either of those can be either mandated or disallowed. Note that, according to the footnote to L26, if a splinter is replaced by a minimum bid in the suit, the denomination may be considered "not repeated". This is a striaghtforward case ; I've always felt uncomfortable about insufficient cases where there can be different interpretations of the player's intention, eg 2S (2D) : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall 2D over 1S (or 2C), or did a ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D was lower than 2S ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 19 14:53:51 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:53:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. > > Suppose the regular auction becomes: > > West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass > > What are the lead penalties for West? If/when West gets on lead (for the first time), North may require or forbid either a diamond or a spade. Since 4D showed diamond shortness and spade support, it "related to" both "specified... suits" [L26A]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 19 17:14:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:14:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070919142439.02155c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5F0F9BC233F06246850197E67C73C44AF88290@CPEXBE-EML12.kpnsp.local> <5.1.0.14.0.20070919142439.02155c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46F13CB9.2030609@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:02 19/09/2007 +0200, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. >> >> Suppose the regular auction becomes: >> >> West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass >> >> What are the lead penalties for West? > > East's bid says something specific about two suits, spades and diamonds, so > a lead of either of those can be either mandated or disallowed. > > Note that, according to the footnote to L26, if a splinter is replaced by a > minimum bid in the suit, the denomination may be considered "not repeated". > > This is a striaghtforward case ; I've always felt uncomfortable about > insufficient cases where there can be different interpretations of the > player's intention, eg 2S (2D) : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall 2D > over 1S (or 2C), or did a ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D was > lower than 2S ? > That is not really important. Since the lead penalties are there to prohibit leads in suits that partner knows something about, they are not needed if we don't know what 2D meant. So either the table knows, and the TD can rule, or the table does not know, and it does not matter what the TD rules. > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 19 17:34:07 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:34:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F13CB9.2030609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c7fad2$84abdb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > > This is a striaghtforward case ; I've always felt uncomfortable about > > insufficient cases where there can be different interpretations of the > > player's intention, eg 2S (2D) : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall > 2D > > over 1S (or 2C), or did a ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D > was > > lower than 2S ? > > > > That is not really important. > Since the lead penalties are there to prohibit leads in suits that > partner knows something about, they are not needed if we don't know > what 2D meant. So either the table knows, and the TD can rule, or the > table does not know, and it does not matter what the TD rules. It isn't important here, but it can be important in those cases where the offender selects to replace his IB with the lowest legal bid with the same denomination and neither the IB nor the replacement is conventional. e.g. an insufficient 1C (after an opening bid in a different denomination) replaced by a sufficient 2C. 1C is obviously an opening bid while 2C is a simple overcall. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 19 19:19:55 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:19:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000001c7fad2$84abdb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7fad2$84abdb80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46F15A3B.3060105@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >>> This is a striaghtforward case ; I've always felt uncomfortable about >>> insufficient cases where there can be different interpretations of the >>> player's intention, eg 2S (2D) : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall >> 2D >>> over 1S (or 2C), or did a ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D >> was >>> lower than 2S ? >>> >> That is not really important. >> Since the lead penalties are there to prohibit leads in suits that >> partner knows something about, they are not needed if we don't know >> what 2D meant. So either the table knows, and the TD can rule, or the >> table does not know, and it does not matter what the TD rules. > > It isn't important here, but it can be important in those cases where the > offender selects to replace his IB with the lowest legal bid with the same > denomination and neither the IB nor the replacement is conventional. > > e.g. an insufficient 1C (after an opening bid in a different denomination) > replaced by a sufficient 2C. > > 1C is obviously an opening bid while 2C is a simple overcall. > That is not the point Sven. The point Alain was talking of is that we cannot always be certain what suit the IB related to. It is that suit which determines the LPs. If we don't know what went on in the mind of the IBer, we don't know what suit the IB relates to, so we cannot be certain we are having the correct LP. I said that this does not matter, because if we don't know what suit the IB relates to, neither does the partner, so we do not need to forbid any suit. I would ask you, Sven, to answer to Alain's questions and not to my replies. By replying to my mail, besides the question, you just prove that your main aim on blml is to argue against Herman. I don't like that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 19 19:49:11 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:49:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F15A3B.3060105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c7fae5$6314c9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>> This is a striaghtforward case ; I've always felt uncomfortable about > >>> insufficient cases where there can be different interpretations of the > >>> player's intention, eg 2S (2D) : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall > >> 2D > >>> over 1S (or 2C), or did a ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D > >> was > >>> lower than 2S ? > >>> > >> That is not really important. > >> Since the lead penalties are there to prohibit leads in suits that > >> partner knows something about, they are not needed if we don't know > >> what 2D meant. So either the table knows, and the TD can rule, or the > >> table does not know, and it does not matter what the TD rules. > > > > It isn't important here, but it can be important in those cases where > the > > offender selects to replace his IB with the lowest legal bid with the > same > > denomination and neither the IB nor the replacement is conventional. > > > > e.g. an insufficient 1C (after an opening bid in a different > denomination) > > replaced by a sufficient 2C. > > > > 1C is obviously an opening bid while 2C is a simple overcall. > > > > That is not the point Sven. > The point Alain was talking of is that we cannot always be certain > what suit the IB related to. It is that suit which determines the LPs. > If we don't know what went on in the mind of the IBer, we don't know > what suit the IB relates to, so we cannot be certain we are having the > correct LP. > > I said that this does not matter, because if we don't know what suit > the IB relates to, neither does the partner, so we do not need to > forbid any suit. > > I would ask you, Sven, to answer to Alain's questions and not to my > replies. By replying to my mail, besides the question, you just prove > that your main aim on blml is to argue against Herman. I don't like that. OK then, I misunderstood your comment. But then your comment is incorrect: If we cannot tell which suit (or suits) the withdrawn call referred to then the applicable law is L26B which empowers declarer to name any one suit (at his choice) and forbid a lead from offender's partner in that suit the first time he has the lead for as long as he retains the lead. And believe me Herman; I am not trying to perform any kind of "vendetta" against anybody. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 19 22:38:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:38:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000101c7fae5$6314c9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c7fae5$6314c9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46F188CF.9010905@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ............ >>>>> This is a striaghtforward case ; I've always felt uncomfortable about >>>>> insufficient cases where there can be different interpretations of the >>>>> player's intention, eg 2S (2D) : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall >>>> 2D >>>>> over 1S (or 2C), or did a ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D >>>> was >>>>> lower than 2S ? >>>>> >>>> That is not really important. >>>> Since the lead penalties are there to prohibit leads in suits that >>>> partner knows something about, they are not needed if we don't know >>>> what 2D meant. So either the table knows, and the TD can rule, or the >>>> table does not know, and it does not matter what the TD rules. >>> It isn't important here, but it can be important in those cases where >> the >>> offender selects to replace his IB with the lowest legal bid with the >> same >>> denomination and neither the IB nor the replacement is conventional. >>> >>> e.g. an insufficient 1C (after an opening bid in a different >> denomination) >>> replaced by a sufficient 2C. >>> >>> 1C is obviously an opening bid while 2C is a simple overcall. >>> >> That is not the point Sven. >> The point Alain was talking of is that we cannot always be certain >> what suit the IB related to. It is that suit which determines the LPs. >> If we don't know what went on in the mind of the IBer, we don't know >> what suit the IB relates to, so we cannot be certain we are having the >> correct LP. >> >> I said that this does not matter, because if we don't know what suit >> the IB relates to, neither does the partner, so we do not need to >> forbid any suit. >> >> I would ask you, Sven, to answer to Alain's questions and not to my >> replies. By replying to my mail, besides the question, you just prove >> that your main aim on blml is to argue against Herman. I don't like that. > > OK then, I misunderstood your comment. > > But then your comment is incorrect: If we cannot tell which suit (or suits) > the withdrawn call referred to then the applicable law is L26B which > empowers declarer to name any one suit (at his choice) and forbid a lead > from offender's partner in that suit the first time he has the lead for as > long as he retains the lead. > You misunderstand again, probably because you have not read Alain's post, just mine. Let me show you Alain's comment again: I've always felt uncomfortable about insufficient cases where there can be different interpretations of the player's intention, eg 2S (2D) : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall 2D over 1S (or 2C), or did a ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D was lower than 2S ? The problem is not that the 2D does not show any suit, but that we don't know what it shows: if he wanted to open 2D, it shows whatever that opening shows (probably no suit, so 26B), if he wanted to overcall, it probably shows diamonds (so 26A). This determines which of the types of 26 we have to follow. Do you see now what my comment means? If we don't know, then neither knows the partner, so it won't matter because the partner won't know what to lead either. > And believe me Herman; I am not trying to perform any kind of "vendetta" > against anybody. > Then please start reading some other posts than mine, or at least try to understand my posts in the context of the thread they are in. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 20 00:24:52 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:24:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F188CF.9010905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c7fb0b$e64a27a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > You misunderstand again, probably because you have not read Alain's > post, just mine. Oh, I read that too. > Let me show you Alain's comment again: > > I've always felt uncomfortable about insufficient cases where there > can be different interpretations of the player's intention, eg 2S (2D) > : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall 2D over 1S (or 2C), or did a > ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D was lower than 2S ? > > The problem is not that the 2D does not show any suit, but that we > don't know what it shows: if he wanted to open 2D, it shows whatever > that opening shows (probably no suit, so 26B), if he wanted to > overcall, it probably shows diamonds (so 26A). This determines which > of the types of 26 we have to follow. > > Do you see now what my comment means? If we don't know, then neither > knows the partner, so it won't matter because the partner won't know > what to lead either. Sure I understand your comment. And I still maintain that if nobody "knows" what suit or suits the IB referred to then we apply Law 26B. If the players can show that the IB refers to some specific suit(s) then we apply Law 26A. Simple as that. Sven From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 20 00:44:12 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:44:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty > On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. >> >> Suppose the regular auction becomes: >> >> West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass >> >> What are the lead penalties for West? > > If/when West gets on lead (for the first time), North may require or > forbid either a diamond or a spade. nope. 4D doesn't relate to one single suit, it shows info about 2 suits. hence one can stop the lead of any suit. Where a single suit is the datum one can stop or insist on the lead of THAT suit. no law permits stop or insist on 2 suits (unless there were 2 separate infractions). John. This one's a no brainer, really is. > > Since 4D showed diamond shortness and spade support, it "related to" > both "specified... suits" [L26A]. > > > 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 20 01:15:16 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:15:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c0@john> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of John Probst Sent: 19 September 2007 23:44 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty > On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. >> >> Suppose the regular auction becomes: >> >> West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass >> >> What are the lead penalties for West? > > If/when West gets on lead (for the first time), North may require or > forbid either a diamond or a spade. > nope. 4D doesn't relate to one single suit, it shows info about 2 suits. > hence one can stop the lead of any suit. Where a single suit is the datum > one can stop or insist on the lead of THAT suit. no law permits stop or > insist on 2 suits (unless there were 2 separate infractions). John. > This one's a no brainer, really is. Well, it requires a strictly positive number of brain cells to read and understand Law 26A2: Suit Not Specified If that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, then declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, or prohibit offender's partner from leading the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the lead. Admittedly, the words "If that suit..." should be "If the suit or suits specified by the insufficient bid was or were not specified in the legal auction by the same player...", but I can see the aesthetic argument against this wording. The meaning, however, is clear: if a withdrawn insufficient bid related to, or specified, spades and diamonds, then the offender's partner may be required or forbidden to lead a spade or a diamond, but the non-offending side has no control over hearts or clubs. David Burn London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Sep 20 18:56:57 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:56:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> May I be the first to welcome David Burn back to the fray. May his excoriating analyses be not blunted by the lay off Cheers, Tony(Sydney) At 04:15 PM 19/09/2007, you wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >On Behalf Of John Probst >Sent: 19 September 2007 23:44 >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty > > > > On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > > >> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. > >> > >> Suppose the regular auction becomes: > >> > >> West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass > >> > >> What are the lead penalties for West? > > > > If/when West gets on lead (for the first time), North may require or > > forbid either a diamond or a spade. > > > nope. 4D doesn't relate to one single suit, it shows info about 2 suits. > > hence one can stop the lead of any suit. Where a single suit is the datum > > one can stop or insist on the lead of THAT suit. no law permits stop or > > insist on 2 suits (unless there were 2 separate infractions). John. > > > This one's a no brainer, really is. > >Well, it requires a strictly positive number of brain cells to read and >understand Law 26A2: > >Suit Not Specified > >If that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, >then declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead >the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to >lead, >including the opening lead, or prohibit offender's partner from leading >the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to >lead, >including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as >offender's partner retains the lead. > >Admittedly, the words "If that suit..." should be "If the suit or suits >specified by the insufficient bid was or were not specified in the legal >auction by the same player...", but I can see the aesthetic argument against >this wording. The meaning, however, is clear: if a withdrawn insufficient >bid related to, or specified, spades and diamonds, then the offender's >partner may be required or forbidden to lead a spade or a diamond, but the >non-offending side has no control over hearts or clubs. > >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 02:04:23 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:04:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention" Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709191704h65d00928x841f63432f617a45@mail.gmail.com> The correct ruling often depends on whether or not a certain call is a convention. I hope the new lawbook clarifies the definition of convention. Currently, it is, "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. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." The last sentence seems oddly specific, but my main problem with this definition is the phrase "other than," which different things to different readers. Consider the sequence 1S - 2NT - 4S without competition, where 2NT is a Jacoby game-forcing raise, and 4S shows a weak hand and no singletons or voids. Some say it is not conventional because he does indeed want to play in spades. Some years ago, this was appeared to be the majority opinion on BLML. Indeed, such people would also say that later, 5S in response to Blackwood would not be conventional either, because he still wants to play in spades. Others disagree with this position, saying that the information content is what matters, and since 4S denies singletons and voids, 4S has a meaning in addition to a willingness to play in spades---and is therefore a convention. My guess is that this is correct, but sometimes directors rule differently---probably due to the vagueness of "other than" in the definition. Is "in addition to" a special case of "other than" or not? I.e., does the meaning of a call have to be 100% other than to qualify as "other than?" I think that the definition of convention could be worded clearer to achieve more uniform understanding. Secondarily, can SO's add other categories of conventional? I am thinking here of the ACBL's definition in their GCC (General Convention Chart): "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." So the auction 1C - P - 1S would be ACBL-artificial if 1S shows three-plus spades. If there is nothing else unusual about the meaning of 1S, then it would seem to be simultaneously artificial and not conventional. Wow! Or maybe it is conventional in ACBL land, despite the definition in the law book. Does anyone know or have a guess? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 02:11:43 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:11:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709191711l1f633eefv950b87c91d9492b6@mail.gmail.com> Greetings David! How wonderful it would be if you joined us again! And whether you do or not, thanks so much for you excellent contributions in the past, as well as your world-class sense of humour. You have been sorely missed! Jerry Fusselman Chicago From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 20 03:11:27 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:11:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Burn and rave at close of day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709191711l1f633eefv950b87c91d9492b6@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>May I be the first to welcome David Burn back to the fray. May >>his excoriating analyses be not blunted by the lay off Jerry Fusselman: >Greetings David! > >How wonderful it would be if you joined us again! And whether you >do or not, thanks so much for you excellent contributions in the >past, as well as your world-class sense of humour. You have been >sorely missed! Dylan Thomas (1914-1953): "Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of the day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light." Richard Hills: Yes, with David Burn once more raging against negative brain cell interpretations of the dying 1997 Lawbook, we are about to become a very august mailing list. Adam Beneschan: >>>That would be a shame, especially since we are twenty days into >>>September. It would feel like a missed opportunity. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 08:53:03 2007 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:53:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> Message-ID: On 20/09/2007, David Burn wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John Probst > Sent: 19 September 2007 23:44 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty > > > > On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > > >> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. > >> > >> Suppose the regular auction becomes: > >> > >> West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass > >> > >> What are the lead penalties for West? > > > > If/when West gets on lead (for the first time), North may require or > > forbid either a diamond or a spade. > > > nope. 4D doesn't relate to one single suit, it shows info about 2 suits. > > hence one can stop the lead of any suit. Where a single suit is the > datum > > one can stop or insist on the lead of THAT suit. no law permits stop or > > insist on 2 suits (unless there were 2 separate infractions). John. > > > This one's a no brainer, really is. I absolutely agree with John's last statement. Well, it requires a strictly positive number of brain cells to read and > understand Law 26A2: > > Suit Not Specified > > If that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, > then declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead > the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to > lead, > including the opening lead, or prohibit offender's partner from leading > the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to > lead, > including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as > offender's partner retains the lead. > > Admittedly, the words "If that suit..." should be "If the suit or suits > specified by the insufficient bid was or were not specified in the legal > auction by the same player...", but I can see the aesthetic argument > against > this wording. The meaning, however, is clear: if a withdrawn insufficient > bid related to, or specified, spades and diamonds, then the offender's > partner may be required or forbidden to lead a spade or a diamond, but the > non-offending side has no control over hearts or clubs. Welcome back David - nice to see you making a post again! I also absolutely agree with David's comments above. Once more I'll refer to Endicott and Hansen in "Commentary on the Laws" (sorry to all non-Europeans), where they're absolutely clear on this issue. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070920/7e5ddec7/attachment.htm From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 20 09:33:12 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:33:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c 0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> Message-ID: <46F22238.50304@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John Probst > Sent: 19 September 2007 23:44 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty > > >> On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> >>> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. >>> >>> Suppose the regular auction becomes: >>> >>> West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass >>> >>> What are the lead penalties for West? >> If/when West gets on lead (for the first time), North may require or >> forbid either a diamond or a spade. > >> nope. 4D doesn't relate to one single suit, it shows info about 2 suits. >> hence one can stop the lead of any suit. Where a single suit is the datum >> one can stop or insist on the lead of THAT suit. no law permits stop or >> insist on 2 suits (unless there were 2 separate infractions). John. > >> This one's a no brainer, really is. > > Well, it requires a strictly positive number of brain cells to read and > understand Law 26A2: > > Suit Not Specified > > If that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, > then declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead > the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to > lead, > including the opening lead, or prohibit offender's partner from leading > the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to > lead, > including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as > offender's partner retains the lead. > > Admittedly, the words "If that suit..." should be "If the suit or suits > specified by the insufficient bid was or were not specified in the legal > auction by the same player...", but I can see the aesthetic argument against > this wording. The meaning, however, is clear: if a withdrawn insufficient > bid related to, or specified, spades and diamonds, then the offender's > partner may be required or forbidden to lead a spade or a diamond, but the > non-offending side has no control over hearts or clubs. i am not sure your formulation is as clear as you say. as i understand L26A, "or" between "spade" and "diamond" is an exclusive or. offender's partner may be forbidden to lead a spade or forbidden to lead a diamond but not forbidden to lead both a spade and a diamond. at least everybody will agree he may not be forced to lead both a spade and a diamond! jpr > > David Burn > London, England > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 20 09:35:01 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:35:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000701c7fb0b$e64a27a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c7fb0b$e64a27a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46F222A5.6030100@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >> You misunderstand again, probably because you have not read Alain's >> post, just mine. > > Oh, I read that too. > >> Let me show you Alain's comment again: >> >> I've always felt uncomfortable about insufficient cases where there >> can be different interpretations of the player's intention, eg 2S (2D) >> : did he intend to open 2D, or overcall 2D over 1S (or 2C), or did a >> ground-skimming cow make him forget that 2D was lower than 2S ? >> >> The problem is not that the 2D does not show any suit, but that we >> don't know what it shows: if he wanted to open 2D, it shows whatever >> that opening shows (probably no suit, so 26B), if he wanted to >> overcall, it probably shows diamonds (so 26A). This determines which >> of the types of 26 we have to follow. >> >> Do you see now what my comment means? If we don't know, then neither >> knows the partner, so it won't matter because the partner won't know >> what to lead either. > > Sure I understand your comment. And I still maintain that if nobody "knows" > what suit or suits the IB referred to then we apply Law 26B. If the players > can show that the IB refers to some specific suit(s) then we apply Law 26A. > Simple as that. Yes Sven, simple. But the general case is not that simple. Suppose: 2NT (2He) If the bidder saw 1NT, he intends 2He as spades, but if he thought he was opening, it was hearts. Now both strands lead to 26A. But which one? Surely not that simple, he? Now do you understand Alain's problem - and my comment? > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 10:26:29 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:26:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F188CF.9010905@skynet.be> References: <000101c7fae5$6314c9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000101c7fae5$6314c9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920102411.02159300@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:38 19/09/2007 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >The problem is not that the 2D does not show any suit, but that we >don't know what it shows: if he wanted to open 2D, it shows whatever >that opening shows (probably no suit, so 26B), if he wanted to >overcall, it probably shows diamonds (so 26A). This determines which >of the types of 26 we have to follow. > >Do you see now what my comment means? If we don't know, then neither >knows the partner, so it won't matter because the partner won't know >what to lead either. AG : BTA in that case perhaps the default value is 26B. I've read about ruling that went that way. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 10:29:16 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:29:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c0@john> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920102807.0215cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:44 19/09/2007 +0100, you wrote: >nope. 4D doesn't relate to one single suit, it shows info about 2 suits. >hence one can stop the lead of any suit. Where a single suit is the datum >one can stop or insist on the lead of THAT suit. no law permits stop or >insist on 2 suits (unless there were 2 separate infractions). John. Wrong. Please re-read the first sentence in L26A and the parentheses in L26A2. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 10:41:33 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention" In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709191704h65d00928x841f63432f617a45@mail.gmail.co m> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920103123.02158ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:04 19/09/2007 -0500, you wrote: >So the auction 1C - P - 1S would be ACBL-artificial if 1S shows >three-plus spades. If there is nothing else unusual about the meaning >of 1S, then it would seem to be simultaneously artificial and not >conventional. Wow! Or maybe it is conventional in ACBL land, despite >the definition in the law book. Does anyone know or have a guess? I'll have a guess. "conventional vs non-conventional" is one qualification, described in TFLB. "artificial vs natural" is based on local customs and addresses another quality of the bid. There is nothing to disallow a priori that some call be both artificial and non-conventional. A forcing two-bid is a possible example. There seems to have been a shift in meaning, making "artificial" a subset of "conventional" in many minds. This is similar to the fact that "ultraliberal" is now taken as a superlative form of "capitalist", forgetting that "liberal vs societal" and "capitalist vs redistributionist" are (or at least can be) independent options ("independent" being taken in its geometrical sense). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070920/40787ed2/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 20 10:56:35 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:56:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F222A5.6030100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c7fb64$27266ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Sure I understand your comment. And I still maintain that if > > nobody "knows" what suit or suits the IB referred to then we > > apply Law 26B. If the players can show that the IB refers to > > some specific suit(s) then we apply Law 26A. > > Simple as that. > > Yes Sven, simple. But the general case is not that simple. > > Suppose: > > 2NT (2He) > > If the bidder saw 1NT, he intends 2He as spades, but if he thought he > was opening, it was hearts. Now both strands lead to 26A. But which > one? Surely not that simple, he? > Now do you understand Alain's problem - and my comment? Please read again what I wrote above. Once we apply Law 26A it is because we "know" what suit(s) the IB referred to. What is the problem? Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Sep 20 11:38:39 2007 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:38:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> Message-ID: Hello David, Do you want to suggest that this is the first more or less interesting question in this group since you became silent? Nice to hear from you of course. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 20 11:55:56 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:55:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F22238.50304@meteo.fr> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c 0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> <46F22238.50304@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <46F243AC.9030300@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of John Probst >> Sent: 19 September 2007 23:44 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty >> >> >>> On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >>> >>>> West opens one spade, East bids four diamonds (splinter) out of turn. >>>> >>>> Suppose the regular auction becomes: >>>> >>>> West one spade - North five diamonds - East double - all pass >>>> >>>> What are the lead penalties for West? >>> If/when West gets on lead (for the first time), North may require or >>> forbid either a diamond or a spade. >>> nope. 4D doesn't relate to one single suit, it shows info about 2 suits. >>> hence one can stop the lead of any suit. Where a single suit is the datum >>> one can stop or insist on the lead of THAT suit. no law permits stop or >>> insist on 2 suits (unless there were 2 separate infractions). John. >>> This one's a no brainer, really is. >> Well, it requires a strictly positive number of brain cells to read and >> understand Law 26A2: >> >> Suit Not Specified >> >> If that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, >> then declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead >> the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to >> lead, >> including the opening lead, or prohibit offender's partner from leading >> the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to >> lead, >> including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as >> offender's partner retains the lead. >> >> Admittedly, the words "If that suit..." should be "If the suit or suits >> specified by the insufficient bid was or were not specified in the legal >> auction by the same player...", but I can see the aesthetic argument against >> this wording. The meaning, however, is clear: if a withdrawn insufficient >> bid related to, or specified, spades and diamonds, then the offender's >> partner may be required or forbidden to lead a spade or a diamond, but the >> non-offending side has no control over hearts or clubs. > > i am not sure your formulation is as clear as you say. as i understand > L26A, "or" between "spade" and "diamond" is an exclusive or. offender's > partner may be forbidden to lead a spade or forbidden to lead a > diamond but not forbidden to lead both a spade and a diamond. at least > everybody will agree he may not be forced to lead both a spade and a > diamond! > I was momentarily distracted, so I did not react to John's original, which contains a mistake! L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so! So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, diamonds, or both, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible anyway. Some posts have gotten this wrong, I seem to gather. Of course the question remains if we need to consider showing a singleton diamond as "showing diamonds", but that's another question. > jpr >> David Burn >> London, England >> > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 20 12:00:12 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:00:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <000501c7fb64$27266ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c7fb64$27266ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <46F244AC.1060907@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >>> Sure I understand your comment. And I still maintain that if >>> nobody "knows" what suit or suits the IB referred to then we >>> apply Law 26B. If the players can show that the IB refers to >>> some specific suit(s) then we apply Law 26A. >>> Simple as that. >> Yes Sven, simple. But the general case is not that simple. >> >> Suppose: >> >> 2NT (2He) >> >> If the bidder saw 1NT, he intends 2He as spades, but if he thought he >> was opening, it was hearts. Now both strands lead to 26A. But which >> one? Surely not that simple, he? >> Now do you understand Alain's problem - and my comment? > > Please read again what I wrote above. Once we apply Law 26A it is because we > "know" what suit(s) the IB referred to. What is the problem? > The problem is that we don't know which suit the IB referred to. Do we now apply L26B or do we ask the IBer what his mistake was so that we can apply L26A on that suit? Or do we not ask him, guess one, and apply L26A on the one we guess. Maybe guessing wrong, but since partner does not know either? I don't think the third is correct. if it's either spades or hearts, and we guess spades, partner might do well to lead hearts, just in case we guessed wrong? I don't think the first is correct either. If we apply L26B, we let declarer guess. Again, partner would do well in just leading the other one, just in case declarer guessed wrong. So the best solution it to ask IBer what he intended, and then apply L26A on that one. > 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 20 12:28:47 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F243AC.9030300@skynet.be> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c 0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> <46F22238.50304@meteo.fr> <46F243AC.9030300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c7fb71$08032ad0$18098070$@com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 20 September 2007 10:56 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty [JPR] I am not sure your formulation is as clear as you say. As I understand L26A, "or" between "spade" and "diamond" is an exclusive or. Offender's partner may be forbidden to lead a spade or forbidden to lead a diamond but not forbidden to lead both a spade and a diamond. at least everybody will agree he may not be forced to lead both a spade and a diamond! [HDW] I was momentarily distracted, so I did not react to John's original, which contains a mistake! L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so! So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, diamonds, or both, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible anyway. Some posts have gotten this wrong, I seem to gather. [DALB] The Law says: If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and [...] If that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, then declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, or prohibit offender's partner from leading the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the lead. The words "prohibit offender's partner from leading the specified suit (or one particular specified suit)" mean that if East has specified spades and diamonds, declarer may prohibit West from leading a spade, or prohibit West from leading a diamond, but he may not prohibit West from leading either a spade or a diamond. No doubt that is not what they are intended to mean, but that is what they mean. The words "the specified suit" deal with the case where only one suit is specified; the words "or one particular specified suit" deal with the case where more than one suit is specified, and indicate clearly that declarer may prohibit one suit, but not more than one. I hope that in the next revision of the Laws, the relevant passage will be amended to reflect the actual intent. After all, it would be somewhat perverse if declarer could in effect say to West "don't cash a spade trick" whereupon West said "all right then, I'll give partner a diamond ruff instead". In the meantime, should this somewhat unlikely scenario occur at the table, I would have no difficulty with the notion that declarer should in fact be permitted to prohibit West from leading a spade and prohibit West from leading a diamond. An alternative to the uncouth wording I suggested in an earlier post occurs to me: If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and [...] If any suit specified by the withdrawn call was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, then declarer may (penalty): Require the offender's partner to lead a particular one of such suits* at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead; or Prohibit offender's partner from leading any such suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the lead. *This wording is necessary, because the phrase "North can tell West to lead a heart or a club" is ambiguous: it could mean either "North can tell West to lead a heart, or North can tell West to lead a club, at North's discretion"; or "North can tell West to lead a heart or a club, but West has discretion over which of those suits he leads". Wherefore the words "require the offender's partner to lead one such suit" would not alone suffice. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 12:44:30 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:44:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] lead penalties Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920124225.02161dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> [Herman] L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so! So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, diamonds, or both, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible anyway. AG : I'm a bit embarrassed about the "or both" part. The French version of the law explicitly says "the specified suit (or one of the specified suits)", whence no combined prohibition is possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070920/9466643b/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 12:51:41 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:51:41 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Lead_penalty?= References: <46F244AC.1060907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46F250BC.000001.97293@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- So the best solution it to ask IBer what he intended, and then apply L26A on that one. AG : I don't like this. It means we're creating more UI than there was. If we take steps to avoid the IBer telling other players (by taking one away from the table), we nevertheless reveal the information by our ruling. And it doesn't cover a frequent case : - What were you intending to bid ? - Well, 2D. I didn't realize this was an insufficient bid. - Okay, but what did you intend to mean by your bid ? - Sorry, there is no specific meaning for IBs in our system. Neither does it cover the Chimp's case : - What were you intending to bid ? - Well, I'm a bit ashamed to admit it, but I was thinking about the last deal, where I'd have been better off had I opened 1D, and I mechanically pulled 1D out of the BB, without any relation to my hand. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070920/f0a97c5e/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/20070920/f0a97c5e/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/20070920/f0a97c5e/attachment-0001.gif From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 20 12:53:07 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:53:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] lead penalties In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920124225.02161dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920124225.02161dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002201c7fb74$6e2783d0$4a768b70$@com> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: 20 September 2007 11:45 To: bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] lead penalties [Herman] L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so! So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, diamonds, or both, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible anyway. AG : I'm a bit embarrassed about the "or both" part. The French version of the law explicitly says "the specified suit (or one of the specified suits)", whence no combined prohibition is possible. DB: Then the French version of the law is a correct translation of the English version of the law, neither of which (as I have explained) is a correct translation of the intention of the lawmakers. David Burn London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070920/9f96f80b/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 20 13:12:39 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:12:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Lead_penalty?= In-Reply-To: <46F250BC.000001.97293@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <46F244AC.1060907@skynet.be> <46F250BC.000001.97293@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <46F255A7.20802@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > /-------Message original-------/ > > So the best solution it to ask IBer what he intended, and then apply > L26A on that one. > > AG : I don't like this. It means we're creating more UI than there was. > If we take steps to avoid the IBer telling other players (by taking one > away from the table), we nevertheless reveal the information by our ruling. > I think you have understood my point, but let me repeat it for the purpose of those entering this new thread from scratch. A person makes an Insufficient Bid, let's say in suit X. If that IB was intended as an opening, it shows suit X; if that IB was intended as an overcall over some lesser bid, it shows suit Y. IBer has not yet revealed which of the two was his intention. We now have 3 options as TD: 1) we guess X or Y, and apply L26A on that 2) we apply L26B 3) we demand to know the intention, and then apply L26A on that one. Basically, option 2 means that we ask declarer to guess which one it is, and then we give him only the option of refusing that particular lead, not of demanding it. And both in options 1 and 2, we give partner a particular option: if TD (in option 1) or declarer (in option 2) chooses to consider suit X as the one intended, then lead suit Y, just in case the choice was wrong. Against 3 there is the argument that this provides UI not already present. Well, OS ought to have thought about that before making the IB. Yes, we make the case a little worse than it was, but at least we give NOs enough compensation. With options 1 and 2, I feel NOS are not compensated. > And it doesn't cover a frequent case : > > - What were you intending to bid ? > - Well, 2D. I didn't realize this was an insufficient bid. > - Okay, but what did you intend to mean by your bid ? > - Sorry, there is no specific meaning for IBs in our system. > > Neither does it cover the Chimp's case : > > - What were you intending to bid ? > - Well, I'm a bit ashamed to admit it, but I was thinking about the last > deal, where I'd have been better off had I opened 1D, and I mechanically > pulled 1D out of the BB, without any relation to my hand. > > Best regards > > Alain > > > Animations GRATUITES pour votre courriel - par IncrediMail! Cliquez ici! > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.25/1018 - Release Date: 19/09/2007 15:59 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 20 14:28:27 2007 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:28:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] lead penalties In-Reply-To: <002201c7fb74$6e2783d0$4a768b70$@com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920124225.02161dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002201c7fb74$6e2783d0$4a768b70$@com> Message-ID: <46F2676B.1000201@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > > > > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 20 September 2007 11:45 > To: bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] lead penalties > > > > [Herman] L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so! > So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead > penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, > diamonds, or both, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can > demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot > demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible anyway. > > AG : I'm a bit embarrassed about the "or both" part. The French version of > the law explicitly says "the specified suit (or one of the specified > suits)", whence no combined prohibition is possible. > > > > DB: Then the French version of the law is a correct translation of the > English version of the law, agreed > neither of which (as I have explained) is a > correct translation of the intention of the lawmakers. how are you so certain of the intention? after all, the present formulation might be useful to prevent insoluble situations. suppose the withdrawn call describes 5 cards in diamonds and spades, and singleton or void in clubs and hearts. all 4 suits are specified. what if declarer prohibits offender's partner lead in every specified suit? jpr > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 20 14:35:02 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:35:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] lead penalties In-Reply-To: <002201c7fb74$6e2783d0$4a768b70$@com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920124225.02161dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002201c7fb74$6e2783d0$4a768b70$@com> Message-ID: <46F268F6.3090805@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > > > > *From:* blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] *On Behalf Of *Alain Gottcheiner > *Sent:* 20 September 2007 11:45 > *To:* bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* [blml] lead penalties > > > > [Herman] L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so! > So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead > penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, > diamonds, *or both*, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can > demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot > demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible anyway. > > AG : I'm a bit embarrassed about the "or both" part. The French version > of the law explicitly says "the specified suit (or one of the specified > suits)", whence no combined prohibition is possible. > > > > DB: Then the French version of the law is a correct translation of the > English version of the law, neither of which (as I have explained) is a > correct translation of the intention of the lawmakers. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > I stand corrected. Declarer can indeed only prohibit one of the suits. This is not analogous (as I thought) with the case of 2 penaltiy cards, in which case declarer CAN prohibit more than one suit (all of which penalty cards can be returned to hand). I was working from memory on a case which I have not come accross in 20 years; in fact, it was a law change from 1987, not that I am using that as an excuse. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From J.P.Pals at uva.nl Thu Sep 20 14:45:38 2007 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:45:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> South is declaring an ironcast contract of six spades. West has the 8 and 9 of hearts, and chooses the h9 as his opening lead, but unfortunately the 8 drops when he extracts the 9 from his hand. The h8 becomes a minor penalty card. East wins the first trick with the ace of hearts and returns another heart, which West ruffs (he has no more hearts, remember? :-)). West leads a diamond to trick three. What now? From andre.kriner at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 15:01:52 2007 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:01:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: Hi all, On 9/20/07, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > South is declaring an ironcast contract of six spades. > West has the 8 and 9 of hearts, and chooses the h9 as his opening lead, > but unfortunately the 8 drops when he extracts the 9 from his hand. The > h8 becomes a minor penalty card. > East wins the first trick with the ace of hearts and returns another > heart, which West ruffs (he has no more hearts, remember? :-)). West > leads a diamond to trick three. > What now? 52B1: the play of trumps by West has been accepted by declarer. 63A1: the revoke is established. 64B3: no penalty because of the failure to play the faced card H8. what am I missing? cheers, Andre From henk at ripe.net Thu Sep 20 15:16:08 2007 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:16:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <46F27298.7070506@ripe.net> Andre Kriner wrote: > Hi all, > > On 9/20/07, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> South is declaring an ironcast contract of six spades. >> West has the 8 and 9 of hearts, and chooses the h9 as his opening lead, >> but unfortunately the 8 drops when he extracts the 9 from his hand. The >> h8 becomes a minor penalty card. >> East wins the first trick with the ace of hearts and returns another >> heart, which West ruffs (he has no more hearts, remember? :-)). West >> leads a diamond to trick three. > >> What now? > > 52B1: the play of trumps by West has been accepted by declarer. > 63A1: the revoke is established. > 64B3: no penalty because of the failure to play the faced card H8. > > what am I missing? 64C 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Sep 20 15:24:26 2007 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt at t-online.de) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:24:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Revoke?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <1IYM14-0DkRc00@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> From: "Andre Kriner" > On 9/20/07, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > South is declaring an ironcast contract of six spades. > > West has the 8 and 9 of hearts, and chooses the h9 as his opening > > lead, but unfortunately the 8 drops when he extracts the 9 from his > > hand. The h8 becomes a minor penalty card. > > East wins the first trick with the ace of hearts and returns another > > heart, which West ruffs (he has no more hearts, remember? :-)). West > > leads a diamond to trick three. > > > > > What now? > > 52B1: the play of trumps by West has been accepted by declarer. > 63A1: the revoke is established. > 64B3: no penalty because of the failure to play the faced card H8. > > what am I missing? Law 64 C Peter From andre.kriner at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 15:25:06 2007 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:25:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke In-Reply-To: <46F27298.7070506@ripe.net> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <46F27298.7070506@ripe.net> Message-ID: > > what am I missing? > > 64C I expected that. But should declarer be saved from falling asleep? OTOH it does leave a bitter taste ... cheers Andre From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 15:48:40 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:48:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke In-Reply-To: References: <46F27298.7070506@ripe.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <46F27298.7070506@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920154238.02168cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:25 20/09/2007 +0200, Andre Kriner wrote: > > 64C > >I expected that. >But should declarer be saved from falling asleep? What's declarer's error ? Merely saying "follow suit" to dummy, or perhaps even just nodding ? I've always felt some sympathy for players that were taken aback following an opponent's incorrection and ensuing technicalities with the TD. L72B1 could be applied to such cases. The word "any" in L64C is clear enough, anyway. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 20 15:44:24 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:44:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <46F243AC.9030300@skynet.be> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c 0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> <46F22238.50304@meteo.fr> <46F243AC.9030300@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sep 20, 2007, at 5:55 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so! > So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead > penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, > diamonds, or both, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can > demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot > demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible > anyway. One cannot prohibit both suits: "declarer may... prohibit offender's partner from leading... one particular specified suit" [L26A2]. > Some posts have gotten this wrong, I seem to gather. > > Of course the question remains if we need to consider showing a > singleton diamond as "showing diamonds", but that's another question. "Showing diamonds" is irrelevant; L26A requires only that that the call be "related to" diamonds. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From andre.kriner at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 16:29:19 2007 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:29:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920154238.02168cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20070920095453.0c2ac748@mail.optusnet.com.au> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <46F27298.7070506@ripe.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070920154238.02168cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Hi, > What's declarer's error ? Merely saying "follow suit" to dummy, or perhaps > even just nodding ? > > I've always felt some sympathy for players that were taken aback following > an opponent's incorrection and ensuing technicalities with the TD. L72B1 > could be applied to such cases. > > The word "any" in L64C is clear enough, anyway. I understand and appreciate that ruling. But now let's turn the tables and let declarer lead a (non-trump) card in a suit contract. LHO following suit, dummy trumping, thereby revoking and RHO following suit. Declarer orders a card to the next trick. Now defenders complain about the revoke. It is established and there will not be a penalty. Assuming that declarer gained a trick due to the revoke TD will adjust the score according to L64C, right? So the point of L64B3 is that a revoke shall only be "rectified" (in conjunction with L64C) but not penalized in these situations? A bit confused, Andre From mustikka at charter.net Thu Sep 20 16:31:50 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:31:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] Revoke References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <000d01c7fb92$fbd4e920$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:45 AM Subject: [blml] Revoke > South is declaring an ironcast contract of six spades. > West has the 8 and 9 of hearts, and chooses the h9 as his opening lead, > but unfortunately the 8 drops when he extracts the 9 from his hand. The > h8 becomes a minor penalty card. > East wins the first trick with the ace of hearts and returns another > heart, which West ruffs (he has no more hearts, remember? :-)). West > leads a diamond to trick three. > > What now? Where I come from, TD stays at the table until the penalty card has been disposed of in proper order. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 20 16:35:45 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:35:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Lead_penalty?= In-Reply-To: <46F255A7.20802@skynet.be> References: <46F244AC.1060907@skynet.be> <46F250BC.000001.97293@CERAP-MATSH1> <46F255A7.20802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <99EE880D-E1AA-46DD-8568-6E0CE87D920C@starpower.net> On Sep 20, 2007, at 7:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > A person makes an Insufficient Bid, let's say in suit X. > If that IB was intended as an opening, it shows suit X; > if that IB was intended as an overcall over some lesser bid, it shows > suit Y. > IBer has not yet revealed which of the two was his intention. > > We now have 3 options as TD: > 1) we guess X or Y, and apply L26A on that > 2) we apply L26B > 3) we demand to know the intention, and then apply L26A on that one. If, as will most often be the case, the IB was "corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination", showing suit X, we will have *already determined* that he intended to show suit Y, else we would have applied L27B1 rather than L27B2, and would not be concerned with L26 at all. In my personal experience, the "mind reading" called for by L27B is far more difficult and problematic than that required by L26A, and far more in need of a good hard look by those who are revising TFLB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Thu Sep 20 16:41:00 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:00 EDT Subject: [blml] Appeal by a Director Message-ID: A tournament director classifies a psyche as amber. The Chief Tournament Director overrules him and reclassifies it as green. Does the tournament director have the right to appeal this (for example to the national authority), if none of the players at the table wishes to do so? And yes the situation has actually occurred! Paul Lamford From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 20 16:53:59 2007 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:53:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Appeal by a Director In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:00 EDT." Message-ID: <200709201438.HAA20355@mailhub.irvine.com> Paul Lamford wrote: > A tournament director classifies a psyche as amber. The Chief Tournament > Director overrules him and reclassifies it as green. Does the tournament > director have the right to appeal this (for example to the national authority), if > none of the players at the table wishes to do so? Sounds like this is a matter for the regulations and by-laws of each bridge league (and I have no idea what the EBU rules are---I'm assuming this is EBU). But as a matter of general principle, I don't see why they'd have that right. In the American judicial system, for example, if a court ruling gets overturned by a higher court, the parties to the case have the right to appeal to yet a higher court, but the judge whose decision got overturned doesn't. There's a hierarchy, a "chain of command" involved, where the judges involved are all part of the same institution, supposedly with the same mission, and those lower in the institution's hierarchy are expected to defer to those higher up. I don't see why it should be any different for TD's. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 20 17:05:10 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:05:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B32@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <3426DD6F-6789-408B-B150-B2EF5DDC6DCD@starpower.net> On Sep 20, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > South is declaring an ironcast contract of six spades. > West has the 8 and 9 of hearts, and chooses the h9 as his opening > lead, > but unfortunately the 8 drops when he extracts the 9 from his hand. > The > h8 becomes a minor penalty card. > East wins the first trick with the ace of hearts and returns another > heart, which West ruffs (he has no more hearts, remember? :-)). West > leads a diamond to trick three. > > What now? Play continues with no penalty [L64B3]. I suspect, though, from Jan's parenthetical "he has no more hearts", that he may be asking about the case where the H8 has fallen unnoticed. In that case, the H8 would not have been "exposed" and thus would not be a penalty card [L50]. Then we would have a routine revoke [L14B3]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 20 17:19:52 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:19:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Appeal by a Director In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12F28C9D-53DB-45B2-B7A3-4CB17F1434F5@starpower.net> On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > A tournament director classifies a psyche as amber. The Chief > Tournament > Director overrules him and reclassifies it as green. Does the > tournament > director have the right to appeal this (for example to the > national authority), if > none of the players at the table wishes to do so? No. Double-no, actually. First, the right to appeal is granted solely to "contestant[s]" or "[their] Captain[s]" [L92]. Second, even if "the Director" were allowed to lodge an appeal to the NA, only the CTD (DIC in ACBL-speak) is "the Director" in the sense that TFLB uses the term; other TDs at the event are "assistants" who may carry out only those duties "delegated" by the CTD [L81]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 20 18:44:07 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:44:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty In-Reply-To: <200709201519.l8KFJG5i018670@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709201519.l8KFJG5i018670@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46F2A357.7060601@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > Hi, Herman. > >> So the best solution it to ask IBer what he intended, and then apply >> L26A on that one. > > Good grief! I certainly hope not. Well Steve, I just explained why I thought it was best. I dealt with the usual reasons why we think it is not a good idea. But of course, you know better and a one line answer saying nothing is just what you feel the need to say. With eloquence like that, I'm sure David Burn will stick around for a long while this time. > > By the way, I don't see any change in L26A2 in 1997. Prior to 1987, > when the current L26 appeared, the rules were different. > > Isn't that what I wrote - a law change from 1987? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 20 19:27:53 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] lead penalties In-Reply-To: <46F2676B.1000201@meteo.fr> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920124225.02161dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002201c7fb74$6e2783d0$4a768b70$@com> <46F2676B.1000201@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000801c7fbab$947f5260$bd7df720$@com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort Sent: 20 September 2007 13:28 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] lead penalties David Burn a ?crit : [snip] > AG : I'm a bit embarrassed about the "or both" part. The French > version of the law explicitly says "the specified suit (or one of the > specified suits)", whence no combined prohibition is possible. > > > > DB: Then the French version of the law is a correct translation of the > English version of the law, agreed > neither of which (as I have explained) is a correct translation of the > intention of the lawmakers. [JPR] how are you so certain of the intention? after all, the present formulation might be useful to prevent insoluble situations. suppose the withdrawn call describes 5 cards in diamonds and spades, and singleton or void in clubs and hearts. all 4 suits are specified. what if declarer prohibits offender's partner lead in every specified suit? Oh, one can never be sure of anything in this vale of tears. It may indeed be that the lawmakers took pains to avoid a situation in which a player could in theory ban an opponent from leading anything at all. But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather prevent this kind of thing. You, East, hold: 63 4 A10987 A10987 South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What call do you make? Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the minors, explaining that you thought North had bid 2H rather than 6H. It will not do declarer much good to be able to forbid a diamond lead if he cannot also forbid a club lead. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 20 20:00:36 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:00:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lead penalty References: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B846B28@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> <005901c7fb0e$99c92a40$0701a8c 0@john> <000001c7fb12$f14236a0$d3c6a3e0$@com> <46F22238.50304@meteo.fr><46F243AC.9030300@skynet.be> <001001c7fb71$08032ad0$18098070$@com> Message-ID: <004901c7fbb0$25cc4b70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 20 September 2007 10:56 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty > > [HDW] > > I was momentarily distracted, so I did not react to John's original, > which contains a mistake! Agreed, sorry guys. It'll happen again, no doubt :) john From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 20 20:22:23 2007 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:22:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] lead penalties In-Reply-To: <000801c7fbab$947f5260$bd7df720$@com> Message-ID: <001401c7fbb3$30a4e860$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Burn ................ > But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather prevent > this kind of thing. You, East, hold: > > 63 4 A10987 A10987 > > South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What call do you > make? > > Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the > minors, explaining that you thought North had bid 2H rather than 6H. > It will not do declarer much good to be able to forbid a diamond lead > if he cannot also forbid a club lead. But they have prevented this thing! Have you overlooked Law 72B1? Law 26A2 is so unambiguously written that I fully trust the lawmakers to having written precisely their true intention. Even more so since Law 26A2 was passed unchanged from the 1987 laws to the 1997 laws except for a minor clarification which has no bearing on this particular question. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 20 22:08:48 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:08:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] lead penalties In-Reply-To: <000801c7fbab$947f5260$bd7df720$@com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070920124225.02161dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002201c7fb74$6e2783d0$4a768b70$@com> <46F2676B.1000201@meteo.fr> <000801c7fbab$947f5260$bd7df720$@com> Message-ID: <2FF914EA-12A7-4F71-A79E-2C97BA61CC6F@starpower.net> On Sep 20, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David Burn wrote: > But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather prevent > this kind > of thing. You, East, hold: > > 63 4 A10987 A10987 > > South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What call do > you make? > > Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the > minors, > explaining that you thought North had bid 2H rather than 6H. It > will not do > declarer much good to be able to forbid a diamond lead if he cannot > also > forbid a club lead. Under L26 as written, declarer is, obviously, able to simultaneously forbid both a diamond lead and a club lead. All he has to do is forbid either a spade or heart lead as well! WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 00:17:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:17:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c7fbab$947f5260$bd7df720$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn: >It may indeed be that the lawmakers took pains to avoid a >situation in which a player could in theory ban an opponent >from leading anything at all. Richard Hills: I think it may indeed be that the 1997 lawmakers took less than adequate pains in drafting the 1997 Law 26. As the former Editor of the Australian Directors Bulletin noted almost a decade ago (and as this debate has shown now) the 1997 Law 26 is one of those Laws which has unnecessarily ambiguous language. David Burn: >But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather >prevent this kind of thing. You, East, hold: > >63 4 A10987 A10987 > >South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What >call do you make? > >Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT >for the minors, explaining that you thought North had bid >2H rather than 6H. It will not do declarer much good to be >able to forbid a diamond lead if he cannot also forbid a >club lead. Richard Hills: There is more than one way to skin a cat. Declarer uses Law 26 to directly forbid West from leading a diamond. Then West's alternative lead of a club is indirectly forbidden by Law 16C2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non- offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information." What's the problem? Indeed, given the comprehensive scope of Law 16C2, it seems to me that Law 26 no longer has any justification for its existence, so in 2017 Law 26 might as well be abolished. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 20 23:50:38 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:50:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appeal by a Director References: <12F28C9D-53DB-45B2-B7A3-4CB17F1434F5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001601c7fbd7$22857320$2d9587d9@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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal by a Director > only the CTD (DIC in ACBL-speak) is "the Director" > in the sense that TFLB uses the term; other TDs at the > event are "assistants" who may carry out only those > duties "delegated" by the CTD [L81]. > +=+ I agree. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 21 00:35:58 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:35:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] lead penalties References: <001401c7fbb3$30a4e860$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001701c7fbd7$2354d110$2d9587d9@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: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] lead penalties >> On Behalf Of David Burn > ................ >> But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather prevent >> this kind of thing. You, East, hold: >> >> 63 4 A10987 A10987 >> >> South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What call do you >> make? >> >> Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the >> minors, explaining that you thought North had bid 2H rather than 6H. >> It will not do declarer much good to be able to forbid a diamond lead >> if he cannot also forbid a club lead. > > But they have prevented this thing! Have you overlooked Law 72B1? > > Law 26A2 is so unambiguously written that I fully trust the lawmakers to > having written precisely their true intention. > > Even more so since Law 26A2 was passed unchanged from the 1987 > laws to the 1997 laws except for a minor clarification which has no > bearing on this particular question. > > Regards Sven > +=+ Having now enjoyed a view from within of three decennial audits of the Code of Laws, I agree with Sven. Please bear with us in the matter until after Shanghai. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 01:22:06 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:22:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal by a Director [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c7fbd7$22857320$2d9587d9@Hellen> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>only the CTD (DIC in ACBL-speak) is "the Director" in >>the sense that TFLB uses the term; other TDs at the >>event are "assistants" who may carry out only those >>duties "delegated" by the CTD [L81]. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I agree. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: I too agree that the "Director in charge" is deemed to be the "Director" for the purposes of the Lawbook. But, for the sake of tying up a loose end, I also note that the "Director in charge" has an untrammelled right under Law to send an appeal to the National Authority. Law 81C9 (Director's Duties and Powers - Disputes): "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to adjust disputes; to refer a matter to the appropriate committee." 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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 21 04:50:33 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Appeal by a Director References: <92769142-953C-420C-AC7C-61B5677FCCCD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2D6BE8E2-E190-46EF-8579-6548E718E8FC@starpower.net> This was the message I intended to send when the earlier nonsense went out instead... On Sep 20, 2007, at 11:19 AM, I wrote: > On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> A tournament director classifies a psyche as amber. The Chief >> Tournament >> Director overrules him and reclassifies it as green. Does the >> tournament >> director have the right to appeal this (for example to the >> national authority), if >> none of the players at the table wishes to do so? > > No. Double-no, actually. First, the right to appeal is granted > solely to "contestant[s]" or "[their] Captain[s]" [L92]. Steve Willner has reminded me that this is no longer true; the Director now may initiate appeals on his own initiative [L81C9], subject to "concurrence" by either the pair on whose behalf the appeal is being brought or their captain [L92D]. I doubt, BTW, that the authors of the current L81C9 intended that the Director's power to appeal be subject to the constraint in L92D, notwithstanding that TFLB clearly states so -- the original purpose of L92D, which predates directors' appeals, was to prevent a one partner from bringing an appeal over the objection of the other. If I'm right, this needs to go on somebody's list of pending "technical corrections" for the new Laws. > Second, even if "the Director" were allowed to lodge an appeal to > the NA, only the CTD (DIC in ACBL-speak) is "the Director" in the > sense that TFLB uses the term; other TDs at the event are > "assistants" who may carry out only those duties "delegated" by the > CTD [L81]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 elandau at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 21 05:41:10 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:41:10 EDT Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification Message-ID: Dealer North ? Love All North Scoring: Hybrid K 9 7 3 6 4 K 10 5 K Q 9 7 . J 6 4 2 A 5 K J 10 7 5 3 Q 9 8 2 9 Q 8 6 3 2 6 3 10 4 Q 10 8 A A J 7 4 A J 8 5 2 West North East South Pass Pass Pass 1C 2H Dble* 2S 3D Pass 4C 4H 5C Pass Pass Pass 2H was weak; *alerted, ?likely? to have four spades Result: 5C - 1 by South = -50 Tournament Director?s comments: I feel this is close to being Amber ? although pass may be the advisable action, many players would have raised spades, and West must have been aware that this is a potential psyche situation. I ruled the psyche GREEN. The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled green by the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem from later minutes that East-West produced the opinion of three Grandmasters who would all have passed on the West hand. East-West submitted arguments that 2S implied a heart fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus player), and pass therefore showed a minimum. I would tend to agree with them - West knows that it is not their hand, and raising spades will only help North-South diagnose a double fit, when East-West may have to save at the five (or even six) level. I can understand that antipathy towards "nasty, dirty, horrible" psyches generates this type of verdict. I would however, have reclassified it as amber, rather than green. It is a common psyche situation, and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the opponents of the pair who psyched. After the red classification there should have been a score adjustment when South had gone off in a cold game, although I did not see this adjustment in the L&E minutes. How would others have classified it? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 06:10:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:10:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appeal by a Director [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2D6BE8E2-E190-46EF-8579-6548E718E8FC@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >I doubt, BTW, that the authors of the current L81C9 intended that >the Director's power to appeal be subject to the constraint in >L92D, notwithstanding that TFLB clearly states so [snip] Richard Hills: Any blmler who says that The Fabulous Lawbook "clearly states" anything is asking for trouble. :-) Perhaps the title of this thread is begging the question, petitio principii. Law 83: "If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power might be in order (as when he awards an adjusted score under Law 12), he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee." Richard Hills: So it seems to me that while a contestant may "appeal", a Director instead may "refer". Indeed, it seems to me that Law 92A *defines* an "appeal" as something which a contestant or their captain does. I do, however, agree that a Director's Law 81C9 power could well be clarified. Instead of the current Law 81C9 wording: "to refer _a_ matter to _the_ appropriate committee", better would be this alternative wording: "to refer _any_ matter to _an_ appropriate committee". 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 Sep 21 07:30:30 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:30:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >East-West submitted arguments that 2S implied a heart >fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus >player), and pass therefore showed a minimum. Richard Hills; In my average plus player style, pass would instead show "no double fit, so no double game swing". Points? Schmoints. Paul Lamford: >It is a common psyche situation, Richard Hills As I have noted many times before, the correct nomenclature is "common pseudo-psyche situation". If in that partnership they have an implicit partnership understanding to commonly use so-called "baby psyches", then 2S was actually a "baby pseudo-psyche" and a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) infraction of Law 40B. Therefore, in my opinion, the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee decision to reclassify the 2S bid as a "Red Psyche" (accurate nomenclature would be "Red Alleged Psyche") was justified by the available facts. 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 Sep 21 10:23:38 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:23:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000801c7fbab$947f5260$bd7df720$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921102143.0215bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:17 21/09/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >There is more than one way to skin a cat. Declarer uses Law >26 to directly forbid West from leading a diamond. Then >West's alternative lead of a club is indirectly forbidden by >Law 16C2: > >"For the offending side, information arising from its own >withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non- >offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending >side may not choose from among logical alternative actions >one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another >by the unauthorised information." AG : looks strange to me. If this was enough to avoid a lead in a suit shown, L26 would be useless, as any case of withdrawn insufficient call could be covered by L16C. Best regards Alain >What's the problem? > >Indeed, given the comprehensive scope of Law 16C2, it seems >to me that Law 26 no longer has any justification for its >existence, so in 2017 Law 26 might as well be abolished. > > >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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 12:48:02 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:48:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Both you and the opponents are playing a version of Standard American. Dlr: South Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT(1) ? (1) 15-17 hcp, balanced You, South, hold: 8653 AQ AQJT64 7 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 21 13:09:01 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:09:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F3A64D.7020407@ntlworld.com> [Paul Lamford] Dealer North Love All North Scoring: Hybrid ............. K 9 7 3 ............. 6 4 ............. K 10 5 ............. K Q 9 7 J 6 4 2 ................... A 5 K J 10 7 5 3 .............. Q 9 8 2 9 ......................... Q 8 6 3 2 6 3 ....................... 10 4 ............. Q 10 8 ............. A ............. A J 7 4 ............. A J 8 5 2 _W _N _E _S _P _P _P 1C 2H X* 2S 3D _P 4C 4H 5C AP 2H was weak; *alerted, "likely to have four spades" Result: 5C - 1 by South = -50 Tournament Director's comments: I feel this is close to being Amber although pass may be the advisable action, many players would have raised spades, and West must have been aware that this is a potential psyche situation. I ruled the psyche GREEN. The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled green by the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem from later minutes that East-West produced the opinion of three Grandmasters who would all have passed on the West hand. East-West submitted arguments that 2S implied a heart fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus player), and pass therefore showed a minimum. I would tend to agree with them - West knows that it is not their hand, and raising spades will only help North-South diagnose a double fit, when East-West may have to save at the five (or even six) level. I can understand that antipathy towards "nasty, dirty, horrible" psyches generates this type of verdict. I would however, have reclassified it as amber, rather than green. It is a common psyche situation, and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the opponents of the pair who psyched. After the red classification there should have been a score adjustment when South had gone off in a cold game, although I did not see this adjustment in the L&E minutes. How would others have classified it? [Richard Hills snipped] As I have noted many times before, the correct nomenclature is "common pseudo-psyche situation". If in that partnership they have an implicit partnership understanding to commonly use so-called "baby psyches", then 2S was actually a "baby pseudo-psyche" and a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) infraction of Law 40B. Therefore, in my opinion, the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee decision to reclassify the 2S bid as a "Red Psyche" (accurate nomenclature would be "Red Alleged Psyche") was justified by the available facts. {nige1] I've also proposed a vocabulary for describing psychs several times here and elsewhere. Richard advocates the mainstream definition: "deliberate gross departure from agreed methods". I prefer the EBU interpretation which seems to be: "deliberate gross departure from disclosed methods." I also feel that the word *gross* should be dropped. My reason for preferring the EBU interpretation is that it is more practical. For example, it provides a concise description of what happened at the table here: (Digression: Opener's pass may be tactically correct although, if responder's 2S is a fit nonjump, systemically, then perhaps 2S should be alerted. However, let us assume the pass was antisystemic for the purposes of this argument. Anyway Richard and I both feel that East and West made antisystemic bids. They both psyched in the EBU sense). If East pass is a "psych" then it could just be coincidence. But a suspicious director may consider it as evidence for a concealed partnership understanding or unauthorised information -- which would make West's earlier 2S "psych" a proper *Richard psych*. Richard's definition of "psych" is no use for concisely describing events until *after* the ruling. Even then, unless the pair confess, the designation will still be a matter of subjective judgement. Hence, to accuse a pair of a "Richard Psych" is a potential libel. The "EBU red psych" is nearly equivalent to a "Richard psych" -- but not quite. The red-psych classification is statistical not absolute so less offensive and more useful. I agree with Richard that the EBU was right to reclassify this "psych" as red. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 21 13:22:43 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:22:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921130751.021664e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:48 21/09/2007 +1000, you wrote: >Matchpoint pairs > > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1D >Pass 1H 1NT(1) ? > >(1) 15-17 hcp, balanced > >You, South, hold: > >8653 >AQ >AQJT64 >7 > >What call do you make? AG : 2D. Unimaginative, I know. >What other calls do you consider making? AG : 3D if NV (you didn't mention vulnerability). 2S is barely possible if Dbl is "points" (but not if Dbl is "support", because 2S shall show a strong hand), but I reject it firmly according to pet theories (don't insist on showing a two-suiter when half of your strength lies outside). Note that, if the problem is about the explanation of 1NT, the options don't change a lot. 3D is still risky (a little bit more, in fact, because of bad breaks), so I'd most probably rule 'no damage' in this case. Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 21 13:20:59 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:20:59 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >In a message dated 21/09/2007 11:48:45 GMT Standard Time, >richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Matchpoint pairs >Both you and the opponents are playing a >version of Standard American. Dlr: South Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT(1) ? (1) 15-17 hcp, balanced You, South, hold: 8653 AQ AQJT64 7 >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? The vulnerability is stated, although someone stated that is was not. I would bid 2D and not consider another bid. If I were forced to give a second choice, I would pass and hope to lead a diamond. It is interesting to guess at the problem; my guess is that the 1H is a psyche, and the opponents miss 4H. Second guess is that 1NT is a psyche and the player has long clubs and intends to pass Stayman. Paul Lamford From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 21 14:01:05 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:01:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F3B281.8030605@ntlworld.com> [Richard James Hills] Both you and the opponents are playing a version of Standard American. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT(1) ? (1) 15-17 hcp, balanced You, South, hold: S:8653 H:AQ D:AQJT64 C:7 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : 3D if NV (you didn't mention vulnerability). 2S is barely possible if Dbl is "points" (but not if Dbl is "support", because 2S shall show a strong hand), but I reject it firmly according to pet theories (don't insist on showing a two-suiter when half of your strength lies outside). Note that, if the problem is about the explanation of 1NT, the options don't change a lot. 3D is still risky (a little bit more, in fact, because of bad breaks), so I'd most probably rule 'no damage' in this case. [Paul Lamford] The vulnerability is stated, although someone stated that is was not. I would bid 2D and not consider another bid. If I were forced to give a second choice, I would pass and hope to lead a diamond. It is interesting to guess at the problem; my guess is that the 1H is a psyche, and the opponents miss 4H. Second guess is that 1NT is a psyche and the player has long clubs and intends to pass Stayman. [nigel] IMO 2D = 10, X(support) = 9, P = 6, 2S = 5. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 21 13:58:59 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:58:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921135501.02166ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Paul : The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled green by the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem from later minutes that East-West produced the opinion of three Grandmasters who would all have passed on the West hand. East-West submitted arguments that 2S implied a heart fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus player), and pass therefore showed a minimum. AG : IBTD. In classical theory, a FNJ creates commitment, and therefore West's pass in competition, which is to be read as "some interest for your spade bid" (3H being negative), is 100% proper on on Jxxx - KJ10xxx - x - xx. Is it self-serving, to declare you made the right theoretical call ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070921/98178c1d/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 14:04:50 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:04:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>(you didn't mention vulnerability) Paul Lamford: >The vulnerability is stated, although someone stated that is was not. Richard Hills: This is a problem which has happened before when Alain reads a thread- starting posting from me. His email software apparently automatically deletes meaningless sentences such as "Vul: East-West". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 13:54:09 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:54:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921102143.0215bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : looks strange to me. If this was enough to avoid a lead in >a suit shown, L26 would be useless, as any case of withdrawn >insufficient call could be covered by L16C. Richard Hills: Since the introduction of Law 16C2 in 1997, the continued existence of Law 26 has created an anomaly. After looking at their hand, but before the bidding had started, dealer's RHO asked, "Could you please lead a diamond, pard?" After the TD applied a substantial procedural penalty to RHO (but not to LHO, since the event happened to be an individual tournament), the TD would then (pursuant to the TD's obligation under Law 10C1) have explained to the table the consequences of Law 16. However, under Law 16, LHO still had the option to lead a diamond if and only if LHO's sole logical alternative before RHO's infraction occurred was to lead from the diamond suit. And in this particular individual tournament declarer, the dealer, had chosen to punt an opening bid of 7NT after RHO's infraction and LHO held the ace of diamonds. But at another table on the same board of the same individual tournament, after looking at their hand, but before the bidding should have started, dealer's RHO opened 3D out of turn. After the TD discovered that RHO's error was not caused by an opponent saying, "Bid, you are dealer!", the TD did not apply a procedural penalty to RHO (since in this case the infraction may have been inadvertent), and the TD then explained to the table the consequences of Law 29A, Law 31B and Law 26. At this table dealer declined to use their option under Law 29A. And at this table declarer also decided to punt an opening bid of 7NT. But at this table declarer was entitled to prohibit LHO from leading their ace of diamonds against 7NT, so proceeded to rattle off thirteen tricks by running the other three suits. I have a minor objection to the Laws giving the non-offending side an excessive rectification for an infraction. I have a major objection to the Laws giving the non-offending side differential rectification for the same UI infraction due merely to the differing devices by which the UI was transmitted. :-( 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 Fri Sep 21 14:20:16 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:20:16 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 21/09/2007 13:12:07 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >This is a problem which has happened before when Alain reads a thread- >starting posting from me. His email software apparently automatically >deletes meaningless sentences such as "Vul: East-West". Maybe a filter thinks Vul is short for vulgar, and chops out the line! From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 21 14:50:58 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:50:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921135501.02166ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921135501.02166ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001401c7fc4e$0ec5a130$2c50e390$@com> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: 21 September 2007 12:59 To: bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification Paul : The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled green by the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem from later minutes that East-West produced the opinion of three Grandmasters who would all have passed on the West hand. East-West submitted arguments that 2S implied a heart fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus player), and pass therefore showed a minimum. AG : IBTD. In classical theory, a FNJ creates commitment, and therefore West's pass in competition, which is to be read as "some interest for your spade bid" (3H being negative), is 100% proper on on Jxxx - KJ10xxx - x - xx. Is it self-serving, to declare you made the right theoretical call ? There is a difference - a considerable difference - between "some interest" and "primary support" - four-card support at that. I don't know who these three Grandmasters were, but if pass is the action of a Grandmaster, I had better send my certificate back. Pass isn't "the right theoretical call". Pass is just cheating. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 21 15:01:57 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:01:57 EDT Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification Message-ID: In a message dated 21/09/2007 13:49:53 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: >AG : IBTD. In classical theory, a FNJ creates commitment, and therefore >West's pass in competition, which is to be read as "some interest for your >spade bid" (3H being negative), is 100% proper on on Jxxx - KJ10xxx - x - >xx. >Is it self-serving, to declare you made the right theoretical call ? >There is a difference - a considerable difference - between "some interest" >and "primary support" - four-card support at that. I don't know who these >three Grandmasters were, but if pass is the action of a Grandmaster, I had >better send my certificate back. Pass isn't "the right theoretical call". >Pass is just cheating. I have to say that on reflection, I am forced to agree with David, and I have changed my view. There is no reason why partner cannot have AKQxx Qxx xxxx x when it looks like you want to be saving in 5H at least, maybe even saving in 6H, as long as you announce the double-fit. I now agree that the reclassification as red is correct. It will be always possible for a player to argue that some pass or failure to raise was "tactically best", but this creates a license to psyche. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 21 15:26:23 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:26:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001501c7fc53$017023c0$04506b40$@com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com Sent: 21 September 2007 14:02 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: Re: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In a message dated 21/09/2007 13:49:53 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: >AG : IBTD. In classical theory, a FNJ creates commitment, and therefore >West's pass in competition, which is to be read as "some interest for your >spade bid" (3H being negative), is 100% proper on on Jxxx - KJ10xxx - x - >xx. >Is it self-serving, to declare you made the right theoretical call ? >There is a difference - a considerable difference - between "some interest" >and "primary support" - four-card support at that. I don't know who these >three Grandmasters were, but if pass is the action of a Grandmaster, I had >better send my certificate back. Pass isn't "the right theoretical call". >Pass is just cheating. [PL] I have to say that on reflection, I am forced to agree with David, and I have changed my view. There is no reason why partner cannot have AKQxx Qxx xxxx x [DALB] Well, he might have opened the bidding with that. But the same hand without the queen of spades is entirely possible - indeed, that is what one might expect for a "fit non-jump" of 2S (if that is indeed the method). Then, you would still want to bid to at least the four level, if not the five or six level, particularly since you know that South has at most one spade - or at least you would know it if you spent more time thinking about what you should bid and less time thinking about how you should cheat. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 21 16:02:24 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:02:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921155904.02160cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Paul : I have to say that on reflection, I am forced to agree with David, and I have changed my view. There is no reason why partner cannot have AKQxx Qxx xxxx x . AG : East's initial pass perhaps ? If I was East, the probability that I held HHxxx in spades and passed at green would be nought, so that 2S would be a 3-4 card suit perforce. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 21 15:49:45 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:49:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4930FD8E-33E5-4E11-A93D-7CAC09B4CA71@starpower.net> On Sep 21, 2007, at 6:48 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > > Both you and the opponents are playing a > version of Standard American. > > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > Pass 1H 1NT(1) ? > > (1) 15-17 hcp, balanced > > You, South, hold: > > 8653 > AQ > AQJT64 > 7 > > What call do you make? 2D. > What other calls do you consider making? Pass, double. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 21 15:50:51 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:50:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <001401c7fc4e$0ec5a130$2c50e390$@com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921135501.02166ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001401c7fc4e$0ec5a130$2c50e390$@com> Message-ID: <46F3CC3B.4040208@ntlworld.com> [David Burn 1] Pass isn't "the right theoretical call". Pass is just cheating. [David Burn 1] Well, he might have opened the bidding with that. But the same hand without the queen of spades is entirely possible - indeed, that is what one might expect for a "fit non-jump" of 2S (if that is indeed the method). Then, you would still want to bid to at least the four level, if not the five or six level, particularly since you know that South has at most one spade - or at least you would know it if you spent more time thinking about what you should bid and less time thinking about how you should cheat. [nige1] IMO, unless East-West admit to being cheats, it is wrong to so-label them, on the basis of one incident. A red-psych penalty is enough. From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 21 15:57:16 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:57:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification References: Message-ID: <004c01c7fc57$51d709b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > Dealer North - Love All > North > Scoring: > Hybrid > > K 9 7 3 > 6 4 > K 10 5 > K Q 9 7 > . > J 6 4 2 A 5 > K J 10 7 5 3 Q 9 8 2 > 9 Q 8 6 3 2 > 6 3 10 4 > > Q 10 8 > A > A J 7 4 > A J 8 5 2 > > West North East South > Pass Pass Pass 1C > 2H Dble* 2S 3D > Pass 4C 4H 5C > Pass Pass Pass > > 2H was weak; *alerted, 'likely' to have four spades > Result: 5C - 1 by South = -50 > > Tournament Director's comments: I feel this is close to being Amber - > although pass may be the advisable action, many players would have raised > spades, > and West must have been aware that this is a potential psyche situation. > I > ruled the psyche GREEN. > > The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled green > by > the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem from later > minutes > that East-West produced the opinion of three Grandmasters who would all > have > passed on the West hand. East-West submitted arguments that 2S implied a > heart > fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus player), and pass > therefore showed a minimum. I would tend to agree with them - West knows > that it is > not their hand, and raising spades will only help North-South diagnose a > double fit, when East-West may have to save at the five (or even six) > level. > > I can understand that antipathy towards "nasty, dirty, horrible" psyches > generates this type of verdict. I would however, have reclassified it as > amber, > rather than green. It is a common psyche situation, and the benefit of the > doubt has to be given to the opponents of the pair who psyched. After the > red > classification there should have been a score adjustment when South had > gone > off in a cold game, although I did not see this adjustment in the L&E > minutes. > How would others have classified it? > Why should West, when he knows opponents have game values assist the opponents to diagnose a 4-1 spade fit and thus assess game as more likely? Why should West when he knows his side are seriously outgunned, try a 4-4 spade fit when he knows spades are breaking badly? Why should West want to commit unassisted suicide? suicide is also an infraction of law in England. ye gods, Pass is obvious. and DALB is (and I know him well enough to say it) being ridiculous here. Were the West hand better, a 2S call (against a known 4-1 break) is still crazy, but I might rule an amber. What do I know; I'm not a Grandmaster.? John > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 21 16:56:19 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:56:19 EDT Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification Message-ID: In a message dated 21/09/2007 14:25:31 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: [PL] >I have to say that on reflection, I am forced to agree with David, and I >have changed my view. There is no reason why partner cannot have >AKQxx Qxx xxxx x [DALB] >Well, he might have opened the bidding with that. But the same hand >without the >queen of spades is entirely possible - indeed, that is what one >might expect for a >"fit non-jump" of 2S (if that is indeed the method). Then, >you would still want to bid >to at least the four level, if not the five or six >level, particularly since you know that South has at most one spade - or at >least you would know it if you spent more time thinking about what you >should bid and less time thinking about how you should cheat. >David Burn >London, England Without the queen of spades it is less attractive, as the negative doubler is quite likely to have Q(10)xx of spades then - he is known to have minor-suit support and therefore is likely to have four spades, or he might have bid a minor. I presume the "you" there refers to the West who did not support spades, as I was not involved, do not even know who the players were, nor do I know who are the Grandmasters referred to in later correspondence to the L&E. I posted the hand as it was a direct change from the TD's green to the L&E's red, so thought it would not be as clear-cut as you believe, and as I now concur. Another hand where failure to support is a disaster is AQ10xx Qxxx xxx x as now you may even have a save in Seven Hearts for 500 against a making Seven Minor. I get more convinced of the ruddiness by the minute. Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 21 17:05:23 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:05:23 EDT Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification Message-ID: In a message dated 21/09/2007 14:57:14 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com writes: >Why should West, when he knows opponents have game values assist the >opponents to diagnose a 4-1 spade fit and thus assess game as more >likely? The opponent looking at the singleton spade and hearing the negative double is aware of the 4-1 fit, unless he needs a visit to Specsavers. >Why should West when he knows his side are seriously outgunned, try a >4-4 spade fit when he knows spades are breaking badly? It is presumably a 5-4 fit, as what reason would East have for bidding a four-card suit. >Why should West want to commit unassisted suicide? suicide is also an infraction >of law in England. ye gods, Pass is obvious. and DALB is (and I know him well >enough to say it) being ridiculous here. Were the West hand better, a 2S call>(against a known 4-1 break) is still crazy, but I might rule an amber. >What do I know; I'm not a Grandmaster.? John The clear purpose of raising it to tell partner of the double-fit so that partner can make a lawful decision. Clearly raising is lawful and passing is unlawful and the L&E correctly ruled so. As all can see I have completely changed sides on this one! From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 21 18:25:30 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:25:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification References: Message-ID: <001501c7fc6c$071ac190$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification > In a message dated 21/09/2007 14:25:31 GMT Standard Time, > dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: > [PL] > >>I have to say that on reflection, I am forced to agree with David, and I >>have changed my view. There is no reason why partner cannot have >AKQxx > Qxx xxxx x > > [DALB] > >>Well, he might have opened the bidding with that. But the same hand >>without the >queen of spades is entirely possible - indeed, that is what >>one >might > expect for a >"fit non-jump" of 2S (if that is indeed the method). Then, >>you would still want to bid >to at least the four level, if not the five >>or six >>level, particularly since you know that South has at most one spade - or >>at >>least you would know it if you spent more time thinking about what you >>should bid and less time thinking about how you should cheat. > >>David Burn >>London, England > > > Without the queen of spades it is less attractive, as the negative > doubler > is quite likely to have Q(10)xx of spades then - he is known to have > minor-suit support and therefore is likely to have four spades, or he > might have bid a > minor. I presume the "you" there refers to the West who did not support > spades, as I was not involved, do not even know who the players were, nor > do I > know who are the Grandmasters referred to in later correspondence to the > L&E. I > posted the hand as it was a direct change from the TD's green to the > L&E's > red, so thought it would not be as clear-cut as you believe, and as I now > concur. Another hand where failure to support is a disaster is AQ10xx > Qxxx xxx x > as now you may even have a save in Seven Hearts for 500 against a making > Seven Minor. I get more convinced of the ruddiness by the minute. I can't imagine anyone bidding 2S on this hand. You'd be jamming the auction out of sight. 5H is the sort of call you might try. 2S is a lead director on something like Axxx Qxxx ?xx ?x.where you don't want to bid 4H and drive opps to game and don't want to reveal the fit to opponents. East can be pretty sure opps have a game but may not be able to bid it. West will be certain. Why the heck drive opps to a making game when you can muddy the waters gently. No other auction makes sense, and I just don't see why West is expected to self-immolate when partner is very likely to be working the opponents over, even if not actually psyching. he's a PASSED HAND and I've made a wjo, doesn't ANYONE play bridge any more? john . > > Paul Lamford > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 21 18:27:26 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:27:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification References: Message-ID: <001a01c7fc6c$4c24dbe0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > In a message dated 21/09/2007 14:57:14 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com > writes: > >>Why should West, when he knows opponents have game values assist the >>opponents to diagnose a 4-1 spade fit and thus assess game as more >> >likely? > > The opponent looking at the singleton spade and hearing the negative > double > is aware of the 4-1 fit, unless he needs a visit to Specsavers. > >>Why should West when he knows his side are seriously outgunned, try a >>4-4 spade fit when he knows spades are breaking badly? > > It is presumably a 5-4 fit, as what reason would East have for bidding a > four-card suit. > >>Why should West want to commit unassisted suicide? suicide is also an > infraction >of law in England. ye gods, Pass is obvious. and DALB is (and > I know > him well >enough to say it) being ridiculous here. Were the West hand > better, > a 2S call>(against a known 4-1 break) is still crazy, but I might rule an > amber. >>What do I know; I'm not a Grandmaster.? John > > The clear purpose of raising it to tell partner of the double-fit so that > partner can make a lawful decision. Clearly raising is lawful and passing > is > unlawful and the L&E correctly ruled so. As all can see I have completely > changed sides on this one! > the clear purpose of raising is to tell opponents that we have a double fit and make it trivial for them to bid game. John > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 21 19:05:03 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:05:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 19, 2007, at 12:37 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills (3rd October 2006): > > [snip] > >> Part of the problem is that the 1997, 1987 and 1975 Lawbooks >> were patchwork evolutions, not fundamental redrafts, ISTR reading a while ago that the drafting committee had decided *not* to do a fundamental redraft this time 'round. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 21 21:03:26 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:03:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: <004c01c7fc57$51d709b0$0701a8c0@john> References: <004c01c7fc57$51d709b0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c7fc82$18a7b2e0$49f718a0$@com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of John Probst Sent: 21 September 2007 14:57 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification [PL] > 2H was weak; *alerted, 'likely' to have four spades [JP] Why should West, when he knows opponents have game values assist the opponents to diagnose a 4-1 spade fit [DALB] If one of the opponents has a singleton spade, he will know this without the aid of diagnostics. Since you do not propose to deprive the opponents of bidding space (recall that at the moment they are in three diamonds, and your pass allows each of them to cue-bid a major at the three level or to splinter unambiguously at the four level) you can scarcely argue that passing will make it more difficult for them to explore their combined assets. [JP] Why should West when he knows his side are seriously outgunned, try a 4-4 spade fit when he knows spades are breaking badly? [DALB] There is a difference between "likely to have" and "certain to have". West knows neither that his side has only a 4-4 spade fit (since East may have five) nor that the suit is breaking badly (since North may not have four). [JP] Pass is obvious [DALB] Pass is indeed obvious if you allow for the possibility that your partner, who has bid spades, does not have spades. But if you do that, you run some risk of having your actions classified as fielding a psyche. Curiously enough, that is what the L&E did to those actions. I am getting really rather tired of the pseudo-expert excuses people make to justify abnormal actions (whether their own or those of some unknown player). Just because Alain Gottcheiner would always open something with any hand containing five spades to two top honours, it does not follow that the East of the original hand would. Just because some BLML contributor or other thinks that the opponents can't bid the cards in front of their faces if we give them a free run, it doesn't follow that these opponents can't. Meanwhile, ever more inventive reasons are being concocted to justify ever more outlandish actions, but the fact of the matter is that players are still trying to steal candy from babies, and then bleating about it when they are caught. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 21 21:05:04 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:05:04 EDT Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification Message-ID: In a message dated 21/09/2007 17:25:33 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com writes: >I can't imagine anyone bidding 2S on this hand. You'd be jamming the auction out of sight. 5H is the sort of call you might try. 2S is a lead director on something like Axxx Qxxx ?xx ?x.where you don't want to bid 4H and drive opps to game and don't want to reveal the fit to opponents. East can be pretty sure opps have a game but may not be able to bid it. West will be certain. Why the heck drive opps to a making game when you can muddy the waters gently. No other auction makes sense, and I just don't see why West is expected to self-immolate when partner is very likely to be working the opponents over, even if not actually psyching. he's a PASSED HAND and I've >made a wjo, doesn't ANYONE play bridge any more? john Indeed, you might bid 4H on the hand in question, or, more likely, 3S - fit. But 2S is also fit non-jump, perhaps then, as you suggest, with only three hearts, so something like AQTxx Qxx xxxx x would fit the bill. You write, "partner is very likely to be working the opponents over" I would agree that is quite possible, but the Orange Book indicates that we must assume this is not the case until demonstrably it is. You might think that is a petty requirement, but I agree totally with David that to make any assumption that your partner does not have spades until it is impossible for him to have them is cheating. Whatever Nigel Guthrie says. If you bid 3S, or presumably 4H because of the double fit, you have made the normal bid when partner has a normal 2S bid, whatever you think that would show, presumably 8-10 with 5 spades and 3 hearts. Paul Lamford From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 21 21:45:46 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:45:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F41F6A.7070301@ntlworld.com> [Paul Lamford] Whatever Nigel Guthrie says. If you bid 3S, or presumably 4H because of the double fit, you have made the normal bid when partner has a normal 2S bid, whatever you think that would show, presumably 8-10 with 5 spades and 3 hearts. [nigel] What is Paul getting at? I agree with the L&EC's classification of the pass as confirming a red psych and wrote so before David Burn commented or Paul Lamford changed his mind :) I disagree that this proves that East-West are cheats. I am not surprised that I am the only BLMLer to object to that slur. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 21 22:00:29 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:00:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <46F41F6A.7070301@ntlworld.com> References: <46F41F6A.7070301@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c7fc8a$10602010$31206030$@com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Guthrie Sent: 21 September 2007 20:46 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification [Paul Lamford] Whatever Nigel Guthrie says. If you bid 3S, or presumably 4H because of the double fit, you have made the normal bid when partner has a normal 2S bid, whatever you think that would show, presumably 8-10 with 5 spades and 3 hearts. [nigel] What is Paul getting at? I agree with the L&EC's classification of the pass as confirming a red psych and wrote so before David Burn commented or Paul Lamford changed his mind :) I disagree that this proves that East-West are cheats. I am not surprised that I am the only BLMLer to object to that slur. [DALB] My fault for having been away for so long. It is of course parliamentary language to refer to a player who doesn't support spades with four of them as a "fielder" rather than a cheat, and naturally one would not dream of actually suggesting that a player who doesn't support spades with four of them has done anything other than made the correct technical bid, or perpetrated a tactical masterpiece, or deserved anything other than immediate promotion to the rank of Premier Grand Master and bar. But those who were kind enough to welcome me back to this forum in the hope that I would continue to excoriate the ungodly will know that when I use the word "cheating" I mean "doing something that a cheat would have done". But well it was said by the bard: Nothing is more ungentlemanly than Exaggeration, causing needless pain. It's worse than spitting, and it stamps a man, Quite properly, with other men's disdain. Weigh human actions carefully. Explain The worst of them with charity. Mayhap There were two sides to that affair of Paine, And Judas was a tolerable chap. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 21 22:02:47 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:02:47 EDT Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification Message-ID: In a message dated 21/09/2007 20:46:11 GMT Standard Time, guthrie at ntlworld.com writes: >I disagree that this proves that East-West are cheats. I am not >surprised that I am the only BLMLer to object to that slur. I agree the "ch" word should not be used about any pair; and I should write that their action is "evidence of an unauthorised understanding". There is a tendency for such a classification to be generally grouped with cheating, and I agree that I should avoid doing this. Paul Lamford From john at asimere.com Sat Sep 22 01:17:36 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:17:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification References: <004c01c7fc57$51d709b0$0701a8c0@john> <000001c7fc82$18a7b2e0$49f718a0$@com> Message-ID: <002101c7fca5$98a6a550$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John Probst > Sent: 21 September 2007 14:57 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > > [PL] > >> 2H was weak; *alerted, 'likely' to have four spades > > [JP] > > Why should West, when he knows opponents have game values assist the > opponents to diagnose a 4-1 spade fit > > [DALB] > > If one of the opponents has a singleton spade, he will know this without > the > aid of diagnostics. Since you do not propose to deprive the opponents of > bidding space (recall that at the moment they are in three diamonds, and > your pass allows each of them to cue-bid a major at the three level or to > splinter unambiguously at the four level) you can scarcely argue that > passing will make it more difficult for them to explore their combined > assets. > the diagnosos arrives when the hand holding S Jxxx realises partner has a singleton. The man with the singleton thinks the negative doubler has wasted values. I deprive them of that, and it will make a difference. The problem on the hand is simply that West knows NS have game values and knows they may have difficulty bidding it.. On the subject of the 4-4 fit, of course East can hold S Axx (ie he's known to be at least 4-3 in the majors, either way round) and then it's not a psyche anyway from general principles of auction development. Even my cat, from general bridge knowledge, knows partner *could* be mucking around but that doesn't mean I have to bid like a lunatic. I asked myself the question; do I want to be in 5 major against a making 5minor, when if it's spades they're likely 4-0 and if it's hearts, we may have only 9. In both cases the answer is No, so why should I provide the opps a cast iron guarantee that 5 minor is making by raising spades? CPU's apply to the pair I fined this year for _still_ having 13-15 on their card, and opening another 12 count (they're clueless precision players) and fielding it. At 30% frequency it may well be worth it. There's nothing CPU-ish about this auction, it's just 4 bridge players getting stuck in, and the non-psychers are complaining they had their candy stolen. Serves them right for playing methods which allow for exploits. I really do despair at the L&E sometimes, who see a psyche and immediately think "Aha, CPU!" when what's going on is bridge. Take Burn, Probst, Casselle and Cearns (the latter 2 being well known operators where David and I might play) round a table as an example. Give an extimate of 2S being a psyche? 10-20% perhaps; like I said, doesn't anyone play bridge any more? But it doesn't pay to field this psyche at that frequency anyway. So why, when it IS a psyche, do we suddenly get all uppity? I really don't se evidence of a CPU in this auction. Sorry guys. I just don't. John > [JP] > > Why should West when he knows his side are seriously outgunned, try a 4-4 > spade fit when he knows spades are breaking badly? > > [DALB] > > There is a difference between "likely to have" and "certain to have". West > knows neither that his side has only a 4-4 spade fit (since East may have > five) nor that the suit is breaking badly (since North may not have four). > > [JP] > > Pass is obvious > > [DALB] > > Pass is indeed obvious if you allow for the possibility that your partner, > who has bid spades, does not have spades. But if you do that, you run some > risk of having your actions classified as fielding a psyche. Curiously > enough, that is what the L&E did to those actions. > > I am getting really rather tired of the pseudo-expert excuses people make > to > justify abnormal actions (whether their own or those of some unknown > player). Just because Alain Gottcheiner would always open something with > any > hand containing five spades to two top honours, it does not follow that > the > East of the original hand would. Just because some BLML contributor or > other > thinks that the opponents can't bid the cards in front of their faces if > we > give them a free run, it doesn't follow that these opponents can't. > Meanwhile, ever more inventive reasons are being concocted to justify ever > more outlandish actions, but the fact of the matter is that players are > still trying to steal candy from babies, and then bleating about it when > they are caught. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 22 04:36:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:36:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It is interesting that of the four blmlers who responded to the poll, all four were blinded by their "fully sick" six-bagger, so chose to rebid 2D. Furthermore, only two of those four even bothered contemplating the alternative of pass. Given the vulnerability and the matchpoint form of scoring, sending 1NT two off for +200 is a hugely better score than playing 2D for +130. And South's "fully sick" six-bagger is a two- way advantage. If South chooses to defend 1NT and North has a quick stopper outside the heart suit, then South will be able to cash many tricks against 1NT, so +200 or better on defence is very plausible. But although a pass of 1NT has been demonstrated to be a logical alternative, the blml poll suggests that a pass of 1NT is not a "logical alternative". As has been noted before, the term "logical alternative" is a misnomer, since the WBF Code of Practice defines: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." If the four blmler respondents are representative of South's class of player, then a 2D rebid is the only "logical alternative", since none of them adopted any other call. A problem occurs when members of an Appeals Committee are more expert than the actual South, so therefore confuse a logical alternative with a "logical alternative". See attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * New Orleans 1995 appeals casebook Case 7 NABC Life Master Pairs Dlr: South Helen Fournier Vul: East-West AKT4 9754 9 QJ84 Andrew Bernstein Steve Natelson Q92 J7 T32 KJ86 753 K82 9653 AKT2 Mark Parent 8653 AQ AQJT64 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT(1) 2D Pass 2NT Pass 3D Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted: Explained as a weak takeout for clubs and spades. Result: 3D made four, +130 for North-South. Facts: West Alerted the 1NT overcall as a weak takeout, usually 5-5 in the unbid suits. This "Sandwich Notrump" convention was not listed on their convention card. The notrump bidder obviously thought his bid was natural and strong. East announced the misinformation before the opening lead. Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that misinformation had been given and the result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average-minus for East-West. Committee Decision: South claimed he would have passed (rather than bid 2D) had he not been given misinformation. They believed that North would have doubled and 1NT would have gone down four for +1100. The Committee decided that misinformation had been given and the contract was changed to 1NT doubled down three, +800 for North-South. This result gave declarer the best of it, because it allowed for a small heart shift to set up a heart trick. The real problem that faced the Committee was to determine if pass was a plausible action even if most players would have bid 2D. Should the Committee heavily favor the nonoffending side? The Committee decided that pass was a logical alternative and +800 for North-South was the unanimous decision. The Committee voted 3-2 to assess a one matchpoint procedural penalty against East-West because the misinformation was explained before the opening lead. The Law requires that the defending side make this explanation at the end of play. This information should have been given after play of the hand. Dissenting Opinion from Committee Chairperson Bill Passell: East announced that misinformation had been given before the opening lead in an attempt to be as ethical as possible. Damage did not occur because of this announcement. I do not believe that this situation should be penalized automatically. A reprimand for East would have been sufficient in this case. Chairperson: Bill Passell Committee Members: Bob Glasson, Jim Linhart, Richard Popper and Norma Sands 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 22 06:07:49 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:07:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c7fcce$2400c040$6c0240c0$@com> Sorry for top-posting, but this is even more absurd that Probst's recent efforts. West thought that 1NT showed the black suits. On what basis other than raving insanity, therefore, did the AC decide that 1NT doubled by East would become the final contract? David Burn London, England -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 22 September 2007 03:36 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] It is interesting that of the four blmlers who responded to the poll, all four were blinded by their "fully sick" six-bagger, so chose to rebid 2D. Furthermore, only two of those four even bothered contemplating the alternative of pass. Given the vulnerability and the matchpoint form of scoring, sending 1NT two off for +200 is a hugely better score than playing 2D for +130. And South's "fully sick" six-bagger is a two- way advantage. If South chooses to defend 1NT and North has a quick stopper outside the heart suit, then South will be able to cash many tricks against 1NT, so +200 or better on defence is very plausible. But although a pass of 1NT has been demonstrated to be a logical alternative, the blml poll suggests that a pass of 1NT is not a "logical alternative". As has been noted before, the term "logical alternative" is a misnomer, since the WBF Code of Practice defines: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." If the four blmler respondents are representative of South's class of player, then a 2D rebid is the only "logical alternative", since none of them adopted any other call. A problem occurs when members of an Appeals Committee are more expert than the actual South, so therefore confuse a logical alternative with a "logical alternative". See attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * New Orleans 1995 appeals casebook Case 7 NABC Life Master Pairs Dlr: South Helen Fournier Vul: East-West AKT4 9754 9 QJ84 Andrew Bernstein Steve Natelson Q92 J7 T32 KJ86 753 K82 9653 AKT2 Mark Parent 8653 AQ AQJT64 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT(1) 2D Pass 2NT Pass 3D Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted: Explained as a weak takeout for clubs and spades. Result: 3D made four, +130 for North-South. Facts: West Alerted the 1NT overcall as a weak takeout, usually 5-5 in the unbid suits. This "Sandwich Notrump" convention was not listed on their convention card. The notrump bidder obviously thought his bid was natural and strong. East announced the misinformation before the opening lead. Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that misinformation had been given and the result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average-minus for East-West. Committee Decision: South claimed he would have passed (rather than bid 2D) had he not been given misinformation. They believed that North would have doubled and 1NT would have gone down four for +1100. The Committee decided that misinformation had been given and the contract was changed to 1NT doubled down three, +800 for North-South. This result gave declarer the best of it, because it allowed for a small heart shift to set up a heart trick. The real problem that faced the Committee was to determine if pass was a plausible action even if most players would have bid 2D. Should the Committee heavily favor the nonoffending side? The Committee decided that pass was a logical alternative and +800 for North-South was the unanimous decision. The Committee voted 3-2 to assess a one matchpoint procedural penalty against East-West because the misinformation was explained before the opening lead. The Law requires that the defending side make this explanation at the end of play. This information should have been given after play of the hand. Dissenting Opinion from Committee Chairperson Bill Passell: East announced that misinformation had been given before the opening lead in an attempt to be as ethical as possible. Damage did not occur because of this announcement. I do not believe that this situation should be penalized automatically. A reprimand for East would have been sufficient in this case. Chairperson: Bill Passell Committee Members: Bob Glasson, Jim Linhart, Richard Popper and Norma Sands 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 22 06:28:07 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:28:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7fcce$2400c040$6c0240c0$@com> References: <000001c7fcce$2400c040$6c0240c0$@com> Message-ID: <000101c7fcd0$f9f923c0$edeb6b40$@com> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David Burn Sent: 22 September 2007 05:08 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Sorry for top-posting, but this is even more absurd that Probst's recent efforts. West thought that 1NT showed the black suits. On what basis other than raving insanity, therefore, did the AC decide that 1NT doubled by East would become the final contract? [res ipsa loquitur] Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * New Orleans 1995 appeals casebook Case 7 NABC Life Master Pairs Dlr: South Helen Fournier Vul: East-West AKT4 9754 9 QJ84 Andrew Bernstein Steve Natelson Q92 J7 T32 KJ86 753 K82 9653 AKT2 Mark Parent 8653 AQ AQJT64 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D Pass 1H 1NT(1) 2D Pass 2NT Pass 3D Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted: Explained as a weak takeout for clubs and spades. Result: 3D made four, +130 for North-South. Facts: West Alerted the 1NT overcall as a weak takeout, usually 5-5 in the unbid suits. This "Sandwich Notrump" convention was not listed on their convention card. The notrump bidder obviously thought his bid was natural and strong. East announced the misinformation before the opening lead. Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that misinformation had been given and the result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average-minus for East-West. [At this point it may safely be assumed that the Director was some time-server who couldn't be bothered to do his job.] Committee Decision: South claimed he would have passed (rather than bid 2D) had he not been given misinformation. They believed that North would have doubled [They believed that North would have doubled precisely what? Remember that West has alerted 1NT and explained it as a "weak takeout for clubs and spades". Do they seriously suggest that West would have passed 1NT? It appears that they do, for...] and 1NT would have gone down four for +1100. [I have not analysed the play in 1NT doubled, for I was not one of this idiot Committee who believed that the hand could ever have been played in 1NT doubled. I have no doubt that their analysis is as meticulous as one would expect from a pack of dogs barking not so much up the wrong tree as in the wrong forest. But somehow, I cannot bring myself to care.] I don't know what point you're trying to make, Richard. But this "example" ought not to have seen the light of day as supporting evidence. Or indeed at all. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 23 09:15:10 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:15:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c7fcd0$f9f923c0$edeb6b40$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn, 2007 blmler: >Sorry for top-posting, but this is even more absurd than Probst's >recent efforts. West thought that 1NT showed the black suits. On >what basis other than raving insanity, therefore, did the AC >decide that 1NT doubled by East would become the final contract? Michael Rosenberg, 1995 casebook panellist: >>I'm not sure I believe South would ever have passed 1NT. This >>player didn't know enough bridge to raise 2NT to 3NT. However, >>that was beside the main point here, which the Committee missed >>completely. Had South passed, West would have "taken out" to 2C, >>which North would have doubled (unless East-West were playing >>this as Stayman in which case East would have been required to >>Alert and North could have passed and waited for better things). >>More facts would be required to decide. North-South might have >>wound up in 3H, 3NT, or 4S. East-West might have been forced to >>play 2S doubled! I agree with the dissenting opinion, if the >>facts were as he stated. Director's 1995 Ruling: >>The Director ruled that misinformation had been given and the >>result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average- >>minus for East-West. David Burn, 2007 blmler: >At this point it may safely be assumed that the Director was >some time-server who couldn't be bothered to do his job. Richard Hills: Or it may be assumed that the 1995 Director had been a diligent reader of Edgar Kaplan's "How Would You Rule?" articles in The Bridge World during the 1970s, since Kaplan then frequently suggested such Ave+/Ave- rulings in analogous situations. Plus 1995 was during the height of the Kaplan-inspired Reign of Terror against offending sides. At that time the ACBL Laws Commission, brainwashed by Kaplan, advised TDs to automatically and routinely rule against offending sides, with Appeals Committees later supposed to give correct and nuanced rulings. Kaplan's "brilliant" idea was to discourage offending sides from infracting. The unintended consequence of such draconian and often ridiculous TD rulings was that almost all American offending sides automatically appealed, wasting time which could have been saved if TDs had been permitted to make sensible rulings in the first place. David Burn: >I don't know what point you're trying to make, Richard. But this >"example" ought not to have seen the light of day as supporting >evidence. Or indeed at all. World Chess Champion (1921-1927), Jose Raul Capablanca: "You learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player." Richard Hills: Likewise, while blml can learn something from impeccably correct rulings, blml can learn more from discussion of mistakes by TDs, ACs, and casebook panellists. For example, an instructive error was made by 1995 casebook panellist Matthew Granovetter: >>I agree with the Committee. The truth was that West could have >>bet his life his partner had a strong notrump, yet he chose to >>Alert it as something else. What is the obligation of a player >>who knows his partnership's understanding but also was 99% >>confident that his partner forgot? I think Active Ethics means >>telling the truth, even if that isn't the partnership's >>understanding. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 24 00:15:03 2007 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:15:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000801c7fe2f$4c472f00$3eb587d9@Hellen> Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "... but it really doesn't matter, it really doesn't matter..." - W.S.Gilbert vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Richard Hills (3rd October 2006): >> >> [snip] >> >>> Part of the problem is that the 1997, 1987 and 1975 >>> Lawbooks were patchwork evolutions, not fundamental >>> redrafts, > > ISTR reading a while ago that the drafting committee had > decided *not* to do a fundamental redraft this time 'round. > > +=+ But only after working on such a redraft for a couple of years. The immortal relics of the exercise are interred in several parts of the world, and I may cherish the memory that for much of the establishment I was too revolutionary in my ambition, and old age, to rework the book. Yet there is something gained. The exercise freshened the mind and it has been a little easier to persuade people that the 1997 laws did not express clearly some of the practices and interpretations, the hitherto 'knowledge', and the language has been tightened in places, the ground more explicitly covered. English is a difficult language, simple English even more so, and when mingled with the English of other hemispheres - west and south of its homeland - it is a multicoloured langauge that can baffle even its native speakers as well as those for whom it is a foreign language. But we are close now to a resolution and, after Shanghai dear Readers, you may judge for yourselves what progress, if any, has been made - and what is, in your sad eyes, retrograde. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am now departing for the airport - well in a couple of hours. This machine remains closed sine die. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 00:27:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:27:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Part of the problem is that the 1997, 1987 and 1975 >>Lawbooks were patchwork evolutions, not fundamental >>redrafts, Ed Reppert: >ISTR reading a while ago that the drafting committee had >decided *not* to do a fundamental redraft this time >'round. Richard Hills: I seem to recall that Grattan Endicott's public statements on blml about the redraft of the Laws were subtly different to Ed's assertion. Grattan stated that some of the 1997 language would be retained in some of the 2007 Laws. Grattan did _not_ state that this time there would again be a failure to fundamentally re-examine the entire corpus of Law and its interpretation. And Grattan has also stated that even such 1997 language as is being retained is being carefully examined before being re-adopted, not being given an automatic "tick and flick". See below. * * * "Rule reform poll" thread, 21st February 2007: David Burn, chair and scribe of an appeals committee (EBU casebook 2001, appeal number five): >Appeals Committee's comments: > >Whereas East's argument that he would not double if South >had two suits whereas he would if South had one has some >validity, we were not convinced that >(a) East's double and >(b) West's pass >were not a function of their methods rather than of the >misinformation. > >This is Grattanese for which I apologise but it has been a >long day. Grattan Endicott:: +=+ "A prophet is not without honour save in his own country". There will be just a few who will know in their hearts how hard I have tried for simplification of language in the next code of laws. Beyond that I am greatly encouraged by the intention to produce an appendix of illustrations of the new laws. ~ 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 twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 24 01:24:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Appeal by a Director In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > *From:* Gampas at aol.com > > A tournament director classifies a psyche as amber. The Chief > Tournament Director overrules him and reclassifies it as green. > Does the tournament director have the right to appeal this (for > example to the national authority), if none of the players at the > table wishes to do so? If a CTD incorrectly overturns any ruling by a table TD then the table TD should, of course, report both the case and the CTD to the National L&E. Of course the TD will need a fair share of cojones if he is unsure as to the incorrectness of the CTD's actions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 24 01:24:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Any talk of a "red psych" is the work of a drivelling idiot. *If* it is determined that the pair has an agreement to play 2S as showing "H support or S" or "A useful card in S + H support" or indeed *anything* else that agreement is 100% legal according to OB regulations. There may be a failure to disclose on the CC and/or a failure to alert the 2S requiring redress for NOS (both may also be subject to a pp for wilful non-disclosure if deemed appropriate). If no such agreement is deemed to exist then it's a green psych. FWIW I'd incline towards the player having taken a view based on his general experience rather than partnership knowledge. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 02:34:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:34:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c7fe2f$4c472f00$3eb587d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott (24th September 2007): [snip] >Yet there is something gained. The exercise freshened the mind >and it has been a little easier to persuade people that the 1997 >laws did not express clearly some of the practices and >interpretations, the hitherto 'knowledge', and the language has >been tightened in places, the ground more explicitly covered. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, two of the somethings gained are particularly significant. Firstly, unlike previous Kaplanic editions of the Lawbook, the forthcoming Lawbook will no longer contain any *deliberate* ambiguities. Grattan Endicott (7th February 2007): >>+=+ It is certainly the aim now that any compromise should not >>be "woolly". At times Edgar foresaw the danger that a law which >>the committee was intent on installing would not go down well >>on his home patch. In consequence he sometimes looked for >>wording that would allow of latitude in application. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Secondly, due to the new technology of email and the internet, the number of proof-readers of Lawbook drafts is vastly more than those of a decade ago, so the number of *unintentional* drafting errors will be vastly reduced. The classic example of a 1997 drafting error is Law 71C. Its final sentence states: "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." but its preamble states: "A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession". So one of the first decisions the post-Kaplan WBF Laws Committee had to make was to rule that the Law 71C preamble was the operative statement about a concession's correction period. 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 Sep 24 03:54:39 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:54:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01c7fe4d$e3824210$d8d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>The WBF Executive Council, at its Montreal meeting in 2002, >>gave a riding instruction to the WBF LC drafting sub- >>committee that ambiguity should be minimised in next year's >>Lawbook. >> >>Of course, given the length and complexity of the 1997 >>Lawbook, this is a Sisyphean task. But to a certain extent >>blml is a friend of Sisyphus, as blml finds stones of >>ambiguity that might otherwise be overlooked until 2017. >> +=+ When Sisyphus got his stone to the top of the mountain it forever rolled down again. That is hardly an apt comparison with the task of the Drafting Committee. I would compare this more nearly with the cleansing of the Augean stables, in that there is always the chance we may cause the Alpheus and the Peneus to flow through our territory.. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 24 03:54:39 2007 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:54:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01c7fe4d$e3824210$d8d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>The WBF Executive Council, at its Montreal meeting in 2002, >>gave a riding instruction to the WBF LC drafting sub- >>committee that ambiguity should be minimised in next year's >>Lawbook. >> >>Of course, given the length and complexity of the 1997 >>Lawbook, this is a Sisyphean task. But to a certain extent >>blml is a friend of Sisyphus, as blml finds stones of >>ambiguity that might otherwise be overlooked until 2017. >> +=+ When Sisyphus got his stone to the top of the mountain it forever rolled down again. That is hardly an apt comparison with the task of the Drafting Committee. I would compare this more nearly with the cleansing of the Augean stables, in that there is always the chance we may cause the Alpheus and the Peneus to flow through our territory.. ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 24 05:17:29 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:17:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification References: Message-ID: <003201c7fe59$70d489b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > Any talk of a "red psych" is the work of a drivelling idiot. > > *If* it is determined that the pair has an agreement to play 2S as > showing "H support or S" or "A useful card in S + H support" or indeed > *anything* else that agreement is 100% legal according to OB regulations. > There may be a failure to disclose on the CC and/or a failure to alert > the 2S requiring redress for NOS (both may also be subject to a pp for > wilful non-disclosure if deemed appropriate). > > If no such agreement is deemed to exist then it's a green psych. > > FWIW I'd incline towards the player having taken a view based on his > general experience rather than partnership knowledge. > Thank the Lord for another voice in the wilderness. John > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 06:18:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:18:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003201c7fe59$70d489b0$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>Any talk of a "red psych" is the work of a drivelling idiot. [snip] >>There may be a failure to disclose on the CC and/or a failure >>to alert the 2S requiring redress for NOS (both may also be >>subject to a pp for wilful non-disclosure if deemed >>appropriate). [snip] John Probst: >Thank the Lord for another voice in the wilderness. Richard Hills: If I join my voice to Tim and John in the wilderness, is it still wild? It is indeed the work of a drivelling sponsoring organisation to describe its "Wilful Non-Disclosure" regulation as a "Red Psyche" regulation, since that can easily lead to confusion. Indeed, such drivelling confused such a highly experienced blml analyst as Nigel Guthrie into thinking that the EBU has chosen to deliberately ignore an official WBF Code of Practice interpretation. Nigel Guthrie: >>>Richard advocates the mainstream definition: "deliberate >>>gross departure from agreed methods". >>> >>>I prefer the EBU interpretation which seems to be: >>>"deliberate gross departure from disclosed methods." WBF Code of Practice, page 8: "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." 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 Sep 21 15:57:39 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:57:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921155010.021657a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Paul : > >The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled >green by the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem >from later minutes that East-West produced the opinion of three >Grandmasters who would all have passed on the West hand. East-West >submitted arguments that 2S implied a heart fit (it is clearly fit non >jump to any average plus player), and pass therefore showed a minimum. > > >AG : IBTD. In classical theory, a FNJ creates commitment, and therefore >West's pass in competition, which is to be read as "some interest for your >spade bid" (3H being negative), is 100% proper on on Jxxx - KJ10xxx - x - xx. >Is it self-serving, to declare you made the right theoretical call ? David : Is it self-serving, to declare you made the right theoretical call ? There is a difference - a considerable difference - between "some interest" and "primary support" - four-card support at that. I don't know who these three Grandmasters were, but if pass is the action of a Grandmaster, I had better send my certificate back. Pass isn't "the right theoretical call". Pass is just cheating. Please note that you can't support partner's suit, because he didn't show length. 2S may well be based on KQ10 in spades and some heart support, and it wouldn't be a psyche, but merely a FNJ. Remember : passing does agree spades (as would 3C had RHO passed). I'll ask some specialists of commitment, but I don't think they'd bid 3S on this. Okay, you may argue that 3S is a LA, but using the word "cheating" implies that your conception of FNJs (always a 5-card suit ???) is extreme. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070921/e03ddc3f/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 21 17:55:48 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:55:48 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__self-serving_=3F_Was_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A_a_psyche_classification?= References: Message-ID: <46F3E982.000006.28837@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Another hand where failure to support is a disaster is AQ10xx Qxxx xxx x as now you may even have a save in Seven Hearts for 500 against a making Seven Minor. I get more convinced of the ruddiness by the minute. As there are very strong comments on both sides of the equation, can understand why the psych's classification was unsure. But there is one thing the L&E needed to do, and there is no hint that they did : check E/W's system. Your question :"why should East bid 2S on a 4-carder ?" is quite interesting ; and the answer might be "because he knew that partner couldn't play him for a good 5-card suit after his pass, because they play 5-card weak 2-bids" As for the hand above, apart from the fact that in Antwerp, it is an automatical 2C opening (both majors if weak), it should bid THREE spades over the double, for the reasons you mentioned. Its ODR is overwhelming if partner happens to hold 3 spades. In a way, 2S is limitative as to shape. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070921/52397313/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/20070921/52397313/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/20070921/52397313/attachment-0001.gif From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 10:15:09 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:15:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101204.0216a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:05 21/09/2007 -0400, you wrote: >Indeed, you might bid 4H on the hand in question, or, more likely, 3S - fit. >But 2S is also fit non-jump, perhaps then, as you suggest, with only three >hearts, so something like AQTxx Qxx xxxx x would fit the bill. Well, I asked the Belgian specialist of FJs and FNJs (and frequent AC member) about this hand, and his answer was that 2S doesn't show length, it's merely a lead-director ; so that you shouldn't raise it on the hand as was given. In West doesn't lead a spade against NT, there might be grounds for classifying the psyche as red, he added. But not here. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 10:24:25 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:24:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101905.02168170@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:36 22/09/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >But although a pass of 1NT has been demonstrated >to be a logical alternative, the blml poll >suggests that a pass of 1NT is not a "logical >alternative". > >As has been noted before, the term "logical >alternative" is a misnomer, since the WBF Code of >Practice defines: > >"A 'logical alternative' is a different action >that, amongst the class of players in question >and using the methods of the partnership, would >be given serious consideration by a significant >proportion of such players, of whom it is >reasonable to think some might adopt it." > >If the four blmler respondents are representative >of South's class of player, then a 2D rebid is >the only "logical alternative", since none of >them adopted any other call. AG : I'd liek to suggest this criterion. Ask the poll to note all possible actions. Some of us did. (My scoring would probably be : 2D = 10. 3D = 6. 2S, pass = 4. Double (support) = 3) If any call gets at least an average of [fill in ; I'd say 5], it is a LA, even if nobody made it his one's first choice. Apart from that, I disagree that pass will often produce +200. RHO's bid is probably based on club length, and my lead will often give the sixth or seventh trick. But the fact that we have something to say about passing is a hint towards its classification as a LA. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 10:24:25 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:24:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101905.02168170@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:36 22/09/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >But although a pass of 1NT has been demonstrated >to be a logical alternative, the blml poll >suggests that a pass of 1NT is not a "logical >alternative". > >As has been noted before, the term "logical >alternative" is a misnomer, since the WBF Code of >Practice defines: > >"A 'logical alternative' is a different action >that, amongst the class of players in question >and using the methods of the partnership, would >be given serious consideration by a significant >proportion of such players, of whom it is >reasonable to think some might adopt it." > >If the four blmler respondents are representative >of South's class of player, then a 2D rebid is >the only "logical alternative", since none of >them adopted any other call. AG : I'd liek to suggest this criterion. Ask the poll to note all possible actions. Some of us did. (My scoring would probably be : 2D = 10. 3D = 6. 2S, pass = 4. Double (support) = 3) If any call gets at least an average of [fill in ; I'd say 5], it is a LA, even if nobody made it his one's first choice. Apart from that, I disagree that pass will often produce +200. RHO's bid is probably based on club length, and my lead will often give the sixth or seventh trick. But the fact that we have something to say about passing is a hint towards its classification as a LA. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 24 10:19:00 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:19:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c7fe83$8ffd1fd0$aff75f70$@com> [TWM] Any talk of a "red psych" is the work of a drivelling idiot. [DALB] It is a curious fact that people who are vehemently opposed to the notion that failure to raise spades with four of them does not deserve a classification above green are people who are, on many occasions, known to hold hands that do not very much resemble the bids they make. [TWM] *If* it is determined that the pair has an agreement to play 2S as showing "H support or S" or "A useful card in S + H support" or indeed *anything* else that agreement is 100% legal according to OB regulations. [DALB] It wasn't. The pair in question were not playing FNJs at the table, only in the appeals committee. It is frankly inconceivable that a pair who actually play that 2S in this sequence might be KQ10, or Ax, would fail to disclose such an agreement at the table or on their convention card. [TWM] If no such agreement is deemed to exist then it's a green psych. [DALB] Nonsense. If West is not going to support spades with this hand, when is he going to support spades? And if he is never going to support spades, then his partnership has an understanding that was concealed from the opponents at the time, and may well be concealed from other opponents at other times. [TW} FWIW I'd incline towards the player having taken a view based on his general experience rather than partnership knowledge. [DALB] This means that the player's "general experience" is that people who bid spades in this auction don't have them. Perhaps he plays a lot of his bridge against the likes of West-Meads and Probst, but I assure you that such experience is very far from "general". David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 24 10:59:41 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:59:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101204.0216a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101204.0216a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c7fe89$3f056000$bd102000$@com> [AG] Well, I asked the Belgian specialist of FJs and FNJs (and frequent AC member) about this hand, and his answer was that 2S doesn't show length, it's merely a lead-director ; so that you shouldn't raise it on the hand as was given. If West doesn't lead a spade against NT, there might be grounds for classifying the psyche as red, he added. But not here. [DALB] I see. So East bid 2S because he wanted his partner to knock out the ace of spades before the heart suit was established. Yes, Alain. Of course he did. The real (and obvious) reason East bid 2S was that he thought the opponents had a spade fit, and he wanted to make it appear that they didn't. 2S was not any kind of fit non-jump - whatever the players said afterwards, they said nothing of the sort at the table. It often happens that people's bidding methods undergo considerable revision between the end of the session and the start of an appeal hearing. Experienced AC members do not fall for this sort of thing, and it surprises me more than somewhat that experienced BLML members do. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 12:20:37 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:20:37 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__self-serving_=3F_Was_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A_a_psyche_classification?= References: <000601c7fe89$3f056000$bd102000$@com> Message-ID: <46F78F73.000001.78541@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : David Burn Date : 09/24/07 10:58:10 A : 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sujet : Re: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification You're mixing two things, David. > I see. So East bid 2S because he wanted his partner to knock out the ace of spades before the heart suit was established. Yes, Alain. Of course he did. AG : Nope. East made a psyche. Everytbody agrees on that. What I'm addressing is the fact that not raising spades isn't constitutive of the offence of psyche-fielding. And this is independent of the question was 2S a psyche ?" So please don't change the subject. > The real (and obvious) reason East bid 2S was that he thought the opponents had a spade fit, and he wanted to make it appear that they didn't. 2S was not any kind of fit non-jump - whatever the players said afterwards, they said nothing of the sort at the table. AG : sorry, but 2S is a FNJ by bridge logic only, especially NV and if playing undisciplined weak 2-bids, so it doesn't need to be an agreement (as to whether it is alertable, I'd say no) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070924/9d6caccb/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/20070924/9d6caccb/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/20070924/9d6caccb/attachment-0001.gif From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 24 12:30:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: <000001c7fe83$8ffd1fd0$aff75f70$@com> Message-ID: DALB wrote: > [DALB] > > It is a curious fact that people who are vehemently opposed to the > notion that failure to raise spades with four of them does not > deserve a classification above green are people who are, on many > occasions, known to hold hands that do not very much resemble the > bids they make. More drivel. The failure to raise spades provides (IMO) some evidence that the pair are not playing 2S as "natural". What agreement (implicit, experiential, or whatever) are you suggesting the pair had in order to rule a red psych? I really don't care what conclusion you come to because *whatever* the agreement it is legal according to EBU regulations. My "vehement opposition" is to those idiots who rule a psych "red" when the agreement that has been deemed to exist is an otherwise legal one and the matter is like any other disclosure ruling. > > [TWM] > > If no such agreement is deemed to exist then it's a green psych. > > [DALB] > > Nonsense. It can't be nonsense. If you deem the pair to have had no disclosable agreement/understanding/experience then you have no option but to rule the psych green. OTOH if you determine that the pair has an agreement to play 2S as "often mock spades" you will need to consult the OB as to the legality of such an agreement wrt the Pachabo. (I've checked, it would be legal). > If West is not going to support spades with this hand, > when is he going to support spades? And if he is never going to > support spades, then his partnership has an understanding that was > concealed from the opponents at the time, So you judge there is an improperly disclosed understanding (such is the right of a TD). That means there was a failure to alert 2S. Law21 tells us that this constitutes MI and refers us to Law40c. Law40c says that we adjust if the MI damaged opps. You may also impose a PP/DP for such lack of disclosure. What you are not permitted to do under either EBU regulation or the law is rule that failure properly to disclose, of itself, makes a convention "illegal". > and may well be concealed from other opponents at other times. And one would instruct the OS to inform their opponents (via CC and alerts) properly in future. > [TW} > > FWIW I'd incline towards the player having taken a view based on his > general experience rather than partnership knowledge. > > [DALB] > > This means that the player's "general experience" is that people > who bid spades in this auction don't have them. Say rather that "not everybody who bids Spades on this auction always has them". I don't know (AFAIA) the Pachabo player concerned but I do know I'd be suspicious of the 2S bid if it arose on a perfect anonymity site such as Bridge4Money. It's *my* general experience which engenders such suspicion - nothing to do with partner. > Perhaps he plays a lot of his bridge against the likes of West-Meads > and Probst, but I assure you that such experience is very far from > "general". It matters not one whit what experience is actually "general" (a meaningless concept if one tries to interpret it as "universal"). What matters is if his bid is based on experience of/with the *specific* partner or *HIS* general experience of the game. If playing with a new partner one would be less inclined to presume the existence of relevant partnership experience. Tim From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 24 13:27:00 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:27:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: References: <000001c7fe83$8ffd1fd0$aff75f70$@com> Message-ID: <000d01c7fe9d$d3419680$79c4c380$@com> [TWM] My "vehement opposition" is to those idiots who rule a psych "red" when the agreement that has been deemed to exist is an otherwise legal one and the matter is like any other disclosure ruling. [DALB] Nobody "deemed an agreement to exist". East-West pretended in committee to be playing fit non-jumps in order to convince the appeals committee that they weren't actually cheating. Your version of events seems to be that they actually were playing fit non-jumps; they just forgot to alert. But no one would actually bid 2S on the East hand whatever the methods; as Alain correctly said, East was psyching. [TWM] If no such agreement is deemed to exist then it's a green psych. [TWM] Of course it isn't. East's bid showed spades - long spades, not necessarily high spades. West did not raise his partner's presumed long spade suit when West had four-card support. Do you seriously suggest that this does not constitute at least some evidence that West knew his partner might be psyching? [TWM] If you deem the pair to have had no disclosable agreement/understanding/experience then you have no option but to rule the psych green. Of course I do. Suppose East-West really did have the undisclosed agreement that East would bid spades with shortage in auctions of this kind. How would East-West's auction differ from their actual auction? [TWM] So you judge there is an improperly disclosed understanding (such is the right of a TD). [DALB] Oh, I don't judge that there is such an understanding, only that there might be (since West would always have bid as he did if there were such an understanding, and might not bid as he did if there were not). [TWM] What you are not permitted to do under either EBU regulation or the law is rule that failure properly to disclose, of itself, makes a convention "illegal". Nobody is doing any such thing. This isn't a question of improper disclosure of an understanding (that has nothing to do with psyching, for it is a sine qua non of a psyche that it is not based on any kind of understanding). When we classify a psyche (or more properly, the actions of a player following a psyche by his partner) as "red", we do not actually say "you had such-and-such an understanding, and you didn't tell your opponents about it". What we say is "you behaved as a pair would who had such-and-such an understanding, and didn't tell their opponents about it" (it goes without saying that the understanding would be worthless if one ever did tell the opponents about it). I really don't propose to spend any more time on this. It is, as I have mentioned before, no coincidence that those who psyche a lot are rushing to the defence of this particular East-West pair with a number of arguments that are simply wrong. There is no question here of playing a method that was improperly disclosed; what East was trying to do was fool the opponents into thinking they had spades when they didn't, and what West was doing could be regarded as colluding in this deception (even though this might not have been his intention, but in order to classify the action as "red" one does not have to assert that it was his intention, only that it might have been on the basis of the evidence). David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 13:58:13 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:58:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: <000d01c7fe9d$d3419680$79c4c380$@com> References: <000001c7fe83$8ffd1fd0$aff75f70$@com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924135054.0215ad90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:27 24/09/2007 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Nobody "deemed an agreement to exist". East-West pretended in committee to >be playing fit non-jumps in order to convince the appeals committee that >they weren't actually cheating. Your version of events seems to be that they >actually were playing fit non-jumps; they just forgot to alert. But no one >would actually bid 2S on the East hand whatever the methods; as Alain >correctly said, East was psyching. IMOBO, East was psyching a FNJ. Isn't a FNJ the default meaning in such a case ? (remember : PH) >Of course it isn't. East's bid showed spades - long spades, not necessarily >high spades. Unless, of course, one remembers that he was a PH, and that he couldn't hold 6 spades and heart shortness (not even 5 in some systems). What I'm emphatatically criticizing isn't the AC's decision, it's the way they came to it. We've got no evidence that they took the above into account. We've got no evidence that they considered "pass" to be a suggestion to go higher, which is 100% standard in a forcing situation. They ruled that West's "negative" pass was fielding a psyche ; however, they were wrong in their premise. Best regards Alain From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 14:44:29 2007 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:44:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921155010.021657a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921155010.021657a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0709240544k153d6da8r9eb5bf5d495cdbf3@mail.gmail.com> > Please note that you can't support partner's suit, because he didn't show > length. 2S may well be based on KQ10 in spades and some heart support, and > it wouldn't be a psyche, but merely a FNJ. > Remember : passing does agree spades (as would 3C had RHO passed). Couple quick comments: This core of this thread hinges on issues related to disclosure and correctly describing ones methods. Accordingly, I think that we should strive to apply our own vocabularly accurately. From my perspective, the expression "fit showing jump" or "fit non-jump" assumes the presence of two actual suits. The bid shows both a fit for partner's suit as well as a suit of one's own. I also believe that there are other types of fit showing bids. For example, many people with bid a new suit to show defensive values (or suggest a lead) plus showing a fit for partner's suit. However, I don't believe that this agreement is equivalent to a fit showing jump, nor should it be described that way. (Furthermore, I'd argue that bidding 2S on a (hypothetical) KQT of Spades should not be described as a fit showing jump) From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 24 15:02:46 2007 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:02:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 22:41 Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > Dealer North ? Love All > North > Scoring: > Hybrid > > K 9 7 3 > 6 4 > K 10 5 > K Q 9 7 > . > J 6 4 2 A 5 > K J 10 7 5 3 Q 9 8 2 > 9 Q 8 6 3 2 > 6 3 10 4 > > Q 10 8 > A > A J 7 4 > A J 8 5 2 > > West North East South > Pass Pass Pass 1C > 2H Dble* 2S 3D > Pass 4C 4H 5C > Pass Pass Pass > > 2H was weak; *alerted, ?likely? to have four spades > Result: 5C - 1 by South = -50 > > Tournament Director?s comments: I feel this is close to being Amber ? > although pass may be the advisable action, many players would have raised > spades, > and West must have been aware that this is a potential psyche situation. > I > ruled the psyche GREEN. > > The above was a psyche in the Pachabo in England, originally ruled green > by > the TD and reclassified by the L&E as red. It would seem from later > minutes > that East-West produced the opinion of three Grandmasters who would all > have > passed on the West hand. East-West submitted arguments that 2S implied a > heart > fit (it is clearly fit non jump to any average plus player), and pass > therefore showed a minimum. I would tend to agree with them - West knows > that it is > not their hand, and raising spades will only help North-South diagnose a > double fit, when East-West may have to save at the five (or even six) > level. > > I can understand that antipathy towards "nasty, dirty, horrible" psyches > generates this type of verdict. I would however, have reclassified it as > amber, > rather than green. It is a common psyche situation, and the benefit of the > doubt has to be given to the opponents of the pair who psyched. After the > red > classification there should have been a score adjustment when South had > gone > off in a cold game, although I did not see this adjustment in the L&E > minutes. > How would others have classified it? One of the consequences of a system such as green-amber-red is that it manufactures something to do. you have this rule- and to satisfy it you have to do something, and someone else has to do something, and you pay attention to it instead of taking care of business, and as with most things that are done, people get it wrong, and a lot of people put in a lot of effort to undo the wrong, and all this time people are distracted from taking care of business. Maybe the point of the rule is to give players something to do that will distract them from taking care of business. In 1959 Victor Mollo made such a point in his book, Bridge Psychology. The breach of propriety in bridge bluffing lies in the improper detection that a [intentional] bluff has occurred. There are three primary routes of the impropriety [1] secret communication (as in outside of calls and plays- finger signals for instance) a very, very small proportion of impropriety. [2] the ?unconscious? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that ?my hand may not match my bidding? (for instance as by dramatic haste or slowness). In other words the partner has UI that explains his fielding of the deviation. By far the greatest proportion of impropriety. [3] the ?unconscious? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that the cards are probably sitting right to bluff (for instance a hasty pass may suggest ?I?m truly broke? so there is less danger that partner will have enough to get into trouble. In the case presented there was no evidence that the 2H bidder gave UI to partner that it would be favorable to bluff, Nor was there the suggestion that the 2S bidder gave UI to partner that he bluffed. Impropriety derives from the presence of UI, not from the judgment or lack thereof exerted by the player who does not have UI. regards roger pewwick From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 24 16:17:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: <000d01c7fe9d$d3419680$79c4c380$@com> Message-ID: Burn wrote: > Nobody is doing any such thing. This isn't a question of improper > disclosure of an understanding (that has nothing to do with > psyching, for it is a sine qua non of a psyche that it is not based > on any kind of understanding). Indeed. And it is a sine qua non of a red psych that the auction has provided evidence that the pair did indeed have an understanding. It is a judgement call as whether a particular sequence provides sufficient evidence to rule that an understanding exists. Very little judgement is subsequently required to determine whether that understanding represents an *unauthorised* agreement - it's just a matter of checking the OB. > When we classify a psyche (or more properly, the actions of a player > following a psyche by his partner) as "red", we do not actually say > "you had such-and-such an understanding, Yes, we do! OB6b1 "The actions of the psycher?s partner following a psyche ? and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself ? may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding." That is very notion of a red psych within the EBU regulations. OK so "Red Psych" is a misnomer but what it means (and is defined as in the OB) is "We have determined that this wasn't a psych at all." If the actions of a player following a psych provide evidence of an understanding then that understanding might be found to be properly disclosed, improperly disclosed, or unauthorised (and thus illegal). Adjustment (if any) will be based on which of those applies. Take a simple auction where one opens 1N on Kx,Axxx,KQx,JTxx. Partner bids 2H and one continues with 2S which partner passes with Qxxxxx,x,xxx,xxx. We do not automatically rule "fielded psych" we ask questions and arrive at the conclusion that the pair had an understanding to play transfers. We adjust if the failure to announce/disclose caused damage. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 24 17:41:37 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:41:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F7DAB1.5010109@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: [Bypassing for the moment a treatise on psychology] > > > The breach of propriety in bridge bluffing lies in the improper detection > that a [intentional] bluff has occurred. There are three primary routes of > the impropriety [1] secret communication (as in outside of calls and plays- > finger signals for instance) a very, very small proportion of impropriety. > [2] the ???unconscious??? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that ???my hand may not > match my bidding??? (for instance as by dramatic haste or slowness). In other > words the partner has UI that explains his fielding of the deviation. By > far the greatest proportion of impropriety. [3] the ???unconscious??? or not > tip-off to partner [UI] that the cards are probably sitting right to bluff > (for instance a hasty pass may suggest ???I???m truly broke??? so there is less > danger that partner will have enough to get into trouble. > I don't really see the difference between [2] and [3], but I believe there is a [4]. [4] the awareness by partner that bluffs are possible or not. There is no UI in this, at all, and I do not believe this is in any way illegal, provided of course that the opponents are equally aware that the current player has a higher (or lower) frequency of psyching (as compared to the general public) in this particular situation. > > > In the case presented there was no evidence that the 2H bidder gave UI to > partner that it would be favorable to bluff, Nor was there the suggestion > that the 2S bidder gave UI to partner that he bluffed. > > I do believe that the point the EBU are trying to make is that they investigate and arrive at the conclusion that partner appeared to know more than he should have. The EBU do not go as far as saying that this is evidence of UI. I do believe that the EBU also see the possibility of case [4], and they rule on the basis of MI, not UI. I hope. > > Impropriety derives from the presence of UI, not from the judgment or lack > thereof exerted by the player who does not have UI. > > > > regards > > roger pewwick > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 23/09/2007 13:53 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 18:05:53 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:05:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] a psyche classification Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924173707.021645f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Hi all, Two more comments [Roger] There are three primary routes of the impropriety [1] secret communication (as in outside of calls and plays- finger signals for instance) a very, very small proportion of impropriety. [2] the ?unconscious? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that ?my hand may not match my bidding? (for instance as by dramatic haste or slowness). In other words the partner has UI that explains his fielding of the deviation. By far the greatest proportion of impropriety. [3] the ?unconscious? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that the cards are probably sitting right to bluff (for instance a hasty pass may suggest ?I?m truly broke? so there is less danger that partner will have enough to get into trouble. AG : [3] is a good point, often overlooked. However, in the present case, there were legal tip-offs : vulnerability + PH + WJO. This is indeed one case where the probability of a psyche by a Plutonian partner is nonnegligible, so not raising it will not necessarily be proof of a specific implicit understanding ("specific understanding" being the antonym of "common bridge sense"). There is at least one case when the reason a player gave for psyching was "the opponent's mannerism [hesitating halfway to the bidding box] hinted that he had a strong and complex hand" and the reason for guessing the psyche was exactly the same. 100% legal, I'd say. If you don't allow for "objective tips", it'll mean that if "there are 55 points in the deck" you're not allowed to decide partner was the joker, based on objective elements (say, vulnerability, or opponent's claim that "they never psyche" while you "occasionnally psyche"), lest you be castigated as fielders (sorry, Jonty) or, worse, c****s. I don't buy it. [Tim] OK so "Red Psych" is a misnomer but what it means (and is defined as in the OB) is "We have determined that this wasn't a psych at all." AG : a trifle upsetting. Imagine such a case where there are 55 points in the deck. Correctly guessing, without the legal hints I mentioned in the first part, would be disallowed, OK. Now why would you say "there was an understanding" ? Perhaps there was Rogr's class [2] UI. A related situation would be the following : if RHO "opened" while it was partner's turn, and partner opens a 1-bid, and RHO bids, and thereafter there seems to be too many points in the deck, I want to be allowed to infer that partner opened light, in order to make things more difficult to them (allowed and standard practice), rather than being told we had an agreement about our reactions over irregularities (disallowed). Best regards Alain Best regards Alain From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 24 18:10:58 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:10:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0709240544k153d6da8r9eb5bf5d495cdbf3@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921155010.021657a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0709240544k153d6da8r9eb5bf5d495cdbf3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46F7E192.2010204@ntlworld.com> [G. K. Chesterton] "Maybe there were two sides to that affair of Cain, And Judas was a tolerable chap." [nige1] Few BLMLers cast any light on the rules of Bridge, but David Burn, Grattan Endicott, and Richard Hills illume our lives with amusing and apt quotations. Googling for David Burn's latest elicited one citation above (with "affair of Cain" rather than David's "affair of Paine" but David's version seems more plausible). Is it it G.K Chesterton? is it Paine or Cain? and what is the name of the Poem? [Richard Willey] This core of this thread hinges on issues related to disclosure and correctly describing ones methods. Accordingly, I think that we should strive to apply our own vocabularly accurately. From my perspective, the expression "fit showing jump" or "fit non-jump" assumes the presence of two actual suits. The bid shows both a fit for partner's suit as well as a suit of one's own. I also believe that there are other types of fit showing bids. For example, many people with bid a new suit to show defensive values (or suggest a lead) plus showing a fit for partner's suit. However, I don't believe that this agreement is equivalent to a fit showing jump, nor should it be described that way. (Furthermore, I'd argue that bidding 2S on a (hypothetical) KQT of Spades should not be described as a fit showing jump) [nige1] IMO, Richard is right: FNJs show support for partner's suit with *length* in the suit you bid e.g. S:KTxxx H:xxxxx D:Axx C- [Alain Gottcheiner] We've got no evidence that they considered "pass" [on S:Jxxx H:KJTxxx D:x C:xx] to be a suggestion to go higher, which is 100% standard in a forcing situation. [nigel] IMO, here the default meaning is that *pass shows a minimum with defence* (I've played FJs and FNJs for years with different partners and that is our understanding - and the most natural meaning). IMO, anyway, a forcing pass is alertable. Hence, IMO, if 2S is a FNJ and *pass* is forcing, then *both* are alertable. When you "psych" seemingly to compensate for partner's "psych" the first "psych" may be deemed a "red psych". Analogously, when partner fails to alert your conventional bid seemingly to protect you for failing to alert his, should we give this a name? A "red alert" perhaps? :) Anyway, the effect is often much the same :( General point: The EBU psych classification protocol seem sensible. Why don't other jurisdictions adopt it? Why is it not enshrined in Law? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Sep 24 18:17:18 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:17:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] FNJ? Message-ID: <46F7E30E.9090005@aol.com> What is FNJ? Please, at least for my sake, restrict usage of abbreviations to those in the blml monthly abbreviation list. I can't find FNJ in mine. Apologise if I'm the only blmler too stupid to interpret FNJ (and occasional other abbreviations) not on the list. I have the handicap of English as mother tongue and only about 50+ years of bridge. Your obedient servant, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Sep 24 18:19:07 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:19:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] PH Message-ID: <46F7E37B.80903@aol.com> I managed to understand PH although it doesn't seem to be on the list either. Ciao, JE From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 18:20:11 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:20:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] FNJ? In-Reply-To: <46F7E30E.9090005@aol.com> References: <46F7E30E.9090005@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709240920r2af6e1b9v4d2f17321aa77c7b@mail.gmail.com> FNJ = Forcing NonJump. And I don't buy it in this case. Red psyche seems clear to me. On 9/24/07, Jeff Easterson wrote: > What is FNJ? Please, at least for my sake, restrict usage of > abbreviations to those in the blml monthly abbreviation list. I can't > find FNJ in mine. Apologise if I'm the only blmler too stupid to > interpret FNJ (and occasional other abbreviations) not on the list. I > have the handicap of English as mother tongue and only about 50+ years > of bridge. Your obedient servant, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 18:21:10 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:21:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] PH In-Reply-To: <46F7E37B.80903@aol.com> References: <46F7E37B.80903@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709240921y5dd3a4b0jcf795134f1e20a6c@mail.gmail.com> PH is worthy to add to the list. -Jerry Fusselman On 9/24/07, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I managed to understand PH although it doesn't seem to be on the list > either. Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 24 18:33:46 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (dalburn at btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:33:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] FNJ? Message-ID: <1262951842-1190651633-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1946179557-@bxe014.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> FNJ means 'fit non-jump". The notion is that a player who has originally passed will not introduce a new suit without support for partner's overcall. This is described by some BLML subscribers as a matter of "general bridge logic". It is of course no such thing. For example, if one's agreements regarding second-seat pre-empts are that they require two of the top three honours, then a sequence such as pass - pass - 1C - 2H - double - 2S could as a matter of "general bridge logic" be based on such as SQJ10xxxx and an ace. Of course, such "logic" is beyond those who seek to impose their own judgement of what is "general bridge knowledge" on members of appeals committees with whose rulings they disagree. I cannot help that, but it does make me rather tired. David Burn London, England Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Sep 24 18:39:14 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:39:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] FNJ revisited Message-ID: <46F7E832.4040600@aol.com> The need to use only abbreviations on the list is supported by the first two explanations of FNJ. One was Forcing NonJump and the other fit non-jump. In my humble opinion not the same thing, with possibly different implications. Ciao, JE From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 24 18:45:20 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:45:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101204.0216a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000601c7fe89$3f056000$bd102000$@com> Message-ID: <002c01c7feca$4b4dd770$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification > [AG] > > Well, I asked the Belgian specialist of FJs and FNJs (and frequent AC > member) about this hand, and his answer was that 2S doesn't show length, > it's merely a lead-director ; so that you shouldn't raise it on the hand > as > was given. > > If West doesn't lead a spade against NT, there might be grounds for > classifying the psyche as red, he added. But not here. > > [DALB] > > I see. So East bid 2S because he wanted his partner to knock out the ace > of > spades before the heart suit was established. Yes, Alain. Of course he > did. > > The real (and obvious) reason East bid 2S was that he thought the > opponents > had a spade fit, and he wanted to make it appear that they didn't. 2S was > not any kind of fit non-jump - whatever the players said afterwards, they > said nothing of the sort at the table. It often happens that people's > bidding methods undergo considerable revision between the end of the > session > and the start of an appeal hearing. Experienced AC members do not fall for > this sort of thing, and it surprises me more than somewhat that > experienced > BLML members do. Bridge players know that 2S can be spades or hearts or both (Mostly it'll be both, and a 3 card suit requires no alert nor is it a psyche.). Apparently the opponents don't play bridge. But my whole argument is that even if you had no reason to expect a psyche, you still have no reason to bid 2S. Why tell opponents you have a double fit when they're trying to work out whether to bid a minor suit game? john > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 24 19:15:20 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:15:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F7F0A8.1040606@ntlworld.com> [Roger Pewick] One of the consequences of a system such as green-amber-red is that it manufactures something to do. you have this rule- and to satisfy it you have to do something, and someone else has to do something, and you pay attention to it instead of taking care of business, and as with most things that are done, people get it wrong, and a lot of people put in a lot of effort to undo the wrong, and all this time people are distracted from taking care of business. Maybe the point of the rule is to give players something to do that will distract them from taking care of business. In 1959 Victor Mollo made such a point in his book, Bridge Psychology. [nige1] IMO, the EBU colour-coding of psychs is an excellent protocol that we look forward to being incorporated in the new edition of TFLB. Other jurisdictions seem to tolerate CPUs (at one extreme) or ban psychs for all practical purposes (the other extreme). The EBU protocol seems ideal: it allows real psychs but deters CPU and UI. [Roger Pewick] The breach of propriety in bridge bluffing lies in the improper detection that a [intentional] bluff has occurred. There are three primary routes of the impropriety [1] secret communication (as in outside of calls and plays-finger signals for instance) a very, very small proportion of impropriety. [2] the ???unconscious??? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that ???my hand may not match my bidding??? (for instance as by dramatic haste or slowness). In other words the partner has UI that explains his fielding of the deviation. By far the greatest proportion of impropriety. [3] the ??unconscious??? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that the cards are probably sitting right to bluff (for instance a hasty pass may suggest ???I???m truly broke??? so there is less danger that partner will have enough to get into trouble. In the case presented there was no evidence that the 2H bidder gave UI to partner that it would be favorable to bluff, Nor was there the suggestion that the 2S bidder gave UI to partner that he bluffed. Impropriety derives from the presence of UI, not from the judgment or lack thereof exerted by the player who does not have UI. [nige1] IMO, an impropriety occurs when you are better equipped than opponents to detect a deliberate systemic deviation by partner because of unauthorised information or a concealed partnership understanding. [A] Typically, this expectation is from experience of playing with or against that player. Your opponents may not share that experience, so making use of it is unfair. [B] In many long-standing partnerships, there are subtle, perhaps subliminal, clues, which you must try to ignore -- although it is tempting to rationalise such information as "intuition" or some such. (Of course it is OK to act on clues from the demeanour of opponents). I am unsure to exactly which of Roger Pewick's categories, [A] and [B] belong but most "red psych" cases involve suspicion of either or both. IMO Richard Pewick misses the point of the EBU classification of "psychs". Rarely will a partnership admit to a CPU or to taking advantage of UI. Without such an admission, impropriety is hard to prove. Nevertheless, the coincidence of the *second* compensating deviation is improbable and suspicious. By penalising and recording such fortunate coincidences (without accusing the perpetrators of anything except unusually good luck), you deter potential improprieties by them or others. It seems to work -- and would work better if more rigorously enforced. Inevitably it is still hit or miss. Most CPUs and UI will still go undetected and unpenalised. But surely it is a small step in the right direction? From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 24 19:58:54 2007 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:58:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification References: <46F7F0A8.1040606@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000e01c7fed4$92968b90$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > [Roger Pewick] > One of the consequences of a system such as green-amber-red is that it > manufactures something to do. you have this rule- and to satisfy it > you have to do something, and someone else has to do something, and > you pay attention to it instead of taking care of business, and as > with most things that are done, people get it wrong, and a lot of > people put in a lot of effort to undo the wrong, and all this time > people are distracted from taking care of business. > > Maybe the point of the rule is to give players something to do that > will distract them from taking care of business. In 1959 Victor Mollo > made such a point in his book, Bridge Psychology. > > [nige1] > IMO, the EBU colour-coding of psychs is an excellent protocol that we > look forward to being incorporated in the new edition of TFLB. > > Other jurisdictions seem to tolerate CPUs (at one extreme) or ban > psychs for all practical purposes (the other extreme). The EBU > protocol seems ideal: it allows real psychs but deters CPU and UI. Nigel, here I must agree with you. I've snipped some of your points but they are well found. My case has been that there is no evidence of a CPU and that pass is entirely normal and reasonable. I just don't get involved in auctions where trumps are breaking 4-1 (or possibly 4-0), when opponents haven't yet worked out if they have a minor game or not and when I know they have game values. That a bridge player playing with a "blind" partner may well suspect all is not kosher is beside the point; I have no reason to suspect a psyche, and even playing with DALB (who we must assume never psyches) would still pass. john From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 24 22:52:28 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:52:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] FNJ? In-Reply-To: <1262951842-1190651633-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1946179557-@bxe014.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <1262951842-1190651633-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1946179557-@bxe014.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <013A84B2-46E3-4186-B467-569520C5D17B@starpower.net> On Sep 24, 2007, at 12:33 PM, dalburn at btopenworld.com wrote: > FNJ means 'fit non-jump". The notion is that a player who has > originally passed will not introduce a new suit without support for > partner's overcall. > > This is described by some BLML subscribers as a matter of "general > bridge logic". It is of course no such thing. For example, if one's > agreements regarding second-seat pre-empts are that they require > two of the top three honours, then a sequence such as pass - pass - > 1C - 2H - double - 2S could as a matter of "general bridge logic" > be based on such as SQJ10xxxx and an ace. > > Of course, such "logic" is beyond those who seek to impose their > own judgement of what is "general bridge knowledge" on members of > appeals committees with whose rulings they disagree. I cannot help > that, but it does make me rather tired. That's a bit oversimplified. Sure, a partnership in which "a player who has originally passed will not introduce a new suit without support for partner's overcall" as a general rule has an agreement (and a conventional one at that). But there is also a pretty fair- sized subset of passed-hand-opposite-overcall situations in which it is patently obvious that to introduce a new suit on a potential misfit would be suicidal, in which it is perfectly reasonable to infer that a partner who has done so must hold support for one's suit based solely on "bridge logic", with no agreement at all. I'm not suggesting that the thread case in "A Psyche Classification" is such a situation, merely taking exception to the notion that there "is of course no such thing". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 25 00:08:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:08:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] self-serving? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46F78F73.000001.78541@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >not raising spades isn't constitutive of the offence of psyche- >fielding. And this is independent of the question "was 2S a >psyche?" So please don't change the subject. [snip] Richard Hills: Alain is begging the question, petitio principii. There is no such offence as "psyche-fielding". It is an infraction to have a concealed partnership understanding whether or not it is "fielded". (See my quote from the WBF Code of Practice in the parallel "A psyche classification" thread.) The "fielding" of an alleged psyche is merely _evidence_ that the allegation is incorrect, and that the alleged psyche is in fact a concealed partnership understanding pseudo-psyche. For practical reasons the EBU assumes that those partnerships who have concealed partnership understandings will tend to use ("field") those CPUs. Of course there are those rare times, which are known in Australia as Bruckner Retribution Bids, when a player is fully aware that his partner has perpetrated an illegal CPU pseudo-psyche of 2S, but chooses to jump to 4S (and then remove the escape of 5H to 5S) merely to teach partner a lesson. :-) But the teaching of the lesson does not legalise the initial CPU, it merely makes it harder for the EBU to find convincing evidence that the CPU exists. 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 25 02:29:07 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:29:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] self-serving? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46F78F73.000001.78541@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000001c7ff0b$16541200$42fc3600$@com> [AG] not raising spades isn't constitutive of the offence of psyche- fielding. And this is independent of the question "was 2S a psyche?" So please don't change the subject. [DALB] I am perhaps fortunate to have at my occasional disposal a small but select panel of genuinely world-class players. The discussion this afternoon went like this: GWCP1: "You probably shouldn't bid four spades, because it's hard to see spades playing better than hearts, but you should certainly bid either three spades or preferably four hearts. Though maybe you could bid four diamonds or four clubs, to pretend to have a void." GWCP2: "I don't mind four spades - after all, it takes away any chance they have to cue-bid a major. But three spades might also work, because the guy to the left didn't open the bidding. Still, I don't want him to be able to bid four of either major after his partner bid three diamonds." DALB: "Would you pass?" GWCP1: "Pass? Why would anyone do that?" DALB: "Because it makes it much harder for the opponents to realise that there is a double fit." At this point, silence supervened for at least ten seconds while I was subject to careful scrutiny by both GWCPs. Then: GWCP2: "Did someone really pass?" DALB: "Yes." GWCP1: "Did his partner have spades?" DALB: "No." GWCP2: "Oh, I see. They were cheating." Now, neither of these GWCPs was from Belgium. Neither was from England either - GWCP1's accent had unmistakably been acquired on the Indian sub-continent, while GWCP2's had strongly Scandinavian overtones. I ventured to ask a further question, although by now I was aware that I was trespassing on the good nature of people who were already seriously beginning to doubt my sanity. DALB: "Would you bid 2S with such as SKQ10 trebleton and three- or four-card heart support?" At this point, GWCP2 asked whose deal it was and GWCP1 informed me (not for the first time) that I was mentally retarded. It was, as it happened, my deal. So I shut up and dealt. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 25 03:50:48 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:50:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <46F7E192.2010204@ntlworld.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070921155010.021657a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0709240544k153d6da8r9eb5bf5d495cdbf3@mail.gmail.com> <46F7E192.2010204@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c7ff16$7eff1c40$7cfd54c0$@com> [nigel] Googling for David Burn's latest elicited one citation above (with "affair of Cain" rather than David's "affair of Paine" but David's version seems more plausible). Is it it G.K Chesterton? is it Paine or Cain? and what is the name of the Poem? [DALB] My apologies for having misquoted, and thereby thrown the entirety of the Bridge Laws Mailing List into a frenzy of scholarly confusion. I had conflated in my mind several lines from what follows. The echo of Shakespeare's "And Brutus is an honourable man" will not need pointing out to students of literature, which is to say that it will need pointing out here. Ballade of Gentlemanly Feeling and Railway Strikes Nothing is more ungentlemanly than Exaggeration, causing needless pain. It's worse than spitting, and it stamps a man Deservedly with other men's disdain. Weigh human actions carefully. Explain The worst of them with charity. Mayhap There were two sides to that affair of Cain, And Judas was a tolerable chap. This sort of recklessness has laid a ban (Most properly!) upon the works of Paine, And should in decency condemn the clan Of mean detractors, like the half-insane And filthy Swift, Elijah, and again The hare-brained Dante with his snarl and yap. No life, however warped, was lived in vain, And Judas was a tolerable chap. Benedict Arnold doubtless had a plan For profiting his country. It is plain That nothing but the voice of slander can Have poisoned such a man as Charlemagne Against the martyred Ganelon in Spain. We know that Dreyfus fell into a trap - Which also may be true of poor Bazaine - And Judas was a tolerable chap. Prince, even you are hardly so inane As not to understand the sad mishap Befallen those who run the railway train - And Judas was a tolerable chap. Hilaire Belloc Had the bard been reading this thread today, I imagine that the Envoi (the last quatrain of the ballade) might have read: Committee members quite devoid of brain, Your regulations are a load of crap. We play fit non-jumps, as should be quite plain - And Judas was a tolerable chap. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 25 04:21:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:21:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bidding theory (off-topic) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924135054.0215ad90@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >"pass" to be a suggestion to go higher, which is 100% >standard in a forcing situation George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Caesar and Cleopatra: "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." Richard Hills: Most world-class experts use forcing passes after partner's penalty-interest redouble. For example: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1S X XX 2C Pass = forcing Some world-class experts (for example, Eddie Kantar) use forcing passes at the five-level to show serious interest in slam, via the "pass-and-pull" convention. For example: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1S 2H 3H 5H Pass = forcing, then Pass X Pass 5S = slam try However, in both of the above cases the opponents are unlikely to immediately bid over the forcing pass, so one does not have to worry too much about further sacrificial bidding by the opponents preventing one from subsequently describing to partner the nature of one's forcing pass. So therefore very few experts (world-class or otherwise) use a pass as "a suggestion to go higher" in a highly competitive low-level auction. For example: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass Pass 1C 2H X 2S 3D Pass = suggestion to go higher??? All the experts I know would have the agreement that West's pass is natural, denying interest in spades. Why pass with spade support and give North-South more bidding space to find out whether they belong in a partscore or in a game? Or, for that matter, leave partner in the dark as to the exact nature of our "suggestion to go higher", thus perhaps missing out on a double game swing? So Alain's assertion that it is 100% standard for such a pass to be "a suggestion to go higher" may be the 100% custom of his tribe, but is also 100% silly. :-) 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 Sep 25 05:37:21 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:37:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c7fe4d$e3824210$d8d5403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ When Sisyphus got his stone to the top of the mountain it >forever rolled down again. That is hardly an apt comparison >with the task of the Drafting Committee. I would compare this >more nearly with the cleansing of the Augean stables, in that >there is always the chance we may cause the Alpheus and the >Peneus to flow through our territory.. > ~ G ~ +=+ Agatha Christie, The Labours of Hercules, "The Augean Stables": Peter Perry said: "I'm a reformer, M. Poirot. I want to see politics cleaned up. I'm opposed to corruption. Do you know what the state of politics is in this country? The Augean Stables, no more, no less." "Tiens!" said Hercule Poirot. "You, too, use that phrase." "And what is needed," went on the editor, "to cleanse those stables is the great purifying flood of Public Opinion." Hercule Poirot got up. He said: "I applaud your sentiments." He added: "It is a pity that you do not feel in need of money." Peter Perry said hurriedly: "Here, wait a sec - I didn't say that exactly. . . ." But Hercule Poirot had gone through the door. His excuse for later events is that he does not like blackmailers. 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 Wed Sep 26 01:46:00 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:46:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101204.0216a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924101204.0216a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070925164241.0c9005c0@mail.optusnet.com.au> cut >Well, I asked the Belgian specialist of FJs and FNJs (and frequent AC What bliss, blml arguing about literature etc. I am worried about missing this European joke. Last I heard of Belgium it was offered in "entirety" on ebay, and got passed in at 10 million euro, Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 25 09:34:45 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:34:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Agatha Christie, The Labours of Hercules, "The Augean Stables": Peter Perry said: "I'm a reformer, M. Poirot. I want to see politics cleaned up. I'm opposed to corruption. Do you know what the state of politics is in this country? The Augean Stables, no more, no less." "Tiens!" said Hercule Poirot. "You, too, use that phrase." "And what is needed," went on the editor, "to cleanse those stables is the great purifying flood of Public Opinion." Hercule Poirot got up. He said: "I applaud your sentiments." He added: "It is a pity that you do not feel in need of money." Peter Perry said hurriedly: "Here, wait a sec - I didn't say that exactly. . . ." But Hercule Poirot had gone through the door. His excuse for later events is that he does not like blackmailers. Tony Musgrove: >What bliss, blml arguing about literature etc. Richard Hills: >>Spoiler Warning! >> >>The point of the Agatha Christie short story about the Augean >>Stables is that Hercule Poirot was hired as a "spin doctor" to >>ensure that the stables remained messy and were not cleansed by >>a newspaper exposing a political scandal. This was because the >>publication of the scandal, in Poirot's fictional universe, >>would have had the unwanted consequence of a fictional parallel >>to the British fascist Oswald Mosley becoming the Prime >>Minister. >> >>Indeed, perhaps removing messy idiosyncrasies from the Lawbook >>is not necessarily a good idea, since such may lead to unwanted >>consequences. >> >>For example, in my youth I had thirteen top tricks in 6NT and >>decided not to claim (in order to have the fun of playing in >>one of my first ever successful slam contracts). When I made >>an obviously non-damaging revoke, the idiosyncratically messy >>revoke rule meant that the contract then failed. But this >>messy failure of the Laws to fit the punishment to the crime >>did cause me to save time in the future by frequent claiming, >>and did cause me to pay more attention in the future to >>following suit. Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder, page 165: Being too neat with business documents can even present a public menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, shorter version was the brake inspection warning. 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 Tue Sep 25 10:45:25 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:45:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] FNJ? In-Reply-To: <1262951842-1190651633-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim .net-1946179557-@bxe014.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070925104416.02162970@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:33 24/09/2007 +0000, dalburn at btopenworld.com wrote: >This is described by some BLML subscribers as a matter of "general bridge >logic". It is of course no such thing. For example, if one's agreements >regarding second-seat pre-empts are that they require two of the top three >honours, then a sequence such as pass - pass - 1C - 2H - double - 2S could >as a matter of "general bridge logic" be based on such as SQJ10xxxx and an >ace. And that's why I said the first thing to do was to investigate their opening methods. Was this done ? Not that anybody would pass that hand at green, you know, but there are other cases. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 25 10:52:55 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:52:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding theory (off-topic) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070924135054.0215ad90@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070925104953.02160440@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:21 25/09/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >So Alain's assertion that it is 100% standard for >such a pass to be "a suggestion to go higher" may be >the 100% custom of his tribe, but is also 100% silly. I'm sorry, Sir. A FNJ creates commitment, that is, we have to play at least 3H in this case. Therefore, any call other than 3H is encouraging. Includign a pass. See for example Robson's book. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Sep 25 10:40:00 2007 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] self-serving? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c7ff0b$16541200$42fc3600$@com> Message-ID: Burn wrote: > > I am perhaps fortunate to have at my occasional disposal a small > but select panel of genuinely world-class players. Ah, would that we could all bid like genuinely world class players! Sadly we can't and we don't and there remain more permutations in bidding than are dreamt of in your philosophy. > The discussion this afternoon went like this: > > GWCP1: "You probably shouldn't bid four spades, because it's hard > to see spades playing better than hearts, but you should certainly > bid either three spades or preferably four hearts. Though maybe you > could bid four diamonds or four clubs, to pretend to have a void." Did you tell GWCP1/2 that 2S was probably a FitNonJump? I can't believe they would even contemplate 4S on that basis. I'd also have asked "Had GWCP1/2, as your partner, bid 2S would you have alerted and told opponents that it showed H support with or without Spades?". Had they chosen not to alert how would they have explained the 2S bid if asked? Just as an aside I have found that when asking such questions of GWCPs in a money bridge environment one needs to be careful to brief them on the actual means of scoring and the tournament environment or their answers become tainted by their current mindset (e.g. they wouldn't consider that pard failed to open a weak 2S). Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 18:29:18 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:29:18 +0200 (Paris, Madrid (heure d'été)) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__A_Psyche_Classification?= References: <46F7DAB1.5010109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46F7E5D9.00000A.78541@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Herman De Wael Date : 24/09/2007 17:41:34 A : Bridge Laws Mailing List Sujet : Re: [blml] A Psyche Classification > > The breach of propriety in bridge bluffing lies in the improper detection > that a [intentional] bluff has occurred. There are three primary routes of > the impropriety [1] secret communication (as in outside of calls and plays- > finger signals for instance) a very, very small proportion of impropriety > [2] the ?unconscious? or not tip-off to partner [UI] that ?my hand may not > match my bidding? (for instance as by dramatic haste or slowness). In other > words the partner has UI that explains his fielding of the deviation. By > far the greatest proportion of impropriety. [3] the ?unconscious? or not > tip-off to partner [UI] that the cards are probably sitting right to bluff > (for instance a hasty pass may suggest ?I?m truly broke? so there is less > danger that partner will have enough to get into trouble. > I don't really see the difference between [2] and [3], AG : In [2], partner's mannerisms hinted that he could be psyching. In [3], our mannerisms told partner that it could be the right time to psyche. In both cases we both know a psyche is probable. > but I believe there is a [4 : the awareness by partner that bluffs are possible or not. There is no UI in this, at all, and I do not believe this is in any way illegal, provided of course that the opponents are equally aware that the current player has a higher (or lower) frequency of psyching (as compared to the general public) in this particular situation. AG : they won't allow this, but they allow us to take into account that opponents are well-known non-psychers. I'd like to suggest [4bis] : the awareness that the situation lends itself to a psyche by our side, certainly not to a psyche by theirs. Apart from vulnerability and the state of the match, there is the case when they open a strong club and "something is fishy" thereafter : partner is the joker, because they aren't allowed to psyche their strong club. And of course this is legal. A live case is this : 1C* 2H** 3D*** pass 4S@ pass pass ? * forcing (Polish style) ** majors, usually 5H+4S *** NF IIRC @ intended as a splinter My teemmate in the passout seat, holding 5 spades, passed, of course, and 4S undoubled scored 500 to the good guys, better than 5D would have (one down). Now imagine 2H was a psyche, and my teammate didn't double 4S. I hope nobody would rule "red" ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070924/a197c0eb/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/20070924/a197c0eb/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/20070924/a197c0eb/attachment-0001.gif From mustikka at charter.net Tue Sep 25 19:07:22 2007 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:07:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] self-serving? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46F78F73.000001.78541@immi.gov.au> <000001c7ff0b$16541200$42fc3600$@com> Message-ID: <001701c7ff96$8a802660$f8065e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] self-serving? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [AG] > > not raising spades isn't constitutive of the offence of psyche- > fielding. And this is independent of the question "was 2S a > psyche?" So please don't change the subject. > > [DALB] > > I am perhaps fortunate to have at my occasional disposal a small but > select > panel of genuinely world-class players. The discussion this afternoon went > like this: > > GWCP1: "You probably shouldn't bid four spades, because it's hard to see > spades playing better than hearts, but you should certainly bid either > three > spades or preferably four hearts. Though maybe you could bid four diamonds > or four clubs, to pretend to have a void." > > GWCP2: "I don't mind four spades - after all, it takes away any chance > they > have to cue-bid a major. But three spades might also work, because the guy > to the left didn't open the bidding. Still, I don't want him to be able to > bid four of either major after his partner bid three diamonds." > > DALB: "Would you pass?" > > GWCP1: "Pass? Why would anyone do that?" > > DALB: "Because it makes it much harder for the opponents to realise that > there is a double fit." > > At this point, silence supervened for at least ten seconds while I was > subject to careful scrutiny by both GWCPs. Then: > > GWCP2: "Did someone really pass?" > > DALB: "Yes." > > GWCP1: "Did his partner have spades?" > > DALB: "No." > > GWCP2: "Oh, I see. They were cheating." > > Now, neither of these GWCPs was from Belgium. Neither was from England > either - GWCP1's accent had unmistakably been acquired on the Indian > sub-continent, while GWCP2's had strongly Scandinavian overtones. I > ventured > to ask a further question, although by now I was aware that I was > trespassing on the good nature of people who were already seriously > beginning to doubt my sanity. > > DALB: "Would you bid 2S with such as SKQ10 trebleton and three- or > four-card > heart support?" > > At this point, GWCP2 asked whose deal it was and GWCP1 informed me (not > for > the first time) that I was mentally retarded. It was, as it happened, my > deal. So I shut up and dealt. > > David Burn > London, England > If you are polling, it would be, IMHO, better to ask people of the skill level that the EW players were, ideally in their geographical location, not World Grand Masters across the continent in different countries. And even then, only two people... Cheers, Raija From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 00:27:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:27:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: World Chess Champion (1921-1927), Jose Raul Capablanca: "You learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player." Richard Hills: Likewise, while blml can learn something from impeccably correct rulings, blml can learn more from discussion of mistakes by TDs, ACs, and casebook panellists. For example, an instructive error was made by 1995 casebook panellist Matthew Granovetter: >>I agree with the Committee. The truth was that West could have >>bet his life his partner had a strong notrump, yet he chose to >>Alert it as something else. What is the obligation of a player >>who knows his partnership's understanding but also was 99% >>confident that his partner forgot? I think Active Ethics means >>telling the truth, even if that isn't the partnership's >>understanding. Richard Hills: Where Matthew Granovetter failed the pons asinorum of ethical advice is that duplicate bridge ethics (active or otherwise) are _defined_ by the duplicate bridge Laws. While it is conceivable that a player's personal ethics may cause that player to choose to deliberately infract the Laws, that player should then be willing to pay the prescribed procedural penalty for such infraction. Hence I disagree with the dissenting opinion of the Appeals Committee chair. Bill Passell: >East announced that misinformation had been given before the >opening lead in an attempt to be as ethical as possible. Damage >did not occur because of this announcement. I do not believe >that this situation should be penalized automatically. A >reprimand for East would have been sufficient in this case. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the criterion for a procedural penalty after a non-damaging infraction should not be the _motives_ of the infractor, but the _knowledge_ of the infractor. If East had been a bunny who was unaware of the existence of Law 75D2, then I agree that an educative reprimand would have been the appropriate procedural penalty. But since East was playing in the Life Master Pairs partnering a well-known ACBL expert, then East knew or should have known (or his partner should have informed him) about the Laws in general and about Law 75D2 in particular. Since either East deliberately infracted Law, or East recklessly infracted Law, in order to satisfy East's personal ethics, then that standard procedural penalty of a matchpoint fine was, in my opinion, the only correct decision that this Appeals Committee made. :-) 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 Sep 26 01:07:28 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:07:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bidding theory (off-topic) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070925104953.02160440@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>So Alain's assertion that it is 100% standard for >>such a pass to be "a suggestion to go higher" may be >>the 100% custom of his tribe, but is also 100% silly. Alain Gottcheiner: >I'm sorry, Sir. A FNJ creates commitment, that is, we >have to play at least 3H in this case. Therefore, any >call other than 3H is encouraging. Including a pass. >See for example Robson's book. Richard Hills: Depends on partnership agreement. In my partnership agreement fit-showing jumps and fit non-jumps by a passed hand are non-forcing, since my FSJs and FNJs guarantee at least four cards (not KQT tripleton). And even with a Robson-style agreement, circumstances can alter cases. In this particular circumstance West passed in first seat and (after North's pass in second seat) East passed in third seat. When East allegedly bid a fit non-jump of 2S, which would allegedly be forcing to 3H if East-West did indeed have the alleged agreement that 2S could be KQT tripleton, South then bid 3D over 2S, changing 3H from an alleged forced bid by West to a mere free bid by East or West. So if East's alleged 2S fit non-jump told West that the partnership had wasted values in spades, and if South's 3D further told West about diamond finesses being offside, it is still 100% silly to maintain the previous alleged agreement that two passed hands continue to have a force to at least 3H when the new information from South's 3D suggests that 3Hx is likely to be penalised for -500 or more. :-) 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 Sep 26 02:24:59 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:24:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709251724i390b085u5412d49dae64f75e@mail.gmail.com> On 9/25/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Likewise, while blml can learn something from impeccably correct > rulings, blml can learn more from discussion of mistakes by TDs, > ACs, and casebook panellists. For example, an instructive error > was made by 1995 casebook panellist Matthew Granovetter: > > >>I agree with the Committee. The truth was that West could have > >>bet his life his partner had a strong notrump, yet he chose to > >>Alert it as something else. What is the obligation of a player > >>who knows his partnership's understanding but also was 99% > >>confident that his partner forgot? I think Active Ethics means > >>telling the truth, even if that isn't the partnership's > >>understanding. > > Richard Hills: > > Where Matthew Granovetter failed the pons asinorum of ethical > advice is that duplicate bridge ethics (active or otherwise) are > _defined_ by the duplicate bridge Laws. While it is conceivable > that a player's personal ethics may cause that player to choose > to deliberately infract the Laws, that player should then be > willing to pay the prescribed procedural penalty for such > infraction. Hence I disagree with the dissenting opinion of the > Appeals Committee chair. > > Bill Passell: > > >East announced that misinformation had been given before the > >opening lead in an attempt to be as ethical as possible. Damage > >did not occur because of this announcement. I do not believe > >that this situation should be penalized automatically. A > >reprimand for East would have been sufficient in this case. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the criterion for a procedural penalty after a > non-damaging infraction should not be the _motives_ of the > infractor, but the _knowledge_ of the infractor. If East had > been a bunny who was unaware of the existence of Law 75D2, then > I agree that an educative reprimand would have been the > appropriate procedural penalty. > > But since East was playing in the Life Master Pairs partnering a > well-known ACBL expert, then East knew or should have known (or > his partner should have informed him) about the Laws in general > and about Law 75D2 in particular. Since either East deliberately > infracted Law, or East recklessly infracted Law, in order to > satisfy East's personal ethics, then that standard procedural > penalty of a matchpoint fine was, in my opinion, the only correct > decision that this Appeals Committee made. > A premise in this post confuses me---it even seems wrong. If a pair states that X is their agreement, is the director required to find that X is their agreement? No, the director investigates and decides what the agreements are. What if the pair has a beautiful typeset page saying that X is their agreement? Must the director find that X is their agreement no matter what other evidence is present? Again, I think not. What you say is your agreement might be unduly influenced by a piece a paper. You might have typeset that X is your agreement, but if you are certain that your partner will not remember that you wanted to play X, or if you forgot to mention that X is now in the system notes, then I would say that the director should find that X is not your agreement. If you know that your partner will assume Y, then I think it is clear that the correct information is that Y is your agreement, regardless of what is in your system notes. That is the way I read Matthew Granovetter's comments. From the director's standpoint, the agreement is not always what is written on a piece of paper---rather, it is what meanings you know that your partner is going to use when he calls. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 04:01:43 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:01:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709251724i390b085u5412d49dae64f75e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [big snip] >That is the way I read Matthew Granovetter's comments. From the >director's standpoint, the agreement is not always what is written >on a piece of paper---rather, it is what meanings you know that >your partner is going to use when he calls. Richard Hills: I read Matthew's point slightly differently; he was not arguing about the meaning "partner is going to use", but rather about the meaning "partner did use", which is a different kettle of fish, taking us into an aspect of De Wael School philosophy. The question of forgetting an explicit partnership agreement and thus creating an over-riding implicit partnership agreement is one of frequency according to Law 75B: "...habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." So there is a Lawful difference between a single forget compared to habitual forgetting. Suppose that you and partner have been playing simple Blackwood for many years, and partner has never previously made a mistake in responding to simple Blackwood. You use the old Black, and partner responds 5S, showing three aces. You find this slightly disconcerting since you hold two aces yourself. Now an opponent asks you about the meaning of partner's 5S bid. Do you respond: (a) pard is showing three aces? {Law 75C School of describing your partnership agreement} or (b) pard is showing two keycards and the queen of trumps? {De Wael School of describing your best guess to prevent UI} ;-) 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 Sep 26 05:25:12 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:25:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deceiving and destroying [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ron Johnson (28th July 2004): [snip] >When I played in New York with my father we used >to pre-alert the fact that we played 4 card majors >and ACOL 2s. (even though pre-alerts didn't exist >when we first started to do this) > >We started to do this after a good player doubled >on the auction. What sounded to her like a >desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try >auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she >thought. > >Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left >me with a bad taste. Tim West-Meads (29th July 2004): >>Richard - we are asked to respect the spirit *as >>well as* the letter. Not *instead of* or *rather >>than*. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "spirit, n. the principle or meaning or purpose underlying the form of a law &c. (opp. letter)" Richard Hills (29th July 2004): Underlying the opposed "letter" of an alert reg is the "spirit" of the principle of full disclosure. Richard Hills (26th September 2007): So if it is so-called "general knowledge" to a particular partnership or group that they might play 4 card majors and Acol 2s, or that they might (after an opposing takeout double) play a "baby psyche" by bidding spades without length in spades, the spirit of the principle of full disclosure is that such agreements should be pre- alerted to the opponents, since the opponents' so- called "general knowledge" may be predicated on different assumptions. Note that merely giving a contemporaneous alert may be inadequate. If North-South have never before encountered an auction such as: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H X 1S ? in which East-West have an agreement that 1S may deny spades, then North-South are unlikely to have a pre-existing agreement about the differences between South choosing to double 1S or South choosing to bid 2S once West surprises North-South with an alert of 1S. Ergo, East-West concealing until too late (no pre- alert) their "baby psyche" agreement is a Law 75A infraction against babies / bunnies. 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 Sep 26 05:45:10 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:45:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0709251724i390b085u5412d49dae64f75e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709252045q7479bf38o937ef77b741385a2@mail.gmail.com> On 9/25/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:> > The question of forgetting an explicit partnership agreement and > thus creating an over-riding implicit partnership agreement is > one of frequency according to Law 75B: > > "...habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > agreements, which must be disclosed..." > > So there is a Lawful difference between a single forget compared to > habitual forgetting. > I wasn't talking about forgets at all, and I don't agree with this point. Law 75B starts with "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)." The parenthetical is not meant to be the only way an explicit agreement differs from what should be disclosed. It is only one example. Besides, it is just a parenthetical. The fundamental law is 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents... ." If you know for sure that your partner is using agreement Y even though X is the written agreement, you don't get to wait until he bids using Y half a dozen times before you say the agreement is Y. Similarly, if you know your partner is surely going to forget that he agreed to play X, you are not supposed to wait until that virtually-certain forget takes place half a dozen times before you give better information. Thus, it is false to say that "creating an over-riding implicit partnership agreement is one of frequency." Frequency of forgets is just one way. Another is knowing your partner will forget. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 06:15:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:15:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Falling off a cliff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Do some of the sponsoring organisation regulations have the role of "the ambulance down in the valley", when hypothetical alternative regulations could have the role of "the fence on the cliff"? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 * * * ACBL District 2 report to members, March 20th 2003 -> http://www3.sympatico.ca/jonathan.st/board031.html >The ACBL's new Chief Marketing Officer, Linda Granell, >provided us with her marketing initiatives for 2003. She >will be presenting a three-year strategic marketing plan to >us this summer. Meanwhile, the bottom line for 2003 and the >foreseeable future is to increase ACBL membership. > >We were shown a statistical model to illustrate the >dramatic decline of an organizations' membership. This >decline can be likened to falling off a cliff. As the age >of the average ACBL member increases - in 2003 this is >greater than 65 years of age - we get ever closer to that >cliff. Currently, the ACBL loses about one thousand members >per month, of which seven to eight hundred are due to death. >In February, the ACBL signed up more than eleven hundred new >members, which was a record. But in order to achieve a >significant increase in membership, we need to recruit >closer to fifteen hundred new members per month. > >The Unit Membership Incentive Program has been dramatically >redesigned to be user-friendly. The onerous amount of >paperwork previously required to receive extra rebate money >has been eliminated. Even a small increase in unit >membership will be rewarded. Unit Presidents and >Secretaries should have received a letter providing full >details of the program. Editorial, ABF Newsletter September 2007: In a previous editorial, I commented on the fact that it can be daunting for new players to start playing at clubs. Many of our "newcomers" are newly-retired people, with time on their hands, ready to "take up" bridge, an aim they have long considered. But where is the necessary influx of young players to the game? In my own club, we encourage youth players, charging them half price for a game, and for the large part, they are welcomed. But the fact remains that the young faces I see at my own club are few and far between, despite the fact that in Victoria, Cathy and Andrew Mill provide a very active youth bridge programme at Alphington Bridge Centre. The youth section of the ABF website shows that there are a number of drives aimed at encouraging youngsters, and each state has a youth representative. Yet the Youth Bridge Camp in Nashville, USA, was cancelled earlier this year, and while there were two or three Australian Youth newsletters in 2004 and 2005, in 2006 there was only one, and the most recent was in January 2007. Over the ditch in New Zealand the situation is even more dire. The last Youth Newsletter was published in 2005, and the NZ Youth Register fits on one page. A Youth Camp held in Christchurch in July reportedly went well, but I was told that at a recent Youth Pairs event in Auckland there were only three entries. When I started playing the game I was 19, and my first bridge was played at a club. I loved it. There were many players around my own age over the next few years, and a large number of these contemporaries have stayed in the game, growing older like me. But it is a sad fact that at 56 I can often be one of the younger players in the room. If like me it alarms you that bridge is not attracting young players, take the time to read the editorial in the August IBPA Bulletin, where the editor starts "Junior bridge is under siege". Globally, junior bridge is in serious trouble. The link is http://www.ibpa.com/511bc.pdf. Let's not just sit still and let others do all the work for youth bridge. 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 Sep 26 06:42:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:42:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709252045q7479bf38o937ef77b741385a2@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asserted: [big snip] >Frequency of forgets is just one way. Another is knowing >your partner will forget. Richard Hills quibbles: Agreed. If one knows "a priori" that partner _will_ forget the Ghestem convention, then one has a two-way agreement that a jump overcall of 3C shows either a pre-empt in clubs, or a red two-suiter. But..... If one only knows "a posteriori" that partner _did_ forget to give the right response to Blackwood, then our current partnership agreement of Blackwood is the one which should be explained 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 geller at nifty.com Wed Sep 26 06:45:22 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:45:22 +0900 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709260445.AA10716@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > >Suppose that you and partner have been playing simple Blackwood for >many years, and partner has never previously made a mistake in >responding to simple Blackwood. -> Not very realistic in this day and age when 99.44% of the field plays RKB, but OK, let's assume this for the sake of argument. >You use the old Black, and partner responds 5S, showing three aces. >You find this slightly disconcerting since you hold two aces >yourself. Now an opponent asks you about the meaning of partner's >5S bid. -> This is really farfetched. I can't imagine any even marginally competent oppts who would ask about 5S during the autction, rather than waiting till it's over and then asking. > Do you respond: > >(a) pard is showing three aces? >{Law 75C School of describing your partnership agreement} > >or > >(b) pard is showing two keycards and the queen of trumps? >{De Wael School of describing your best guess to prevent UI} -> Obviously (A) is the only correct answer. We should all follow the laws or we'll have anarchy. If "the law is an ass" let's agitate to get the laws changed by the appropriate authorities, but let's not break the laws as they now exist. Furthermore, what possible problems could arise in this case by giving the lawful answer? Partner will perhaps become aware that there has been a misunderstanding/error, but the 4NT bidder is the captain here and the responder to 4NT is merely a robot who must go along with whatever his partner decides. (I suppose, having answered the question either way if the 4NT bidder then bid 5NT to ask for kings an ethical tightrope has been set up for responder.... Let's not go here.) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 07:43:15 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:43:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709260445.AA10716@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller asserted: [snip] >We should all follow the laws or we'll have anarchy. If >"the law is an ass" let's agitate to get the laws changed by >the appropriate authorities, but let's not break the laws as >they now exist. Richard Hills concurs: Yes to Robert's first sentence. As for Robert's second sentence I am forced to say Yes - it is automatically true, since a false premise logically implies any conclusion. ;-) Robert Geller asked: >Furthermore, what possible problems could arise in this case >by giving the lawful answer? [snip] Richard Hills counterpoints: Okay, try this "fully sick" true story (truth is stranger than fiction) from the blml archives, 28th July 2004. * * * You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 3NT(1) ?(2) You, South, hold: J943 T7 KT8742 7 (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. (2) Please explain. What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you consider giving? ;-) 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 Wed Sep 26 08:24:18 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:24:18 +0900 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709260624.AA10718@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au SAID: >Robert Geller asserted: A little loaded in our choice of words, aren't we. :-) >[snip] > >>We should all follow the laws or we'll have anarchy. If >>"the law is an ass" let's agitate to get the laws changed by >>the appropriate authorities, but let's not break the laws as >>they now exist. > >Richard Hills concurs: > >Yes to Robert's first sentence. As for Robert's second >sentence I am forced to say Yes - it is automatically true, >since a false premise logically implies any conclusion. > >;-) > >Robert Geller asked: > >>Furthermore, what possible problems could arise in this case >>by giving the lawful answer? > >[snip] > >Richard Hills counterpoints: > >Okay, try this "fully sick" true story (truth is stranger >than fiction) from the blml archives, 28th July 2004. Hold on a sec. We were discussing your 4NT ("Old Black") example. I responded to that one. Please let's stick to one example at a time. Please wrap that one up before you switch to another example and leave your first one hanging. -Bob -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 26 09:21:51 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:21:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709260445.AA10716@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200709260445.AA10716@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46FA088F.8060707@skynet.be> Bob, your post is totally off the rails. For several reasons. Let me enumerate: Robert Geller wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >> Suppose that you and partner have been playing simple Blackwood for >> many years, and partner has never previously made a mistake in >> responding to simple Blackwood. > -> Not very realistic in this day and age when 99.44% of the field plays RKB, > but OK, let's assume this for the sake of argument. > > >> You use the old Black, and partner responds 5S, showing three aces. >> You find this slightly disconcerting since you hold two aces >> yourself. Now an opponent asks you about the meaning of partner's >> 5S bid. > -> This is really farfetched. I can't imagine any even marginally competent > oppts who would ask about 5S during the autction, rather than waiting till > it's over and then asking. > If this example is farfetched, then try some other example with the same background. The question is there. The opponent has asked the question. You have to answer it. The question becomes less farfetched if in some jurisdiction 5S for 3 aces does not have to be alerted, but other meanings do. And one more thing. if the non-dWs ever gets the upper hand, I'll be asking this question and any other that springs to mind. That seems to me the best way of winning this tournament, since my opponents will be forced by the non-dWs regulations to reveal to each other that they are having a misunderstanding, and to have them give UI to each other. So don't say the example is flawed, just answer it. >> Do you respond: >> >> (a) pard is showing three aces? >> {Law 75C School of describing your partnership agreement} >> >> or >> >> (b) pard is showing two keycards and the queen of trumps? >> {De Wael School of describing your best guess to prevent UI} > > -> Obviously (A) is the only correct answer. we've been here so often that anyone who still answers "obviously" to this question is a stubborn fool. Obviously (B) is the only correct answer. [QED] > We should all follow the laws > or we'll have anarchy. Which law - we've been there as well. > If "the law is an ass" let's agitate to get the laws > changed by the appropriate authorities, but let's not break the laws as > they now exist. > Again, which laws do you want us to not break? > Furthermore, what possible problems could arise in this case by giving > the lawful answer? Partner will perhaps become aware that there has been > a misunderstanding/error, but the 4NT bidder is the captain here and the > responder to 4NT is merely a robot who must go along with whatever his > partner decides. (I suppose, having answered the question either way > if the 4NT bidder then bid 5NT to ask for kings > an ethical tightrope has been set up for responder.... Let's not go here.) > Again, even if this example does not provide us with a real case, the question is still there and has to be answered. > -Bob > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 26 09:29:02 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:29:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46FA0A3E.60607@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Geller asserted: > > [snip] > >> We should all follow the laws or we'll have anarchy. If >> "the law is an ass" let's agitate to get the laws changed by >> the appropriate authorities, but let's not break the laws as >> they now exist. > > Richard Hills concurs: > > Yes to Robert's first sentence. As for Robert's second > sentence I am forced to say Yes - it is automatically true, > since a false premise logically implies any conclusion. > > ;-) > > Robert Geller asked: > >> Furthermore, what possible problems could arise in this case >> by giving the lawful answer? > > [snip] > > Richard Hills counterpoints: > > Okay, try this "fully sick" true story (truth is stranger > than fiction) from the blml archives, 28th July 2004. > > * * * > > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional > player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your > partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an > agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3NT(1) ?(2) > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not > know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. > But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge > club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > (2) Please explain. > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you > give? > What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do > you consider giving? > You know I don't like half explanations. I will explain either (a) or (b). I don't believe this can be a 50/50 choice. I'll make up my mind which one it more likely is, and even if I arrive at 51/49 I'll explain the 51% one. I may add "we haven't discussed this" in real life, but in theory I advise against that. > ;-) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Wed Sep 26 09:47:23 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:47:23 +0900 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FA088F.8060707@skynet.be> References: <46FA088F.8060707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200709260747.AA10724@geller204.nifty.com> Herman De Wael ????????: > >Bob, your post is totally off the rails. For several reasons. Let me >enumerate: I respectfully disagree. L75C says I'm obligated to disclose partnership agreements and partnership experience. According to Richard's conditions we've played old-fashioned blackwood for many years with no errors. Thus as our agreement is simple Blackwood and we have never before had an error. L75 requires me to reply "3 aces." I recognize this may not feel right, but c'est la vie. I wish Hermann would suggest how he proposes L75 should be revised to make it (in his opinion) more equitable, rather than merely advocating that we arbitrarily violate the law when it "feels right" to do so. >Again, which laws do you want us to not break? Creating UI only is subject to score adjustment if the UI creates a situation where pard could have been adjudged to have based a subsequent call on the UI. So I don't see any problem at all in the Blackwood case. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 26 11:03:06 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:03:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709260747.AA10724@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46FA088F.8060707@skynet.be> <200709260747.AA10724@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46FA204A.6070106@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Herman De Wael $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >> Bob, your post is totally off the rails. For several reasons. Let me >> enumerate: > > I respectfully disagree. > > L75C says I'm obligated to disclose partnership agreements and partnership > experience. According to Richard's conditions we've played old-fashioned > blackwood for many years with no errors. Thus as our agreement is > simple Blackwood and we have never before had an error. L75 requires > me to reply "3 aces." > And L73 tells me I should not communicate with my partner in any manner other than calls and plays. L73 requires me to reply "2 KC and the QT" (if that is what I gather partner was showing). > I recognize this may not feel right, but c'est la vie. I wish Hermann would > suggest how he proposes L75 should be revised to make it (in his opinion) > more equitable, rather than merely advocating that we arbitrarily violate the > law when it "feels right" to do so. > It is my opinion that L75D2 clears up this dilemma. But that is my opinion only, I realize that. >> Again, which laws do you want us to not break? > Creating UI only is subject to score > adjustment if the UI creates a situation where pard could have been adjudged > to have based a subsequent call on the UI. So I don't see any problem at all > in the Blackwood case. > Again, I can retaliate with almost the same sentence: Creating MI only is subject to score adjustment if the MI creates a situation where the opponents are considered damaged. I don't see any problem either. Except that the two are NOT symmetric. Because contrary to the MI laws, the UI laws impose on partner a particular obligation, namely NOT to do what he might have done absent the UI. If the MI causes the opponents to chose the wrong action 40% of the time, then they will get an AS based on 60%/40% of both possible results. But if the UI causes partner to chose right in an otherwise 60/40 chance, we will not get an AS based on 60/40, but we will get him chosing wrong all the time! That is one other reason why I believe the lawmakers intend the giving of UI to be a more severe infraction than the giving of MI. It is also why I chose to give MI if giving the correct Info causes me to give UI to my partner. > -Bob > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Wed Sep 26 11:10:33 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:10:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FA204A.6070106@skynet.be> References: <46FA204A.6070106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200709260910.AA10727@geller204.nifty.com> Herman, Can't you please stop your line of argumentation and do something more constructive. The passing of UI is a serious offense if it was done intentionally. OTH, if the passing of UI is incidental to complying with a law there is no offense whatsoever but par's use of the UI is subject to score adjustment. You appear to sincerely believe that there are serious contradictions between the various laws (it is not obvious to me that this is the case, although IMO the wording could usefully be tweaked a bit). Instead of just tediously bringing up the same argument over and over again, why don't you instead propose how you would rewrite the laws in question. -Bob Herman De Wael ????????: >Robert Geller wrote: >> Herman De Wael ????????: >>> Bob, your post is totally off the rails. For several reasons. Let me >>> enumerate: >> >> I respectfully disagree. >> >> L75C says I'm obligated to disclose partnership agreements and partnership >> experience. According to Richard's conditions we've played old-fashioned >> blackwood for many years with no errors. Thus as our agreement is >> simple Blackwood and we have never before had an error. L75 requires >> me to reply "3 aces." >> > >And L73 tells me I should not communicate with my partner in any >manner other than calls and plays. L73 requires me to reply "2 KC and >the QT" (if that is what I gather partner was showing). > >> I recognize this may not feel right, but c'est la vie. I wish Hermann would >> suggest how he proposes L75 should be revised to make it (in his opinion) >> more equitable, rather than merely advocating that we arbitrarily violate the >> law when it "feels right" to do so. >> > >It is my opinion that L75D2 clears up this dilemma. But that is my >opinion only, I realize that. > >>> Again, which laws do you want us to not break? >> Creating UI only is subject to score >> adjustment if the UI creates a situation where pard could have been adjudged >> to have based a subsequent call on the UI. So I don't see any problem at all >> in the Blackwood case. >> > >Again, I can retaliate with almost the same sentence: > >Creating MI only is subject to score adjustment if the MI creates a >situation where the opponents are considered damaged. I don't see any >problem either. > >Except that the two are NOT symmetric. >Because contrary to the MI laws, the UI laws impose on partner a >particular obligation, namely NOT to do what he might have done absent >the UI. >If the MI causes the opponents to chose the wrong action 40% of the >time, then they will get an AS based on 60%/40% of both possible results. >But if the UI causes partner to chose right in an otherwise 60/40 >chance, we will not get an AS based on 60/40, but we will get him >chosing wrong all the time! >That is one other reason why I believe the lawmakers intend the giving >of UI to be a more severe infraction than the giving of MI. >It is also why I chose to give MI if giving the correct Info causes me >to give UI to my partner. > >> -Bob >> > > >-- >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 26 11:49:17 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:49:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709260910.AA10727@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46FA204A.6070106@skynet.be> <200709260910.AA10727@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46FA2B1D.7070007@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Herman, > Can't you please stop your line of argumentation and do something more > constructive. > Why should I be the one who should stop? > The passing of UI is a serious offense if it was done intentionally. > Indeed. > OTH, if the passing of UI is incidental to complying with a law there is > no offense whatsoever but par's use of the UI is subject to score > adjustment. > OK, so the offense becomes a bit less "serious". But the adjustment is exactly the same. So we are in fact saying: "we understand that you did this, but we're going to punish you just as harshly". Isn't that just the same as saying: "you still should not be doing this"? > You appear to sincerely believe that there are serious contradictions between the > various laws (it is not obvious to me that this is the case, although IMO the > wording could usefully be tweaked a bit). > But of course there are contradictions! If you still believe there are no contradictions, then there is no use talking to you. > Instead of just tediously bringing up the same argument over and over again, > why don't you instead propose how you would rewrite the laws in question. > But I don't believe the laws need rewriting! Read L75D2 again, and tell me why I should write more than "in no manner". The only thing that needs doing is for the world to follow my interpretation. No re-write necessary. There is MI? OK, that's unavoidable. But no-where does it say in the current laws that this is "not to be done". Rather, the laws actively prohibit giving UI. It is YOU who should be re-writing the laws if you are to eliminate the dilemma in the manner that you believe it should be. Try re-writing L75D2: ".. nor may he indicate that a mistake has been made. However, in reply to subsequent questions, the player is obliged to give true answers, even if this indicates that the mistake was made. Such answers shall be UI (see L16) to the his partner". And then try to write a guideline to Directors upon the implementation of this sentence, and what they should do if a player (say, one HdW of Antwerp, BE) does not follow this law, but gives MI nevertheless. Try then to advise the TD on what to do if said HdW replies "when I heard my partner's explanation, I thought he was correct and so I explained the next bid in what I now thought my system was". Are you going to prove that HdW knew his system better than he now told you? I believe I have been trying to be constructive in this post. I would like to make people see that the dWs interpretation is a much completer and consistent set of rules than the MS can ever be. In fact, in a discussion with GE in Antalya, we realized that there is one other way of solving the dilemma: Why don't we do away with L75D2 altogether, or rather, change it around. What would you think of a law change that says: "When hearing partner misexplain a call, a player should wait until said partner has called next, after which he should call the TD, and correct the misexplanation. The shall authorize LHO to change his call, and the correction shall be UI which will limit partner's possibilities for his calls in later rounds". It's Bridge Jim, but not as we now know it! > -Bob > > Herman De Wael $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >> Robert Geller wrote: >>> Herman De Wael $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >>>> Bob, your post is totally off the rails. For several reasons. Let me >>>> enumerate: >>> I respectfully disagree. >>> >>> L75C says I'm obligated to disclose partnership agreements and partnership >>> experience. According to Richard's conditions we've played old-fashioned >>> blackwood for many years with no errors. Thus as our agreement is >>> simple Blackwood and we have never before had an error. L75 requires >>> me to reply "3 aces." >>> >> And L73 tells me I should not communicate with my partner in any >> manner other than calls and plays. L73 requires me to reply "2 KC and >> the QT" (if that is what I gather partner was showing). >> >>> I recognize this may not feel right, but c'est la vie. I wish Hermann would >>> suggest how he proposes L75 should be revised to make it (in his opinion) >>> more equitable, rather than merely advocating that we arbitrarily violate the >>> law when it "feels right" to do so. >>> >> It is my opinion that L75D2 clears up this dilemma. But that is my >> opinion only, I realize that. >> >>>> Again, which laws do you want us to not break? >>> Creating UI only is subject to score >>> adjustment if the UI creates a situation where pard could have been adjudged >>> to have based a subsequent call on the UI. So I don't see any problem at all >>> in the Blackwood case. >>> >> Again, I can retaliate with almost the same sentence: >> >> Creating MI only is subject to score adjustment if the MI creates a >> situation where the opponents are considered damaged. I don't see any >> problem either. >> >> Except that the two are NOT symmetric. >> Because contrary to the MI laws, the UI laws impose on partner a >> particular obligation, namely NOT to do what he might have done absent >> the UI. >> If the MI causes the opponents to chose the wrong action 40% of the >> time, then they will get an AS based on 60%/40% of both possible results. >> But if the UI causes partner to chose right in an otherwise 60/40 >> chance, we will not get an AS based on 60/40, but we will get him >> chosing wrong all the time! >> That is one other reason why I believe the lawmakers intend the giving >> of UI to be a more severe infraction than the giving of MI. >> It is also why I chose to give MI if giving the correct Info causes me >> to give UI to my partner. >> >>> -Bob >>> >> >> -- >> 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 > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Wed Sep 26 11:52:52 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:52:52 +0900 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FA2B1D.7070007@skynet.be> References: <46FA2B1D.7070007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200709260952.AA10732@geller204.nifty.com> Herman De Wael writes: >It's Bridge Jim, but not as we now know it! Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life here! -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 26 13:37:35 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:37:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709260952.AA10732@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46FA2B1D.7070007@skynet.be> <200709260952.AA10732@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46FA447F.70003@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Herman De Wael writes: >> It's Bridge Jim, but not as we now know it! > > Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life here! > -Bob > Well, I'm afraid Bob, that just goes to show that you have not thought this one through. I've given you two possible views of a consistent set of laws, and you find neither of them intelligent. Only the inconsistency attracts - apparently. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 03:41:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:41:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder, page 165: Being too neat with business documents can even present a public menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, shorter version was the brake inspection warning. ACBL Laws Commission minutes, November 19th 2005: Jeff Polisner asked if there was any consensus on leaving a law number blank if it was combined with an earlier law (e.g. if Law 73 is combined with Law 16, should Law 73 appear but be blank). There was no strong feeling but there was some thought to do whatever makes life easier for the tournament directors. Richard Hills: It is possible that the 2007 Lawbook may have an unaesthetic messy look, as it possible that some apparently unnecessary Laws may have the format of: Law X, Such-And-Such See Law Y. A so-called "neater, shorter version" of the 2007 Lawbook would abolish those Laws and renumber the remaining Laws. But this alternative "too neat with business documents" approach could give the "public menace" of sea-lawyers new scope. It would be conceivable that a current sponsoring organisation regulation would become inoperative, because its reference to a 1997 Law number would now refer to a different renumbered Law. So retaining all 93 Law numbers in a messily ugly 2007 Lawbook saves sponsoring organisation from an unnecessary proof-reading of Law number cross-references in all pre-existing regulations. 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 Sep 27 04:02:58 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:02:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FA2B1D.7070007@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >In fact, in a discussion with G[rattan] E[ndicott] in Antalya, >we realized that there is one other way of solving the dilemma: > >Why don't we do away with L75D2 altogether, or rather, change >it around. What would you think of a law change that says: > >"When hearing partner misexplain a call, a player should wait >until said partner has called next, after which he should call >the TD, and correct the misexplanation. The TD shall authorize >LHO to change his call, and the correction shall be UI which >will limit partner's possibilities for his calls in later >rounds". > >It's Bridge Jim, but not as we now know it! Richard Hills: That sort of law change makes a considerable amount of sense, since the TD would have fewer MI rulings to make (albeit counter-balanced by more UI rulings, but in my experience an accurate UI ruling is easier to assess than an accurate MI ruling). The only technical problem is if LHO does change their call. Presumably partner would then also have the right to change their own call (and indeed would have to change it if their original call was now insufficient due to LHO's change of call). In parallel circumstances when partner changes their call because of an illegality by your side, you are barred from the rest of the auction. I think that barring would be the wrong rectification in this case. Rather partner's superseded call should merely be UI to you, plus cause possible Law 26 lead rectifications. There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape them off Jim! ;-) 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 swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 27 04:13:48 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:13:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] lead penalties In-Reply-To: <200709201733.l8KHXd91024717@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709201733.l8KHXd91024717@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46FB11DC.2050505@nhcc.net> [This was sent two days ago but seems not to have appeared.] > From: "David Burn" > You, East, hold: > 63 4 A10987 A10987 > South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What call do you make? > ... if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the minors, If you believe in equity penalties, making the withdrawn 2NT UI is enough. After all, if leading one of the minors is West's only LA, why shouldn't he be allowed to (according to the equity proponents)? If you believe in mechanical penalities, and there's only one damaging lead, South has a free shot at forbidding it. If either minor is damaging, North gets just punishment for his silly 6H bid. What's the problem? From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 27 04:14:10 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:14:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification In-Reply-To: <200709242153.l8OLrPJ3020583@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709242153.l8OLrPJ3020583@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46FB11F2.5050205@nhcc.net> [This was sent two days ago but seems not to have appeared.] > From: "David Burn" > The pair in question were not playing FNJs at the table, only in > the appeals committee. ... > If West is not going to support spades with this hand, when is he > going to support spades? I'd like to get away from the specific case and back to the legal problem. Suppose you decide the following facts: 1. 2S was explained at the table as "long spades" (perhaps with more details of expected strength and suit length). 2. EW are in fact notorious psychers who know each other's habits well, and the true agreement is something like "long spades, or else short spades with heart support." 3. The true agreement, if properly disclosed, would have been a legal convention in the jurisdiction concerned. What is your ruling in these circumstances? Would it be different in the EBU than elsewhere? From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 27 04:16:50 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:16:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick Message-ID: <46FB1292.70006@nhcc.net> [This was sent four days ago but seems not to have appeared.] As David B. has commented, this case is nothing more than a bad example all around. > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > It is interesting that of the four blmlers who > responded to the poll, all four were blinded by > their "fully sick" six-bagger, so chose to rebid > 2D. Furthermore, only two of those four even > bothered contemplating the alternative of pass. 1. Taking only the top votes of a sample of four is not enough to rule something out as a logical alternative. 2. Logical alternatives have nothing to do with this case. What's wanted are "likely" and "at all probable" results (L12C2). If the sample of four is meaningful, I think we can rule out pass as "likely," though it might still be "at all probable." (Personally, I think 2D is a huge underbid, but it may depend on what methods one is playing.) 3. As David B. wrote, pass by _West_ doesn't seem even "at all probable." > Given the vulnerability and the matchpoint form > of scoring, sending 1NT two off for +200 is a > hugely better score than playing 2D for +130. I wouldn't expect to beat 1NT. Why shouldn't East be taking 7 or more tricks in the black suits? > Director's Ruling: ...the result was > changed to average-plus for North-South and > average-minus for East-West. Everyone on BLML will have the same opinion of this! I believe it has become less common in the ACBL than it was a decade ago, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it even today. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 27 04:31:23 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:31:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue In-Reply-To: <200709131517.l8DFHnbF019576@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709131517.l8DFHnbF019576@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46FB15FB.70205@nhcc.net> On Sep 12, Brian wrote: > While the EBU's scheme might not be for everyone, EBU members do at > least know that (provided they jump through all the hoops) their pet > gadgets will receive consideration, which is/was not the case with > the ACBL - or at least, that's what they told me when I asked(*) That's a change. Several years ago, I suggested a minor change to Gary Blaiss. He polled the C&C committee by email, and the change was made fairly quickly, though I forget the exact timing. I don't think Gary is in charge of such things any longer, and it's too bad. Whether the procedure is formal or not is less important than its existence. (The specific change I wanted was to change 'bids' to 'calls' for responses to strong, forcing opening bids. This allowed using double as weak, pass as strong after our strong 2C was overcalled.) From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 04:44:32 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:44:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0709252045q7479bf38o937ef77b741385a2@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709261944n31d80e58s518e8fb0cfba9457@mail.gmail.com> On 9/25/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > If one knows "a priori" that partner _will_ forget the > Ghestem convention, then one has a two-way agreement that > a jump overcall of 3C shows either a pre-empt in clubs, or > a red two-suiter. > No, in the case you describe, you simply have 3C showing clubs. If partner will forget Ghestem, then there is no need to mention that it might be a red two-suiter. Moreover, it would be wrong to say it might be a red twp-suiter. Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 27 04:47:28 2007 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:47:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention" In-Reply-To: <200709201458.l8KEwPwD011897@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200709201458.l8KEwPwD011897@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <46FB19C0.20404@nhcc.net> > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > I hope the new lawbook clarifies the definition of > convention. Currently, it is, "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. However, an agreement as to > overall strength does not make a call a convention." How long have you been on BLML, Jerry? I ask because this topic has come up numerous times since 1997. Actually, the topic is older than that, but prior to 1997 the definition was different. (No one understood that one either!) > Is "in addition to" a special case of "other than" or not? I.e., does > the meaning of a call have to be 100% other than to qualify as "other > than?" Despite all the prior discussion, this is new! Or at least I don't recall seeing it before. I think the general consensus is that "other than" is supposed to mean "in addition to," but that has the unfortunate consequence that literal application of the definition makes many seemingly-natural bids into conventions. (In particular, almost all opening bids in real bidding systems become conventions because of the negative inferences in failing to open something else.) The WBFLC addressed that problem by saying, in effect, "We didn't mean it," but that just makes interpretation even more subjective. The definition might make more sense if interpreted in Jerry's first sense: non-conventions must have at least one of the three allowed meanings. I personally don't think the wording lends itself to that interpretation, and I don't recall anyone suggesting it, but it wouldn't be the most radical interpretation ever devised. :-) The problem then would be many things that "ought" to be conventions would not be. (For example, 2H showing both majors does show length in hearts, but I think most people "want" it to be a convention because of the additional meaning of length in spades.) My _guess_ is that the convention definition will be deleted altogether from the next FLB, but I have no inside information. The LC has surprised us before and may do so again. We should know very soon. > Secondarily, can SO's add other categories of conventional? I am > thinking here of the ACBL's definition in their GCC (General > Convention Chart): "An opening suit bid or response is considered > natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in > a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." "Natural" isn't the antonym of "conventional," though the ACBL uses it that way. Regardless of logic, their pronouncement is the practical rule in the ACBL. From geller at nifty.com Thu Sep 27 05:47:24 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:47:24 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709270347.AA10740@geller204.nifty.com> There is a manuscript preparation language called "LaTeX" widely used by mathematicians and physicists, which is essentially a kind of programming language. Its advantage for something like the laws of bridge is that all the cross-references and law numbers are variables that are recompiled each time. So in law 20 instead of referring to "Law 76D" you would refer to Law~\ref{UI} and the compliler reevaluates it each time. The advantage is that if you delete of add a law between 20 and 76D the number of the law in the cross-reference is automatically updated each time. So if someone on the drafting committee was able to use LaTeX making sure all the cross-referencing was correct would be much easier in the 2017 edition of the laws. -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden >Benefits of Disorder, page 165: > >Being too neat with business documents can even present a public >menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high-speed >Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that >could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of >the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to >declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed >out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, >but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of >its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, >shorter version was the brake inspection warning. > >ACBL Laws Commission minutes, November 19th 2005: > >Jeff Polisner asked if there was any consensus on leaving a law >number blank if it was combined with an earlier law (e.g. if Law >73 is combined with Law 16, should Law 73 appear but be blank). >There was no strong feeling but there was some thought to do >whatever makes life easier for the tournament directors. > >Richard Hills: > >It is possible that the 2007 Lawbook may have an unaesthetic >messy look, as it possible that some apparently unnecessary Laws >may have the format of: > > Law X, Such-And-Such > > See Law Y. > >A so-called "neater, shorter version" of the 2007 Lawbook would >abolish those Laws and renumber the remaining Laws. But this >alternative "too neat with business documents" approach could >give the "public menace" of sea-lawyers new scope. It would be >conceivable that a current sponsoring organisation regulation >would become inoperative, because its reference to a 1997 Law >number would now refer to a different renumbered Law. > >So retaining all 93 Law numbers in a messily ugly 2007 Lawbook >saves sponsoring organisation from an unnecessary proof-reading >of Law number cross-references in all pre-existing regulations. > > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Thu Sep 27 05:47:24 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:47:24 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709270347.AA10740@geller204.nifty.com> There is a manuscript preparation language called "LaTeX" widely used by mathematicians and physicists, which is essentially a kind of programming language. Its advantage for something like the laws of bridge is that all the cross-references and law numbers are variables that are recompiled each time. So in law 20 instead of referring to "Law 76D" you would refer to Law~\ref{UI} and the compliler reevaluates it each time. The advantage is that if you delete of add a law between 20 and 76D the number of the law in the cross-reference is automatically updated each time. So if someone on the drafting committee was able to use LaTeX making sure all the cross-referencing was correct would be much easier in the 2017 edition of the laws. -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden >Benefits of Disorder, page 165: > >Being too neat with business documents can even present a public >menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high-speed >Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that >could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of >the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to >declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed >out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, >but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of >its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, >shorter version was the brake inspection warning. > >ACBL Laws Commission minutes, November 19th 2005: > >Jeff Polisner asked if there was any consensus on leaving a law >number blank if it was combined with an earlier law (e.g. if Law >73 is combined with Law 16, should Law 73 appear but be blank). >There was no strong feeling but there was some thought to do >whatever makes life easier for the tournament directors. > >Richard Hills: > >It is possible that the 2007 Lawbook may have an unaesthetic >messy look, as it possible that some apparently unnecessary Laws >may have the format of: > > Law X, Such-And-Such > > See Law Y. > >A so-called "neater, shorter version" of the 2007 Lawbook would >abolish those Laws and renumber the remaining Laws. But this >alternative "too neat with business documents" approach could >give the "public menace" of sea-lawyers new scope. It would be >conceivable that a current sponsoring organisation regulation >would become inoperative, because its reference to a 1997 Law >number would now refer to a different renumbered Law. > >So retaining all 93 Law numbers in a messily ugly 2007 Lawbook >saves sponsoring organisation from an unnecessary proof-reading >of Law number cross-references in all pre-existing regulations. > > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 05:51:52 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:51:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709261944n31d80e58s518e8fb0cfba9457@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>If one knows "a priori" that partner _will_ forget the >>Ghestem convention, then one has a two-way agreement that >>a jump overcall of 3C shows either a pre-empt in clubs, >>or a red two-suiter. Jerry Fusselman quibbled: >No, in the case you describe, you simply have 3C showing >clubs. If partner will forget Ghestem, then there is no >need to mention that it might be a red two-suiter. >Moreover, it would be wrong to say it might be a red two- >suiter. Richard Hills nuances: Jerry is of course correct if "will forget" means "will always forget". But in practice with the Ghestem convention "will forget" translates as "will frequently forget". And if pard's rememberings and forgets of Ghestem are divided up in the vicinity of a 50/50 split, then you would have a two-way agreement. Hence the incentive for the Netherlands National Appeals Committee to create an illegal regulation. (As discussed on the recent blml thread "Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my...".) 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 Sep 27 06:13:24 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:13:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709270347.AA10740@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >There is a manuscript preparation language called "LaTeX" widely >used by mathematicians and physicists, which is essentially a >kind of programming language. [snip] >So if someone on the drafting committee was able to use LaTeX >making sure all the cross-referencing was correct would be much >easier in the 2017 edition of the laws. Grattan Endicott, 14th December 2006: [snip] >>Where I believe the Code of Laws that is developing to replace >>the 1997 Laws will have an advantage over past years is in the >>fact that the single official version of the Laws will be >>presented worldwide on the internet, [snip] Richard Hills: So once the 2007 Lawbook is openly published on the internet, it should be straightforward for a LaTeX expert to copy and paste the 2007 Lawbook into a LaTeX template. 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 Sep 27 07:10:40 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:10:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FA0A3E.60607@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills (28th July 2004): >>You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional >>player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your >>partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an >>agreement to play KISS Acol with Benjy Twos. >> >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: All >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 3NT(1) ?(2) >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>J943 >>T7 >>KT8742 >>7 >> >>(1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not >>know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. >>But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: >> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge >> club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. >> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge >> club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. >> >>(2) Please explain. >> >>What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you >>give? >>What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do >>you consider giving? Herman De Wael (26th September 2007): >You know I don't like half explanations. I will explain either >(a) or (b). I don't believe this can be a 50/50 choice. I'll >make up my mind which one it more likely is, and even if I >arrive at 51/49 I'll explain the 51% one. > >I may add "we haven't discussed this" in real life, but in >theory I advise against that. Marvin French (29th July 2004): The one that accords with the action I intend to take: Either pass, taking partner for 25-27 HCP; or 4C, taking partner for Gambling 3NT. If I guess right, no MI, as partner and I are on the same wavelength and we have a *de facto* partnership agreement. If I guess wrong, there is MI, and the opponents get redress if any damage results. I am not going to evade responsibility by saying "No agreement" when I intend to make a call based on an assumed agreement. David Stevenson (29th July 2004): So you are going to tell the opponents a complete untruth and base it on the contents of your hand? In practice you will usually get it right but it is a slippery slope as Adam found out: it is the long term effects of that first lie that cause all the trouble, not the lie itself. Richard Hills (29th July 2004): Yes, the French/De Wael School assumes that a 50% chance of describing pard's cards is more *responsible* than a 100% accurate description of the actual mutual partnership agreement as "undiscussed". However, David Stevenson also is at fault in assuming that, in practice, Marv will usually get it right. At the table, announcing "undiscussed" would have provided better *responsibility* to the opponents than a 50% guess. This was because the semi-pro (moi) had psyched their undiscussed 3NT bid, perpetrating it with a solid heart suit. My semi-sponsor partner misfielded my psyche by passing, and I duly went -500 undoubled. But this was an above-average score, as my miffed RHO did not know what to bid over an undiscussed psyche. So, the opponents failed to reach the normal contract of 5C, which scored +620 at other tables. ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From geller at nifty.com Thu Sep 27 07:23:18 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:23:18 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709270523.AA10743@geller204.nifty.com> >So once the 2007 Lawbook is openly published on the internet, it >should be straightforward for a LaTeX expert to copy and paste >the 2007 Lawbook into a LaTeX template. Yes, but this is a waste of time unless the 2017 laws drafting committee uses it as the basis for their work. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 07:26:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:26:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FB15FB.70205@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >(The specific change I wanted was to change 'bids' to 'calls' for >responses to strong, forcing opening bids. This allowed using >double as weak, pass as strong after our strong 2C was overcalled.) Law 75 footnote: ...the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken **Bid**, in the absence of evidence to the contrary... Richard Hills: Given the ever-increasing number of conventional passes, it is possible that a player may choose a Mistaken Pass, in which case the current wording of the Law 75 footnote is inadequate. 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 Sep 27 07:36:58 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:36:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200709270347.AA10740@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709262236l2b9c7e2y37f2c3ce691dce9b@mail.gmail.com> On 9/26/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > So once the 2007 Lawbook is openly published on the internet, it > should be straightforward for a LaTeX expert to copy and paste > the 2007 Lawbook into a LaTeX template. > Certainly. For example, I could do it, and make it freely available. You can download great, free LaTeX installations from the Internet. Anyone can use it to make a PDF in any font size, so it has advantages even if the next law-drafting committee doesn't bother to use it the source. I usually prefer searching LaTeX source than a PDF for information in a document. Also, LaTeX PDFs are generally more beautiful that any other PDFs. Personally, though, I see no problem with having unused law numbers---it is easier on the memory and causes little or no distress to anyone. -Jerry From geller at nifty.com Thu Sep 27 09:35:58 2007 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:35:58 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709262236l2b9c7e2y37f2c3ce691dce9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0709262236l2b9c7e2y37f2c3ce691dce9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709270735.AA10744@geller204.nifty.com> I agree with all of the below, but if the members of the drafting committee for the 2017 laws aren't all comfortable with LaTeX as a practical mattter they just need to carefully check all the cross-references at the end of the work (using Word or a similar product) and they should still be OK. -Bob Jerry Fusselman ????????: >On 9/26/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> So once the 2007 Lawbook is openly published on the internet, it >> should be straightforward for a LaTeX expert to copy and paste >> the 2007 Lawbook into a LaTeX template. >> > >Certainly. For example, I could do it, and make it freely available. >You can download great, free LaTeX installations from the Internet. >Anyone can use it to make a PDF in any font size, so it has advantages >even if the next law-drafting committee doesn't bother to use it the >source. I usually prefer searching LaTeX source than a PDF for >information in a document. Also, LaTeX PDFs are generally more >beautiful that any other PDFs. > >Personally, though, I see no problem with having unused law >numbers---it is easier on the memory and causes little or no distress >to anyone. > >-Jerry > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 27 09:59:51 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:59:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46FB62F7.10709@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [big snip] > >> In fact, in a discussion with G[rattan] E[ndicott] in Antalya, >> we realized that there is one other way of solving the dilemma: >> >> Why don't we do away with L75D2 altogether, or rather, change >> it around. What would you think of a law change that says: >> >> "When hearing partner misexplain a call, a player should wait >> until said partner has called next, after which he should call >> the TD, and correct the misexplanation. The TD shall authorize >> LHO to change his call, and the correction shall be UI which >> will limit partner's possibilities for his calls in later >> rounds". >> >> It's Bridge Jim, but not as we now know it! > > Richard Hills: > > That sort of law change makes a considerable amount of sense, > since the TD would have fewer MI rulings to make (albeit > counter-balanced by more UI rulings, but in my experience an > accurate UI ruling is easier to assess than an accurate MI > ruling). > > The only technical problem is if LHO does change their call. > Presumably partner would then also have the right to change > their own call (and indeed would have to change it if their > original call was now insufficient due to LHO's change of > call). > > In parallel circumstances when partner changes their call > because of an illegality by your side, you are barred from the > rest of the auction. I think that barring would be the wrong > rectification in this case. Rather partner's superseded call > should merely be UI to you, plus cause possible Law 26 lead > rectifications. > > There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape them off Jim! > > ;-) > Good analysis Richard. The point I was trying to make was to show you that this is also a workable way of playing bridge. Not my favourite, but workable. The alternative is the way the dWs handles the cases. But the MS way of handling it is not consistent: when hearing a Misexplanation, partner should remain quiet, until the opponents ask questions, in which case partner must reveal all. This leads to the asking of questions for no reasons but to trap misunderstandings. Do you understand my point? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 27 15:28:43 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:28:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention" In-Reply-To: <46FB19C0.20404@nhcc.net> References: <200709201458.l8KEwPwD011897@cfa.harvard.edu> <46FB19C0.20404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Jerry Fusselman" >> I hope the new lawbook clarifies the definition of >> convention. Currently, it is, "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. However, an agreement as to >> overall strength does not make a call a convention." > > How long have you been on BLML, Jerry? I ask because this topic has > come up numerous times since 1997. Actually, the topic is older than > that, but prior to 1997 the definition was different. (No one > understood that one either!) > >> Is "in addition to" a special case of "other than" or not? I.e., >> does >> the meaning of a call have to be 100% other than to qualify as "other >> than?" > > Despite all the prior discussion, this is new! Or at least I don't > recall seeing it before. > > I think the general consensus is that "other than" is supposed to mean > "in addition to," but that has the unfortunate consequence that > literal > application of the definition makes many seemingly-natural bids into > conventions. (In particular, almost all opening bids in real bidding > systems become conventions because of the negative inferences in > failing > to open something else.) The WBFLC addressed that problem by > saying, in > effect, "We didn't mean it," but that just makes interpretation even > more subjective. > > The definition might make more sense if interpreted in Jerry's first > sense: non-conventions must have at least one of the three allowed > meanings. I personally don't think the wording lends itself to that > interpretation, and I don't recall anyone suggesting it, but it > wouldn't > be the most radical interpretation ever devised. :-) The problem then > would be many things that "ought" to be conventions would not be. > (For > example, 2H showing both majors does show length in hearts, but I > think > most people "want" it to be a convention because of the additional > meaning of length in spades.) > > My _guess_ is that the convention definition will be deleted > altogether > from the next FLB, but I have no inside information. The LC has > surprised us before and may do so again. We should know very soon. I do think that "other than" is supposed to mean "in addition to". But the phrase qualifies "meaning"; ISTM that "meaning" was meant to refer to explicit "meanings" within the the definition of the convention, not to the additional "meanings" that may be "negatively inferred" by means of "bridge logic". Of course, distinguishing between an "explicit meaning" and a "negative inference" may be a non-trivial exercise with some conventions. But I think it's what the Law asks us to do here. > >> Secondarily, can SO's add other categories of conventional? I am >> thinking here of the ACBL's definition in their GCC (General >> Convention Chart): "An opening suit bid or response is considered >> natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit >> and in >> a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." > > "Natural" isn't the antonym of "conventional," though the ACBL uses it > that way. Regardless of logic, their pronouncement is the practical > rule in the ACBL. TFLB does not define "natural"; neither, AFAIK. has any other authority of record. The ACBL does use "natural" as a synonym for "not conventional" and so do virtually all of its members. I would imagine many non-ACBLers do the same. The historical distinction between "not conventional" and "natural" goes back to an old proposal by Edgar Kaplan, who suggested that the law recognize three types of calls: "conventions", "natural calls", which suggested play but contained no additional information by agreement, and "treatments", which included calls which gave specific information about strength or were forcing. This never became law however; its only residue in TFLB is the second sentence of the definition of "convention", which tells us that (most of) what Kaplan called "treatments" are not conventions. As far as the Law is concerned, only the difference between "conventional" and "not conventional" matters; if "natural" were indeed to be defined as some third thing it would make no difference to TFLB, and should make no difference to us. IMO BLML would be well- served to accept the ACBL's usage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 19:27:16 2007 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:27:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention" In-Reply-To: References: <200709201458.l8KEwPwD011897@cfa.harvard.edu> <46FB19C0.20404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0709271027y8b88567pbdb297167c98dfc6@mail.gmail.com> On 9/27/07, Eric Landau wrote: > > TFLB does not define "natural"; Right; though TFLB uses "natural" once, undefined, in a footnote. > neither, AFAIK, has any other > authority of record. The ACBL does use "natural" as a synonym for > "not conventional" and so do virtually all of its members. > I would imagine many non-ACBLers do the same. Eric, where does the ACBL do this? > > The historical distinction between "not conventional" and "natural" > goes back to an old proposal by Edgar Kaplan, who suggested that the > law recognize three types of calls: "conventions", "natural calls", > which suggested play but contained no additional information by > agreement, and "treatments", which included calls which gave specific > information about strength or were forcing. This never became law > however; its only residue in TFLB is the second sentence of the > definition of "convention", which tells us that (most of) what Kaplan > called "treatments" are not conventions. > > As far as the Law is concerned, only the difference between > "conventional" and "not conventional" matters; if "natural" were > indeed to be defined as some third thing it would make no difference > to TFLB, and should make no difference to us. IMO BLML would be well- > served to accept the ACBL's usage. > Yes, as far as TFLB is concerned, natural can be left undefined. But as far as the law that we play under in the ACBL is concerned, the meaning of natural is important: My conventional defense is allowed (under GCC) against conventional calls, and we all three suspect that any non-natural bid is conventional. If so, then my conventional defense is allowed against non-natural bids. But if a director rules that a bid I thought was non-natural is actually natural and also not conventional, that makes my defense illegal. You see that the definition of natural really matters to me when I play under ACBL law. As for BLML usage, the ACBL's definition of natural is not perfect. For example, assuming no competition, 1S - 1N (forcing) - 2C - 2N - 3H could well show 5314 shape. But in the ACBL's definition, 3H was not natural, because here it only shows three cards. (Recall that natural major-suit bids in the ACBL must show four in the suit. Natural minors show three---which is more in step with TFLB's definition of convention with its phrase "three cards or more.") Also, the ACBL's definition is not complete, because it only defines natural bids. I suspect that the ACBL usage may be that a bid can be natural and conventional at the same time, such as or 2H showing both majors, or 4S in 1S - 2N (forcing raise) - 4S (weak, no singleton) . My *guess* is that the point of the ACBL's definition is to give an easy way to classify many bids as conventional (assuming that "non-natural" is sufficient but not necessary for "conventional") and also to ban partnership agreements that allow 1-level three-card major responses that are not game forcing. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 27 19:42:33 2007 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:42:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709260910.AA10727@geller204.nifty.com> References: <46FA204A.6070106@skynet.be> <200709260910.AA10727@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46FBEB89.1030608@ntlworld.com> [Robert Geller] Instead of just tediously bringing up the same argument over and over again, why don't you instead propose how you would rewrite the laws in question. [nige1] If partner bids 5S over your 4N and an opponent asks what it means... [A] If you're sure you've agreed simple Blackwood, then reply 3 aces or whatever. [B] If you have no idea what you've agreed, then says so. [C] The above two cases occur with negligible frequency except in the simplest auctions. In almost all auctions you think you know what partner's calls mean (with probabilities that range from the vaguest intuition to near certainty). According to current law, you must not guess, you must simply inform opponents that you are not sure. The result of current law is that an attempt to extract useful information from a determined prevaricator is futile; if you resort to thumbscrews, or other mild coercion, the director is likely to penalize you rather than them! [D] An improvement to the law would be ... (i) If you don't know, you may offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain his own call. (i) Otherwise, if you're not sure, you must always make your best guess. (ii) You must explain what you think *your agreement is*, not *what partner has*. (Here, I differ from Herman de Wael) (iii) A wrong guess (of what your agreement is) is treated as misinformation (unless you are playing the standard system). The downside if this law is that it horrifies some directors; it would not even placate Herman; and it really annoys truth economists. Its merits are that it is simple, easy to enforce, and would result in a fairer game. Incidentally, it would delight Bobby Wolff and players who fall victim to the popular "random overcall" conventions like "Guessed 'em". From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Sep 27 20:51:34 2007 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:51:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] misuse of Ghestemmorother similar conventions Message-ID: <46FBFBB6.5@aol.com> Am I missing something? Where I work as TD if a pair often (twice is generally enough) misuses or forgets a convention such as Ghestem we simply don't allow them to use it for the rest of the tournament (and penalise their misuse if necessary). In fact, there are federations which automatically rule that when the explanation of any two-suited convention does not correspond to the actual hand of partner it is automatically judged to be misinformation and the TD needen't even check the CC. Ciao, JE From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 27 23:31:56 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:31:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention" In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0709271027y8b88567pbdb297167c98dfc6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709201458.l8KEwPwD011897@cfa.harvard.edu> <46FB19C0.20404@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0709271027y8b88567pbdb297167c98dfc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02FB37E1-F846-4E5E-8C22-55FECD4043F8@starpower.net> On Sep 27, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On 9/27/07, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> TFLB does not define "natural"; > > Right; though TFLB uses "natural" once, undefined, in a footnote. > >> neither, AFAIK, has any other >> authority of record. The ACBL does use "natural" as a synonym for >> "not conventional" and so do virtually all of its members. >> I would imagine many non-ACBLers do the same. > > Eric, where does the ACBL do this? I'm not sure they've officially "done" anything; I think Steve was referring to the general discourse. But if there is any recognized difference between "natural" and "not conventional" there's no indication that, for example, the authors of "Ruling the Game" or "Conventional Wisdom" (both regular columns in "The Bridge Bulletin", the official publication of the ACBL) are aware of it. >> The historical distinction between "not conventional" and "natural" >> goes back to an old proposal by Edgar Kaplan, who suggested that the >> law recognize three types of calls: "conventions", "natural calls", >> which suggested play but contained no additional information by >> agreement, and "treatments", which included calls which gave specific >> information about strength or were forcing. This never became law >> however; its only residue in TFLB is the second sentence of the >> definition of "convention", which tells us that (most of) what Kaplan >> called "treatments" are not conventions. >> >> As far as the Law is concerned, only the difference between >> "conventional" and "not conventional" matters; if "natural" were >> indeed to be defined as some third thing it would make no difference >> to TFLB, and should make no difference to us. IMO BLML would be >> well- >> served to accept the ACBL's usage. > > Yes, as far as TFLB is concerned, natural can be left undefined. But > as far as the law that we play under in the ACBL is concerned, the > meaning of natural is important: My conventional defense is allowed > (under GCC) against conventional calls, and we all three suspect that > any non-natural bid is conventional. I'd have said we all suspect/believe that any non-conventional bid is natural. Means the same, but connotes differently, as Jerry's 3H example (below) suggests. > If so, then my conventional > defense is allowed against non-natural bids. But if a director rules > that a bid I thought was non-natural is actually natural and also not > conventional, that makes my defense illegal. You see that the > definition of natural really matters to me when I play under ACBL law. I don't see that. You may use your conventional defenses against the opponent's conventional calls, so it certainly matters if you think an opponent's call is "conventional" and the director thinks it is "not conventional". But using the words "non-natural" and "actually natural and also not conventional" instead shouldn't affect what defenses you may in fact use, unless the director is very, very confused. > As for BLML usage, the ACBL's definition of natural is not perfect. As I said above, I am not aware that they actually have any official definition of "natural". If they do, I don't see us answering Jerry's questions or concerns until we know what it is. If anyone (Jerry?) is aware of it, could they post it? > For example, assuming no competition, 1S - 1N (forcing) - 2C - 2N - 3H > could well show 5314 shape. But in the ACBL's definition, 3H was not > natural, because here it only shows three cards. Nonsense. They should expect five cards in your third-best suit? Of course 3H is natural, and if the rumored ACBL definition of "natural" would have it otherwise then that definition is too flawed for practical use. > (Recall that natural > major-suit bids in the ACBL must show four in the suit. Natural > minors show three---which is more in step with TFLB's definition of > convention with its phrase "three cards or more.") We do need that definition! Although I do recall something about *opening* bids being defined as conventional if permitted on fewer than four in a major or three in a minor -- which is perfectly reasonable, but not germane. > Also, the ACBL's definition is not complete, because it only defines > natural bids. That should be all it needs to do, just as TFLB need only define "conventional" ones; defining something perforce defines its complement. Could the distinction Jerry is making be not so much about the difference between the terms "conventional/non- conventional" and "non-natural/natural" as the difference between where the ACBL and others choose to draw the line? It wouldn't be the first case of obscuring an outright contradiction by introducing a less contradictory-sounding word; politicians do it every day. > I suspect that the ACBL usage may be that a bid can be natural and > conventional at the same time, such as or 2H showing both majors, There is no way that ACBL -- or any other sensible -- usage would call that "natural". We've met and rejected the canard that just because a bid may systemically be passed it is natural. > or > 4S in 1S - 2N (forcing raise) - 4S (weak, no singleton) . That is (surely) conventional by virtue of its being a response to a conventional asking bid (as well as, arguably, by its guarantee of 2 +H/D/C) . It may coincidentally sound natural, but is no more so than would be 5S if the auction were to continue -4NT-5S. > My *guess* > is that the point of the ACBL's definition is to give an easy way to > classify many bids as conventional (assuming that "non-natural" is > sufficient but not necessary for "conventional") and also to ban > partnership agreements that allow 1-level three-card major responses > that are not game forcing. Well, yes, the ACBL does have a track record of taking whatever liberties with TFLB and the dictionary it needs to in order to prevent its members from playing any agreement whatsoever that is out of favor with its governing Board, so Jerry may well be dead right here. We'll know when we see this rumored definition. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 28 00:21:39 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:21:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] misuse of Ghestem or other similar conventions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FBFBB6.5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Am I missing something? Richard Hills: Yes. ;-) Jeff Easterson: >Where I work as TD if a pair often (twice is generally >enough) misuses or forgets a convention such as Ghestem >we simply don't allow them to use it for the rest of the >tournament (and penalise their misuse if necessary). ABF Alerting Regulations, clause 10.1: "Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions have a damaging effect on the tournament. The Director is empowered by these Regulations to require such a pair to play a simpler system or convention. In extreme cases he may apply a procedural penalty under Law 90A." Richard Hills: Should one arbitrarily define "twice" as "frequently"? I would argue that it depends on context. Getting the responses to Blackwood right 98 times but getting them wrong 2 times should not see the TD ban Blackwood. But getting Ghestem wrong 2 times out of 2 uses would, in my opinion, count as "frequent". And a procedural penalty for extremely frequent errors is justified by Law 74B1: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game." Jeff Easterson: >In fact, there are federations which automatically rule >that when the explanation of any two-suited convention >does not correspond to the actual hand of partner it is >automatically judged to be misinformation and the TD >needn't even check the CC. Ciao, JE Richard Hills: And that is the "missing something". The Dutch National Appeals Committee decision to arbitrarily rule that there is no such thing as a misbid of a convention was directly contrary to the Law 75 footnote, so the AC was eventually over-ruled by the Dutch National Authority, which advised the AC that it had to abide by the Lawbook until 2017 (when the Dutch National Authority may advocate a change to the misbid Laws). See the blml archives for September 2007 to read the thread "Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my...". Grattan Endicott's posting on the thread is particularly pertinent. 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 Sep 28 01:16:42 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:16:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] A Psyche Classification [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FB11F2.5050205@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >I'd like to get away from the specific case and back to the legal >problem. Suppose you decide the following facts: >1. 2S was explained at the table as "long spades" (perhaps with more >details of expected strength and suit length). >2. EW are in fact notorious psychers who know each other's habits >well, and the true agreement is something like "long spades, or else >short spades with heart support." >3. The true agreement, if properly disclosed, would have been a >legal convention in the jurisdiction concerned. > >What is your ruling in these circumstances? Would it be different >in the EBU than elsewhere? EBU White Book clause 90.4.2: >>If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged >>to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should >>be completed. If he attains a score of Ave- or less then the score >>stands. Otherwise he gets Ave- and his opponents get Ave+. >> >>In the case of a fielded psyche there is a further penalty to the >>offending side of at least the standard amount. >> >>Examples >> >>(a) A pair fields a misbid, but gets a score of 35% on the board. >>The score is not adjusted. >> >>(b) A pair uses a Level 4 agreement in a Level 3 event, and gets a >>score of 65%. The board is re-scored as Ave- to them, and Ave+ to >>their opponents. >> >>(c) In a seven-board Swiss Teams a pair fields a psyche and gets a >>score of +4 IMPs on the board. The board is re-scored as Ave- to >>them, and Ave+ to their opponents, ie as 3 IMPs to their opponents. >>Furthermore, they are fined 0.5 VPs, but this does not affect their >>opponents' score. >> >>(d) A pair psyches an Acol 2C opening, which is not permitted, and >>gets a score of 55% on the board. This is treated as using an >>illegal agreement, so they get Ave-, and Ave+ to their opponents, >>but no further penalty. >> >>A pair who has already had their use of a method ruled illegal >>should also be fined the standard amount. >> >>While a procedural penalty of a standard amount is normal with a >>fielded psyche, and no procedural penalty at all with an illegal >>method or a fielded deviation or misbid, the TD does have the right >>to penalise to a greater degree in aggravated circumstances. Richard Hills: Presumably the point of Steve's question is whether the score adjustment for "illegal convention" should be different from the score adjustment for "concealed partnership understanding". In the EBU it seems that the score adjustment is the same, but the procedural penalties may be different. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 28 01:24:36 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:24:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200709260445.AA10716@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200709260445.AA10716@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <5A311601-CB37-48D7-935F-817C500A11E7@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > If "the law is an ass" let's agitate to get the laws > changed by the appropriate authorities, but let's not break the > laws as > they now exist. "If the laws is an ass, the best thing to do is ignore it." - Samuel Adams, Boston, ca. 1776 Of course, Adams was a radical revolutionary. :-) It occurs to me that a full correct explanation of the 5S bid cited is "He shows 3 aces, but he's misbid." The explanation "He shows 2 aces and the Queen of trump is based on an assumption - and a pretty thin one, at that. Of course, "he's misbid" goes beyond the requirements of the law, so you can't fault someone for leaving it out. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 28 02:33:49 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:33:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5A311601-CB37-48D7-935F-817C500A11E7@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: [snip] >>let's not break the laws as they now exist. Solon (c.630 - c.555 BCE): "Laws are like spider's webs: if some poor weak creature come up against them, it is caught; but a bigger one can break through and get away." Ed Reppert: [snip] >It occurs to me that a full correct explanation of the 5S bid >cited is "He shows 3 aces, but he's misbid." [snip] >Of course, "he's misbid" goes beyond the requirements of the law, >so you can't fault someone for leaving it out. Richard Hills: Ed's second sentence highlights the flaw of Ed's first sentence. Such a full correct explanation of what partner has _done_ contains extraneous information beyond a Law 75C full correct explanation of _partnership understanding_. So I would go further than saying "you can't fault someone for leaving it out" by asserting "you can fault someone for putting it in". The WBF LC has ruled that any extraneous-to-Law action which transmits information that partner can use in the bidding or play is an infraction. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC 02 6225 6776 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 28 02:41:01 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:41:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <101420D9-9D05-4121-903D-725034C88E10@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:33 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The WBF LC has ruled that any extraneous-to-Law action which > transmits information that partner can use in the bidding or play is > an infraction. News to me. The laws say that transmitting EI *may* be an infraction. When did the LC change their mind? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 28 03:52:34 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:52:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FB62F7.10709@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >This leads to the asking of questions for no >reasons but to trap misunderstandings. > >Do you understand my point? Richard Hills: It seems to me that it is not a demonstrable bridge reason to ask a question solely because one hopes that the opponents might transmit UI to each other because they are in the middle of a bidding misunderstanding. If so, it seems to me that such a gratuitous question would be a definite infraction of Law 73B1 and a possible infraction of Law 73F2. On the other hand, it is legitimate to try to find out if the opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding if one is considering a marginal penalty double which one will employ if and only if the bidding misunderstanding exists. 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 Sep 28 05:49:59 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:49:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <101420D9-9D05-4121-903D-725034C88E10@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (28th September 2007): >>The WBF LC has ruled that any extraneous-to-Law action which >>transmits information that partner can use in the bidding or play is >>an infraction. Ed Reppert (28th September 2007): >News to me. The laws say that transmitting EI *may* be an infraction. >When did the LC change their mind? Grattan Endicott (26th March 2007): >>>>>+=+ "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where >>>>>an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be >>>>>authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also >>>>>legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of >>>>>the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and >>>>>anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' >>>>>and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving >>>>>from it is used in the auction or play." WBFLC. 24 Aug 98. >>>>> ~ G ~ +=+ Sven Pran (26th March 2007): >>>>I think the clause "may be deemed an infraction" is all important! Grattan Endicott (27th March 2007): >>>+=+ My view is that important is ".... other actions if not >>>expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that >>>this is not so; ..." >>> >>>Of course, if Herman chooses to delude himself that this does not >>>apply to representing as an agreement what is not an agreement, why >>>should I trouble myself with his specious argument? >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills (28th September 2007): It seems to me that the grammatical way of construing the phrase: "...may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." is that whenever the "if" predicate is satisfied, the "may be" copula transmogrifies into "is". Ergo -> "...*is* deemed an infraction of law *when* information deriving from it is used in the auction or play." An example may clarify the issue. If a player during the auction asks a waiter, "Cup of tea, please?", then that Extraneous Information is usually not an infraction. If, however, that player has an understanding with their partner that a cup of tea is only requested during the auction when that player holds the Ace of Diamonds in their hand, then that Extraneous Information is an infraction, because information deriving from it could be used by partner in the bidding and play. Likewise, if a player explains during the auction that their partner's last bid was a misbid, then that Extraneous Information is an infraction because information deriving from it could be used by partner in the bidding and play. 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Sep 28 23:04:16 2007 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:04:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <101420D9-9D05-4121-903D-725034C88E10@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20070928140307.01c169d0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 08:49 PM 27/09/2007, you wrote: >Richard Hills (28th September 2007): cut >If, however, that player has an understanding with their partner that >a cup of tea is only requested during the auction when that player >holds the Ace of Diamonds in their hand, then that Extraneous >Information is an infraction, because information deriving from it >could be used by partner in the bidding and play. This is what we call "cheating" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 28 07:38:45 2007 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:38:45 -0700 Subject: [blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention" References: <200709201458.l8KEwPwD011897@cfa.harvard.edu> <46FB19C0.20404@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0709271027y8b88567pbdb297167c98dfc6@mail.gmail.com> <02FB37E1-F846-4E5E-8C22-55FECD4043F8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <02a201c80198$6a5262a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> The ACBL defines "natural" in the ACBL General Convention Chart, in which it is *implied* (not stated) that a non-natural bid is a convention. Of course they can't actually say that, because bidding a three-card major (or overcalling in a three-card suit) is certainly not a convention according to the Laws, and therefore barring it is illegal. I put this to the test at an NABC and found that the (illegal) rule was not a rigid one. After I opened 1S with Axx spades, I was lectured by ACBL Recorder Gary Blaiss, who reminded me that the bid was not "natural," and therefore the occurrence would be entered in my dossier. No score adjustment, however, nor were the consequences of repeat instances told me. I think the only consequence would be that my opening major-suit bids would have to be Alerted. The wording in the GCC is typical of bureaucrats. An opening suit bid or response in a major suit "is considered natural" if it shows four or more cards in that suit. Why not just say it "is natural"? Is making a definite statement too difficult for them? The GCC goes on to say that an overcall in a suit is considered natural if by agreement it shows four or more cards in the denomination named. Oh, very good, "if it shows" becomes "if it shows by agreement" and "in that suit" becomes "in the denomination named," very classy. The word "natural" doesn't appear in the Laws (except in a minor footnote), and has no place in a "Convention" chart. A call is either a convention or it isn't, that's it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 28 10:12:35 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:12:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46FBEB89.1030608@ntlworld.com> References: <46FA204A.6070106@skynet.be> <200709260910.AA10727@geller204.nifty.com> <46FBEB89.1030608@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <46FCB773.5010801@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Geller] > Instead of just tediously bringing up the same argument over and over > again, why don't you instead propose how you would rewrite the laws in > question. > > [nige1] > If partner bids 5S over your 4N and an opponent asks what it means... > > [A] If you're sure you've agreed simple Blackwood, then reply 3 aces > or whatever. > > [B] If you have no idea what you've agreed, then says so. > > [C] The above two cases occur with negligible frequency except in the > simplest auctions. In almost all auctions you think you know what > partner's calls mean (with probabilities that range from the vaguest > intuition to near certainty). According to current law, you must not > guess, you must simply inform opponents that you are not sure. The > result of current law is that an attempt to extract useful information > from a determined prevaricator is futile; if you resort to > thumbscrews, or other mild coercion, the director is likely to > penalize you rather than them! > I do not agree that this is what the current laws say, but let's move on .. > [D] An improvement to the law would be ... > > (i) If you don't know, you may offer to leave the table, so that > partner can explain his own call. > This gives partner some UI, but only that you are unsure - something he may know already and cannot influence his actions. > (i) Otherwise, if you're not sure, you must always make your best guess. > That is what I think the current laws imply, in the sense that it is the best option for players to follow under the current laws. > (ii) You must explain what you think *your agreement is*, not *what > partner has*. (Here, I differ from Herman de Wael) > Of course you must explain the agreement, you cannot explain his hand. Our difference is not about that. My point is that I explain what I believe my partner thinks *our agreement is*. > (iii) A wrong guess (of what your agreement is) is treated as > misinformation (unless you are playing the standard system). > Indeed. That is what the current laws imply as well. > The downside if this law is that it horrifies some directors; it would > not even placate Herman; and it really annoys truth economists. > Truth economists are people who explain everything like this "I don't really know, but ..." thereby giving even less information than I would deem necessary. Truth economists are people who believe that if they guess wrong, they will not be ruled having given MI if they had only added, " but I'm not sure" (they are wrong in that of course). And yes, it does placate Herman. > Its merits are that it is simple, easy to enforce, and would result in > a fairer game. Incidentally, it would delight Bobby Wolff and players > who fall victim to the popular "random overcall" conventions like > "Guessed 'em". > I don't really see what this has got to do with it. Surely you treat "I don't know" as MI? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 28 10:15:10 2007 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:15:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46FCB80E.9070100@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [big snip] > >> This leads to the asking of questions for no >> reasons but to trap misunderstandings. >> >> Do you understand my point? > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that it is not a demonstrable > bridge reason to ask a question solely because > one hopes that the opponents might transmit UI > to each other because they are in the middle > of a bidding misunderstanding. > > If so, it seems to me that such a gratuitous > question would be a definite infraction of Law > 73B1 and a possible infraction of Law 73F2. > > On the other hand, it is legitimate to try to > find out if the opponents are having a bidding > misunderstanding if one is considering a > marginal penalty double which one will employ > if and only if the bidding misunderstanding > exists. > You have just provided the bridge reason you think is necessary for allowing one to ask questions. Only under dWS interpretation is there no benefit from asking such questions. Only under dWS interpretation can pairs justifiably complain "this mas is asking way too many questions". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 12:46:01 2007 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:46:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] this time I'm sure Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070928122740.029d1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, One might be an expert in classical bridge and not be an expert in specific areas of bidding. The huge poll of two experts who said there was every reason to raise patner's spade "suit" on Jxxx - KJ10xxx - x - xx weren't necessarily the right group to discuss some specific areas of bridge theory. The three most prominent exponents of FNJs in Belgium - good bridge players but not necessarily world class - didn't give a damn to the idea of raising spades (especially being told spades would split 4-1). One bid 4H in the known 63+ fit ; the other two passed, an encouraging move as I said before. My partner, who isn't more of an expert than I am, and that's very little, but knows his competitive bidding theory in detail, said "Il barely manage an encouraging pass, because of the vulnerability". What I see is that five (out of five) perfectly honest players who know their FNJs didn't raise spades. And four out of five said partner's spades could be HHx. Now David can call all of them cheats ; or we might consider that, perhaps, if some cognoscenti fully agree with a pass, some doing a bit more and some hesitating to do even that, then pass is about right on that hand. It is to be noted that two strong Belgian players who don't use FNJs in such a situation raised spades. Nest time, please poll experts of the field in question. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070928/aa7be801/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 28 15:15:43 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:15:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Natural Bid In-Reply-To: <638926.35906.qm@web33101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <638926.35906.qm@web33101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks to Richard Beye, who pointed me to the definition of "natural bids" on the ACBL website. > Definition of expected length for natural bids for the > Alert Procedure are: > > o Suit bids: > + 3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for > opening bids, rebids and responses. > + 4+ for an overcall at the one level, > 5+ for higher levels. > + 5+ for a weak two-bid. > + 6+ for a weak three-bid. > o Notrump openings and overcalls: > + A notrump opening or overcall if not > unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only > one or two doubletons) is considered natural. That corresponds to my understanding (and, IME, most ACBLers'), with the (rather substantial) proviso that "rebids and responses" in the first entry refers only to responders' new-suit first responses and openers' new-suit first rebids. I would bet that a poll of rules- knowledgeable ACBLers would reveal a near-consensus that the 3H bid on a three-card suit in Jerry's example auction (1S--1N (forcing)--2C--2N--3H) is a "natural bid". Note that if we read the first entry literally, a raise of 1S to 2S on a three-card suit would not be a natural bid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 28 15:14:54 2007 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:14:54 +0800 Subject: [blml] this time I'm sure In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070928122740.029d1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070928122740.029d1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c801d1$9236d9c0$b6a48d40$@com> [AG] Next time, please poll experts of the field in question. [DALB] Why? There wasn't any question of 2S being a "fit non-jump" in the sense intended by Belgium's leading authorities on the subject. If there had been, the question would have arisen at the table before it arose at the appeal. East-West weren't actually playing fit non-jumps a la Belgique, so it really doesn't matter what fit non-jumps a la Belgique actually are. 2S patently was an attempt to show spade length, and thereby deter the opponents from playing in spades. This method works rather better, of course, if West can be relied upon to show no inclination to play in spades - and lo and behold, he showed no such inclination despite a maximally suitable spade holding facing length. And that's cheating. Curiously enough, I have just returned from discussing this deal with two thirds of England's Venice Cup team and their captain. There were five votes for three spades, with passing mention of four hearts and four spades. No one passed. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 28 15:42:02 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:33 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert: > > [snip] > >> It occurs to me that a full correct explanation of the 5S bid >> cited is "He shows 3 aces, but he's misbid." > > [snip] > >> Of course, "he's misbid" goes beyond the requirements of the law, >> so you can't fault someone for leaving it out. > > Richard Hills: > > Ed's second sentence highlights the flaw of Ed's first sentence. > > Such a full correct explanation of what partner has _done_ contains > extraneous information beyond a Law 75C full correct explanation of > _partnership understanding_. > > So I would go further than saying "you can't fault someone for > leaving it out" by asserting "you can fault someone for putting it > in". The WBF LC has ruled that any extraneous-to-Law action which > transmits information that partner can use in the bidding or play is > an infraction. In Ed's defense, it is clearly established that if one knows from "partnership experience" that partner is likely to have misbid one should disclose that knowledge to one's opponents. The parenthetical in L75B cites "habitual violations" as creating such experience, but does not say that this is the only way this can occur. In this case, the "partnership experience" may be only a few seconds old, but it's pretty convincing. I think that Ed's position is the general consensus in ACBL-land: "three aces" is what the Law requires; "but he may not have them this time" is an appropriate qualfier for devotees of "active ethics". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 28 15:56:57 2007 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:56:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2007, at 11:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > It seems to me that the grammatical way of construing the phrase: > > "...may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it > is used in the auction or play." > > is that whenever the "if" predicate is satisfied, the "may be" copula > transmogrifies into "is". Ergo -> > > "...*is* deemed an infraction of law *when* information deriving from > it is used in the auction or play." That works. > An example may clarify the issue. > > If a player during the auction asks a waiter, "Cup of tea, please?", > then that Extraneous Information is usually not an infraction. > > If, however, that player has an understanding with their partner that > a cup of tea is only requested during the auction when that player > holds the Ace of Diamonds in their hand, then that Extraneous > Information is an infraction, because information deriving from it > could be used by partner in the bidding and play. > > Likewise, if a player explains during the auction that their partner's > last bid was a misbid, then that Extraneous Information is an > infraction because information deriving from it could be used by > partner in the bidding and play. That doesn't. "Could be used" is very different from "is used". It would mean that the infraction derives from the transmission rather than the use of the EI. It also would mean that the ACBL's "active ethics" campaign is contrary to Law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 28 19:38:07 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:38:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2007, at 11:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > What's the problem? The problem is that you didn't say all that in the post to which I replied. What you said then was "transmitting EI is an infraction." What you say now is "transmitting EI becomes* an infraction if partner makes use of that EI". Fair enough, but what will we do with that infraction? As I understand how to do rulings in these cases, the infraction we address is the *use* of the EI; we ignore the transmission, unless we think it was deliberate. So *usually* the transmission of EI, even when it's an infraction, draws no arrows save from some opponents who (probably) ought to know better. *Or perhaps "is retroactively deemed to have been". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 29 04:23:17 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:23:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >In Ed's defense, it is clearly established that if one knows >from "partnership experience" that partner is likely to have >misbid one should disclose that knowledge to one's opponents. Richard Hills: Now I think the debate is getting confused because of the nomenclature used. Just as I have habitually hammered the point that there is a difference between a "psyche" (an intentional call which is not a partnership understanding) and a "pseudo-pysche" (an intentional call which is an implicit partnership understanding), so in my opinion there is a difference between a "misbid" (an unintentional call which is not a partnership understanding) and a "pseudo-misbid" (an unintentional call which has occurred with such frequency as to become an implicit partnership understanding). That is, if partnership experience is such that partner is likely to deviate from explicit partnership understanding in a particular way, then that partnership experience has ipso facto created an overriding implicit partnership understanding which is ipso facto disclosable. To summarise: Explicit partnership understanding = disclosed under Law 75C. Implicit partnership understanding = disclosed under Law 75B. Not a partnership understanding = not disclosed under Laws 75B and 75C (and indeed since such a disclosure is extraneous to Law, therefore such a disclosure may be an infraction). Eric Landau: [snip] >"but he may not have them this time" is an appropriate >qualfier for devotees of "active ethics". Richard Hills: If and only if that qualifier is made at the appropriate time, by declarer after three passes. Since dummy is "le mort", any extraneous-to-Law information transmitted to dummy cannot be used in the auction or play, so declarer is free to satisfy their personal devotion to their personal concept of "Active Ethics". In my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of the WBF Laws Committee, it is "Actively unEthical" to take extraneous-to- Law actions which transmit information affecting the bidding or play to a partner who is not "le mort". Grattan Endicott (27th March 2007): >>+=+ My view is that important is ".... other actions if not >>expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee >>ruled that this is not so; ..." >> >>Of course, if Herman chooses to delude himself that this >>does not apply to representing as an agreement what is not an >>agreement, why should I trouble myself with his specious >>argument? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Rather, in my opinion, "Active Ethics" is obeying the Laws on disclosure to a high degree - *not* to a niggardly degree. ABF Alerting Regulations, clause 1: "...Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can..." 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 Sep 29 05:02:47 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:02:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert quibbled: >What you said then was "transmitting EI is an infraction." Richard Hills counter-quibbles: No, what I said then was (emphasis now added) -> >>The WBF LC has ruled that any extraneous-to-Law action >>**which transmits information that partner can use in the >>bidding or play** is an infraction. ;-) I agree that deliberate EI from partner that he likes cups of tea is not an infraction, because that extraneous fact is not relevant to the bidding or play. I also clarify my previous careless use of the word "any" by noting that "EI without design" is not an infraction. What's the problem? Ed Reppert key point: [snip] >*Or perhaps "is retroactively deemed to have been". Richard Hills concurs: Okay, that retroactivity may be the problem, with one's deliberate EI only retrospectively being deemed to be an infraction if and only if partner _did_ use the information from the deliberate EI in the bidding or play. But the Scope says: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." If one gives deliberate EI to a live partner by announcing to the table "partner has misbid", but if partner does not use that deliberate EI in the bidding or play, then the opponents cannot have been damaged by the deliberate EI, so the opponents cannot have any need for redress. 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Sep 29 07:21:16 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:21:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39FF6189-0CFF-4241-AAE3-CE2920BAF580@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > What's the problem? The problem is that I'm subscribed to blml - which seems more and more to be a waste of time. I should probably unsubscribe, because I don't really want to waste the time any more. I will sleep on it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 30 02:49:46 2007 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:49:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <39FF6189-0CFF-4241-AAE3-CE2920BAF580@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills asked: >>What's the problem? Ed Reppert replied: >The problem is that I'm subscribed to blml - which seems more >and more to be a waste of time. I should probably unsubscribe, >because I don't really want to waste the time any more. I will >sleep on it. Richard Hills: I agree that a certain amount of time is wasted by different assertions on what the 1997 Laws do say. I also agree that a certain amount of time is wasted by different speculations on what the 2007 Laws should say. So I agree that very many recent postings on blml are merely chewing the cud of previously digested debates. Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (1754-1838): "They have learnt nothing, and forgotten nothing." ;-) Richard Hills: But since it is only a matter of weeks until the 2007 Laws are to be publicly released, thus creating a new and productive use for time spent on blml, I suggest that Ed retract such an unsubscription from blml until after the 2007 Laws have had a thorough mastication and digestion on blml. 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 Sun Sep 30 11:07:14 2007 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:07:14 EDT Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >In a message dated 27/09/2007 04:52:13 GMT Standard Time, >richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >But in practice with the Ghestem convention "will forget" >translates as "will frequently forget". And if pard's >rememberings and forgets of Ghestem are divided up in the >vicinity of a 50/50 split, then you would have a two-way >agreement. >Hence the incentive for the Netherlands National Appeals >Committee to create an illegal regulation. (As discussed >on the recent blml thread "Misbids, infractions, and >Wolffs, oh my...".) We are reluctant to change the rules of bridge yet there seems no good reason why a misbid should not be an infraction. If you forget to sign your scorecard in golf you are disqualified. If, in chess, you forget to press your clock on the last move before the time control you lose (unless you notice in time). Yet forgetting a convention such as Ghestem might incur no penalty; this is because of some illogical belief that forgetting your own system should be allowed without penalty unless UI occurs. But I expect that a change to the laws to make a misbid an infraction will not take place. And there is the problem of distinguishing it from a psyche. You should be allowed to psyche Ghestem with a weak jump overcall in clubs, for example, with all the usual requirements on partner not to allow for this. The question then arises what does (1S) - 3C! - (Dble!) - 3H - (Dble!) - 4C mean? (3C is alerted and explained as Ghestem. The first double is alerted as values, and 3H is explained as preferring hearts to diamonds. The second double is penalties.) Presumably it says "I psyched Ghestem" and the psyche is now exposed. I believe Mr Burn once described Ghestem as a device for allowing the TD to write an extra 1 after the negative sign of your -100, or words to that effect. I feel sure that your argument that you had psyched Ghestem rather than been awoken by the alert would not wash here. Essentially most people would think you were lying. But if you are telling the truth then there is no UI - you already knew you had psyched! Paul Lamford From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 30 20:26:34 2007 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:26:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > Yet forgetting a convention such as Ghestem might incur no > penalty; this > is because of some illogical belief that forgetting your own > system should be > allowed without penalty unless UI occurs. Pfui. This is the kind of crap that is driving me away from here. The laws say there is no penalty, and we are required to rule in accordance with the laws. If you want the laws changed, you should consider all the beginners who have trouble enough remembering what they're supposed to be doing with *natural* bidding. You gonna make their forgets illegal too? Aside from that, save it until about 2015 - when we can talk about changing the *next* iteration of the laws. The 2007 changes are already in place, so you're just spinning your wheels.